Israel’s 2023 genocide of Palestinians in Gaza has horrified many around the world and drawn widespread public outcry, with unprecedented levels of solidarity organizing taking place across the globe. Millions have gathered in the streets, issued public statements, and mobilized to block corporate and state-led support not only for the Israeli regime’s recent onslaught but for its decades-long colonial occupation of Palestine. But as this unparalleled solidarity has emerged, so too has extraordinary repression at every level.
Al-Shabaka spoke with Layla Kattermann of the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) and Diala Shamas of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) for further insight on this suppression of mobilization. Together, they detail some of the intimidation tactics and punitive actions taken by governments across North America and Europe and offer concrete advice for how to resist such efforts to stifle Palestine solidarity.
This interview is a lightly edited version of a conversation featured on Al-Shabaka’s podcast series, Rethinking Palestine, hosted by Senior Analyst Yara Hawari, in October of 2023. The full discussion may be listened to here.1
Since the start of the assault on Gaza, what has the repression of solidarity with Palestine looked like in Europe?
Layla Kattermann
The repression we are currently witnessing in Europe is the culmination of a decades-long attempt to connect the Palestinian identity and experience with terrorism and antisemitism. This false connection has been particularly exploited to suppress protests and demonstrations. Although the right to protest is considered fundamental in Europe—and demonstrations are an indicator of a healthy democratic system—several countries, such as Germany, France, and Austria, are violating that right by banning demonstrations in solidarity with the Palestinian people.
The language used by European media, politicians, and police orders to justify Palestine solidarity repression is aimed at thwarting any divergence from the colonial mainstream narratives Click To Tweet
In Germany, for example, not only are protests being banned, but we are also witnessing police violence, arrests, and harassment for any displays of Palestine solidarity. In Berlin alone, there were roughly 600 police detentions between October 11th and October 20th, 2023, for this reason. This crackdown has also extended to schools: The Berlin Senate Department for Education, Youth and Family, for example, sent a letter to all Berlin school authorities and supervisors asking them to ban students from wearing keffiyehs and other Palestinian symbols or slogans, such as “Free Palestine.” School authorities were likewise asked to notify the police of any violations of this ban, and in at least one instance a school director has been suspended for refusing to comply.
Work suspensions and terminations of employment such as these are also on the rise for expressions of solidarity with Palestine. Other forms of repression that we are seeing at increasing rates include smear campaigns of individuals and groups, online de-platforming, withdrawal of use of venues, cancellations of events, and disinvitations. Many of these punitive measures are justified through racist arguments and bolstered by the rise of far-right parties across Europe, which have consistently dehumanized migrants, refugees, and particularly those of Muslim backgrounds.
What about in the US?
Diala Shamas
In the US, there has been a range of incidents of both institutional and private repression. On the institutional side, law enforcement officers, including the FBI, have summoned Palestinians for questioning through “voluntary interviews,” often leveraging immigration concerns or status to coerce individuals into speaking. Additionally, local police departments have circulated notices indicating plans for special monitoring or surveillance of Palestine solidarity protests. This has come as a directive from the highest levels of government—indeed, President Biden himself mentioned that he was instructing law enforcement to monitor the situation closely. In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams went further to essentially equate protesters marching and speaking out in support of Palestinian rights with support for terrorism. Such discourse has been widespread, from elected officials across city, state, and federal levels. It is really concerning to witness the exploitation of this tremendous power imbalance, especially when these officials start publicly naming different activist groups, and sometimes even specific individuals.
Private repression is also taking place at a frightening level. For example, a conference by the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights was cancelled because the venue—a Hilton hotel—received threats and ultimately pulled out from hosting the event. There has also been a surge in hate crimes, from the violent murder of 6-year-old Palestinian-American, Wadea Al Fayoume, in Chicago, to the attempted murder of three Palestinian university students in Vermont.
There is an infrastructure behind the repression of Palestine solidarity that includes both legislation and a discourse that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. In moments like this, the switch can be flipped and all tactics may be… Click To Tweet
Similarly, the professional repercussions of voicing support for the Palestinian people at this time have been at an all-time high. At academic institutions, for example, professors have come under pressure for statements made about October 7th and the unfolding genocide in Gaza. And across various professional fields we are learning of reports of individuals demanding that staff face severe consequences or be terminated from their positions for statements made in their personal capacities. This is happening all over the US, and we are yet to understand the full scale of it.
Doxxing is likewise on the rise, with the posting of private and identifying information of people speaking out against the genocide in Gaza. On the Harvard University campus, for instance, pro-Israeli groups sponsoreddigital billboard trucks to drive around with pictures of student activist leaders under the headline “antisemite.” The students featured had signed statements condemning Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Acts such as these are clearly intended to intimidate those in support of Palestinian rights and to inflict both mental health and professional consequences. It is worth noting that many of the people subjected to doxxing are Palestinian, Arab, or from other communities of color.
Is this level of repression unprecedented?
Layla Kattermann
Not necessarily. Rather, it should be understood as a continuation and acceleration of a worrying trend. The repression of the Palestine solidarity movement or Palestinian rights advocacy did not start with the latest bombardment of Gaza. While the ELSC has monitored Europe’s crackdown on Palestine solidarity since 2019, it of course existed long before. It is a repression that has long been justified through racist depictions of Palestinians that depict them as either terrorist threats and/or inherently antisemitic.
In Europe, there is the Orwellian strategy used to portray the Other as a barbaric threat and the Self as a barometer of moral security. Within this strategy we see new words being invented and undesirable ones stripped of their meaning. Thus, the language used by European media, politicians, and police orders to justify Palestine solidarity repression is aimed at thwarting any divergence from the colonial mainstream narratives. As part of this strategy, we see a huge effort by European politicians and mainstream media that echoes the “us versus them” and “civilized versus uncivilized” dichotomy of 9/11.
While the tactics used to silence criticism of the Israeli regime today are not as visible or obvious as imprisonments or assassinations of dissidents, what we see instead is the attempt to damage activists’ psychological and organizational strength. Indeed, the censoring of civil society organizations and the demonization of solidarity groups are efforts to reduce the political capabilities of the Palestine solidarity movement. Likewise, the attempts to criminalize certain slogans, such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” are obvious efforts to frighten activists. This repression is the continuation of a trend that started several years ago, with implementation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism in many institutions and the passing of anti-BDS legislation.
Diala Shamas
The repression itself is not unprecedented, but the level and scale feel like nothing we have had to face before. Those particularly working in the legal response to this crackdown have noted that the numbers of reported instances of repression are at an all-time high. But I do think it is helpful to think of all of this as part of the architecture of repression that has been built over the last decade. Indeed, there is an infrastructure behind the repression of Palestine solidarity that includes both legislation and a discourse that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. In moments like this, the switch can be flipped and all tactics may be activated at once. These are mechanisms of repression that have become very well oiled in many ways over a long period of time.
It is important that both individuals and the movement as a whole are not intimidated into silence or inaction Click To Tweet
On the other hand, because this has been happening over a period of years, we also now have institutions and professionals well prepared to challenge these oppressive strategies. In a moment such as this, they are able to provide support and a line of defense. For example, Palestine Legal has a network of attorneys that they’ve built up to support people facing attacks for their advocacy in favor of Palestinian rights. Meanwhile, CCR is also doing similar work but on a broader range of civil and human rights issues. Nonetheless, there is a dire need to expand our movement defense capabilities to be able to handle the unprecedented caseload.
How have the ELSC and CCR responded to this repression?
Layla Kattermann
The ELSC comprises movement lawyers who consider themselves accountable to Palestinian civil society. In that sense, we view the law in a pragmatic way and are very aware of the fact that it can be used as an exploitative and even oppressive tool. But we also see law as a tool to both push back against repression and one that can mobilize people. The ELSC has three pillars that define our work: defense, monitoring, and empowerment. The defense pillar works as a filter between clients and lawyers, where we offer co-counseling and expertise to defend those facing repression. The monitoring pillar involves keeping a record of the mechanisms used to silence advocates and the criminalization of Palestine solidarity work, not only for archival purposes but also to track trends of repression. The empowerment pillar involves working on campaigns of strategic litigation, such as holding companies accountable for human rights violations, and strengthening the Palestine solidarity movement.
Diala Shamas
Since the outset of the assault on Gaza, we have been in rapid response mode. It’s very hard to strike the right balance of focusing on repression and making sure that people are protected as they speak out and also not losing the focus on what’s happening in Gaza and throughout Palestine. In that regard, we have been really attentive to trying to offer language and legal analysis about what the Israeli regime is doing to the Palestinian people in Gaza. Not only have we reaffirmed that the Israeli regime’s current assault constitutes genocide, but we have also laid out US complicity in that genocide.
Simultaneously, we have increased our work to support those who are doing important advocacy in the US. For example, we have represented individuals who have been contacted by the FBI for questioning, and we have fielded calls from people across the country who are dealing with consequences in their workplaces for speaking out against the genocide in Gaza. Relatedly, Palestine Legal has been building a network of attorneys, largely with a focus on experts in employment law, to help respond to these calls. We have also been increasing our capacity to advise individuals facing doxxing attacks, both in terms of personal safety as well as online reputation.
What has been really great to see is so many people within the legal community reach out and ask how they can support.
What advice would you give organizers at the moment—particularly those who might be feeling apprehensive or fearful in light of this repression?
Layla Kattermann
It is important that both individuals and the movement as a whole are not intimidated into silence or inaction. The allegations and accusations that politicians and the mainstream media use against the Palestine solidarity movement are nothing new. I think we should therefore be confident enough in countering and challenging them. It’s also important to remember that we are stronger in numbers, as demonstrated in Berlin, where the masses defied the police prohibition on protests. Of course, the authorities can still resort to violence, but it’s important in these moments that people stick together.
Now more than ever is the time to speak up and out against what is happening. Not only is there a moral imperative in doing so, but it will also enable you to connect with other like-minded people and organize together. Smear and doxing campaigns usually aim to isolate a person from support networks and wider society. Indeed, it is always easier to attack one person rather than a group. Therefore, strength in numbers when it comes to defying the current repression cannot be underestimated.
Diala Shamas
We must remind ourselves that, while we’re seeing an unprecedented scale in repression, we’re also witnessing an unprecedented amount of solidarity and people speaking out against what’s happening to Palestinians in Gaza. The rise in repression is, in fact, in direct correlation with the growing Palestine solidarity movement. In this moment, we cannot stop speaking out and opposing genocide.
With this in mind, it’s also important to be cautious. We are all really angry and outraged at what we are seeing and experiencing. We have seen some of the most horrific images and videos coming out of Gaza, and the sense of abandonment coupled with feelings of both rage and sadness is overwhelming. In this climate, it is really difficult to remain clear-headed and rational. This is when we see lapses in judgment that are sometimes exploited by the other side. Yet as Palestinians and as advocates for Palestinian rights, we cannot afford the luxury of a lapse in judgment because it results in our energies and attention being diverted.
If one finds themselves in a situation where they are facing repression, it is imperative to know your rights. In the US, if you are approached by any authorities for an interview, you are entitled to decline and refer them to your lawyer. Alternatively, you can take their number and have your lawyer reach out to them. For legal representation, you can contact Palestine Legal, the Center for Constitutional Rights, your local National Lawyers Guild chapter, your local CAIR chapter, or your local ACLU affiliate.
We must remind ourselves that, while we’re seeing an unprecedented scale in repression, we're also witnessing an unprecedented amount of solidarity Click To Tweet
If you are called into a meeting with your employer or your university administration, try to get a legal consult before going into that meeting, or don’t go in alone. It is also important to document everything. This can be in the form of notes or self-written emails, with timestamps of events as they occur. It might also make sense to try to be preemptive and reach out to your employer or your university administration to let them know what is happening and make sure that they are hearing from you first and not from those who are trying to smear you. Importantly, remember you’re not alone—if you can and are confident, speak out about the repression so that you can find solidarity with others and vice versa.
Over the years, we’ve gone back and forth on the question of whether we want to talk openly about how difficult it is to speak about Palestinian rights, because we don’t want to discourage folks from doing it. However, we are well past this point—everybody knows that this kind of repression is happening—so we now feel that speaking out actually draws support and solidarity and can also build on political organizing. We’ve seen really inspirational instances of activists coming together to support each other, as well as professionals offering support to colleagues to find alternative employment when someone’s employment has been terminated. This kind of solidarity is a really important way to build resilience in these moments of heightened repression.
Which legal resources would you suggest for people navigating this repression?
Layla Kattermann
We have several resources available on the ELSC website that are also country-specific and are aimed at educating people on their rights, because much of the current repression is unconstitutional and unlawful. Certainly, in many countries across Europe, the police are exercising unlawful conduct. In those situations, it’s always useful to record the police, to register the officer and unit number, and to make the abuse or conduct publicly known. As Diala said, one shouldn’t deal with such repression alone. From our experience, once publicized, people usually reach out and offer support. Indeed, at the moment, we are seeing people really helping each other and standing in solidarity with one another against this pushback.
If you are in Europe, you can report to the ELSC. There are also a lot of collectives of lawyers at the moment that are actively helping the Palestine solidarity movement.
Diala Shamas
People in the solidarity movement across the US should familiarize themselves with Palestine Legal’s website. It has a range of resources, including on how to navigate doxxing and hostile environments on university campuses. If someone is struggling with something specifically regarding state repression, whether it’s federal or local law enforcement, there are a range of organizations that can support you. The organizations I mentioned previously may be able to also refer you.
I’d also be remiss to not mention the importance of taking care of yourself—to breathe and remember that you have a community, because these small things allow us to continue our work. These are really, really difficult times. We are all feeling it. But we don’t have a choice other than to continue speaking out. Indeed, the consequences might be difficult for us here in the US or Europe, but the conditions are far worse for the people in Gaza, as well as for those in the rest of colonized Palestine.
Israel’s 2023 genocide of Palestinians in Gaza has horrified many around the world and drawn widespread public outcry, with unprecedented levels of solidarity organizing taking place across the globe. Millions have gathered in the streets, issued public statements, and mobilized to block corporate and state-led support not only for the Israeli regime’s recent onslaught but for its decades-long colonial occupation of Palestine. But as this unparalleled solidarity has emerged, so too has extraordinary repression at every level.
Al-Shabaka spoke with Layla Kattermann of the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) and Diala Shamas of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) for further insight on this suppression of mobilization. Together, they detail some of the intimidation tactics and punitive actions taken by governments across North America and Europe and offer concrete advice for how to resist such efforts to stifle Palestine solidarity.
This interview is a lightly edited version of a conversation featured on Al-Shabaka’s podcast series, Rethinking Palestine, hosted by Senior Analyst Yara Hawari, in October of 2023. The full discussion may be listened to here.1
Since the start of the assault on Gaza, what has the repression of solidarity with Palestine looked like in Europe?
Layla Kattermann
The repression we are currently witnessing in Europe is the culmination of a decades-long attempt to connect the Palestinian identity and experience with terrorism and antisemitism. This false connection has been particularly exploited to suppress protests and demonstrations. Although the right to protest is considered fundamental in Europe—and demonstrations are an indicator of a healthy democratic system—several countries, such as Germany, France, and Austria, are violating that right by banning demonstrations in solidarity with the Palestinian people.
The language used by European media, politicians, and police orders to justify Palestine solidarity repression is aimed at thwarting any divergence from the colonial mainstream narratives Click To Tweet
In Germany, for example, not only are protests being banned, but we are also witnessing police violence, arrests, and harassment for any displays of Palestine solidarity. In Berlin alone, there were roughly 600 police detentions between October 11th and October 20th, 2023, for this reason. This crackdown has also extended to schools: The Berlin Senate Department for Education, Youth and Family, for example, sent a letter to all Berlin school authorities and supervisors asking them to ban students from wearing keffiyehs and other Palestinian symbols or slogans, such as “Free Palestine.” School authorities were likewise asked to notify the police of any violations of this ban, and in at least one instance a school director has been suspended for refusing to comply.
Work suspensions and terminations of employment such as these are also on the rise for expressions of solidarity with Palestine. Other forms of repression that we are seeing at increasing rates include smear campaigns of individuals and groups, online de-platforming, withdrawal of use of venues, cancellations of events, and disinvitations. Many of these punitive measures are justified through racist arguments and bolstered by the rise of far-right parties across Europe, which have consistently dehumanized migrants, refugees, and particularly those of Muslim backgrounds.
What about in the US?
Diala Shamas
In the US, there has been a range of incidents of both institutional and private repression. On the institutional side, law enforcement officers, including the FBI, have summoned Palestinians for questioning through “voluntary interviews,” often leveraging immigration concerns or status to coerce individuals into speaking. Additionally, local police departments have circulated notices indicating plans for special monitoring or surveillance of Palestine solidarity protests. This has come as a directive from the highest levels of government—indeed, President Biden himself mentioned that he was instructing law enforcement to monitor the situation closely. In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams went further to essentially equate protesters marching and speaking out in support of Palestinian rights with support for terrorism. Such discourse has been widespread, from elected officials across city, state, and federal levels. It is really concerning to witness the exploitation of this tremendous power imbalance, especially when these officials start publicly naming different activist groups, and sometimes even specific individuals.
Private repression is also taking place at a frightening level. For example, a conference by the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights was cancelled because the venue—a Hilton hotel—received threats and ultimately pulled out from hosting the event. There has also been a surge in hate crimes, from the violent murder of 6-year-old Palestinian-American, Wadea Al Fayoume, in Chicago, to the attempted murder of three Palestinian university students in Vermont.
There is an infrastructure behind the repression of Palestine solidarity that includes both legislation and a discourse that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. In moments like this, the switch can be flipped and all tactics may be… Click To Tweet
Similarly, the professional repercussions of voicing support for the Palestinian people at this time have been at an all-time high. At academic institutions, for example, professors have come under pressure for statements made about October 7th and the unfolding genocide in Gaza. And across various professional fields we are learning of reports of individuals demanding that staff face severe consequences or be terminated from their positions for statements made in their personal capacities. This is happening all over the US, and we are yet to understand the full scale of it.
Doxxing is likewise on the rise, with the posting of private and identifying information of people speaking out against the genocide in Gaza. On the Harvard University campus, for instance, pro-Israeli groups sponsoreddigital billboard trucks to drive around with pictures of student activist leaders under the headline “antisemite.” The students featured had signed statements condemning Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Acts such as these are clearly intended to intimidate those in support of Palestinian rights and to inflict both mental health and professional consequences. It is worth noting that many of the people subjected to doxxing are Palestinian, Arab, or from other communities of color.
Is this level of repression unprecedented?
Layla Kattermann
Not necessarily. Rather, it should be understood as a continuation and acceleration of a worrying trend. The repression of the Palestine solidarity movement or Palestinian rights advocacy did not start with the latest bombardment of Gaza. While the ELSC has monitored Europe’s crackdown on Palestine solidarity since 2019, it of course existed long before. It is a repression that has long been justified through racist depictions of Palestinians that depict them as either terrorist threats and/or inherently antisemitic.
In Europe, there is the Orwellian strategy used to portray the Other as a barbaric threat and the Self as a barometer of moral security. Within this strategy we see new words being invented and undesirable ones stripped of their meaning. Thus, the language used by European media, politicians, and police orders to justify Palestine solidarity repression is aimed at thwarting any divergence from the colonial mainstream narratives. As part of this strategy, we see a huge effort by European politicians and mainstream media that echoes the “us versus them” and “civilized versus uncivilized” dichotomy of 9/11.
While the tactics used to silence criticism of the Israeli regime today are not as visible or obvious as imprisonments or assassinations of dissidents, what we see instead is the attempt to damage activists’ psychological and organizational strength. Indeed, the censoring of civil society organizations and the demonization of solidarity groups are efforts to reduce the political capabilities of the Palestine solidarity movement. Likewise, the attempts to criminalize certain slogans, such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” are obvious efforts to frighten activists. This repression is the continuation of a trend that started several years ago, with implementation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism in many institutions and the passing of anti-BDS legislation.
Diala Shamas
The repression itself is not unprecedented, but the level and scale feel like nothing we have had to face before. Those particularly working in the legal response to this crackdown have noted that the numbers of reported instances of repression are at an all-time high. But I do think it is helpful to think of all of this as part of the architecture of repression that has been built over the last decade. Indeed, there is an infrastructure behind the repression of Palestine solidarity that includes both legislation and a discourse that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. In moments like this, the switch can be flipped and all tactics may be activated at once. These are mechanisms of repression that have become very well oiled in many ways over a long period of time.
It is important that both individuals and the movement as a whole are not intimidated into silence or inaction Click To Tweet
On the other hand, because this has been happening over a period of years, we also now have institutions and professionals well prepared to challenge these oppressive strategies. In a moment such as this, they are able to provide support and a line of defense. For example, Palestine Legal has a network of attorneys that they’ve built up to support people facing attacks for their advocacy in favor of Palestinian rights. Meanwhile, CCR is also doing similar work but on a broader range of civil and human rights issues. Nonetheless, there is a dire need to expand our movement defense capabilities to be able to handle the unprecedented caseload.
How have the ELSC and CCR responded to this repression?
Layla Kattermann
The ELSC comprises movement lawyers who consider themselves accountable to Palestinian civil society. In that sense, we view the law in a pragmatic way and are very aware of the fact that it can be used as an exploitative and even oppressive tool. But we also see law as a tool to both push back against repression and one that can mobilize people. The ELSC has three pillars that define our work: defense, monitoring, and empowerment. The defense pillar works as a filter between clients and lawyers, where we offer co-counseling and expertise to defend those facing repression. The monitoring pillar involves keeping a record of the mechanisms used to silence advocates and the criminalization of Palestine solidarity work, not only for archival purposes but also to track trends of repression. The empowerment pillar involves working on campaigns of strategic litigation, such as holding companies accountable for human rights violations, and strengthening the Palestine solidarity movement.
Diala Shamas
Since the outset of the assault on Gaza, we have been in rapid response mode. It’s very hard to strike the right balance of focusing on repression and making sure that people are protected as they speak out and also not losing the focus on what’s happening in Gaza and throughout Palestine. In that regard, we have been really attentive to trying to offer language and legal analysis about what the Israeli regime is doing to the Palestinian people in Gaza. Not only have we reaffirmed that the Israeli regime’s current assault constitutes genocide, but we have also laid out US complicity in that genocide.
Simultaneously, we have increased our work to support those who are doing important advocacy in the US. For example, we have represented individuals who have been contacted by the FBI for questioning, and we have fielded calls from people across the country who are dealing with consequences in their workplaces for speaking out against the genocide in Gaza. Relatedly, Palestine Legal has been building a network of attorneys, largely with a focus on experts in employment law, to help respond to these calls. We have also been increasing our capacity to advise individuals facing doxxing attacks, both in terms of personal safety as well as online reputation.
What has been really great to see is so many people within the legal community reach out and ask how they can support.
What advice would you give organizers at the moment—particularly those who might be feeling apprehensive or fearful in light of this repression?
Layla Kattermann
It is important that both individuals and the movement as a whole are not intimidated into silence or inaction. The allegations and accusations that politicians and the mainstream media use against the Palestine solidarity movement are nothing new. I think we should therefore be confident enough in countering and challenging them. It’s also important to remember that we are stronger in numbers, as demonstrated in Berlin, where the masses defied the police prohibition on protests. Of course, the authorities can still resort to violence, but it’s important in these moments that people stick together.
Now more than ever is the time to speak up and out against what is happening. Not only is there a moral imperative in doing so, but it will also enable you to connect with other like-minded people and organize together. Smear and doxing campaigns usually aim to isolate a person from support networks and wider society. Indeed, it is always easier to attack one person rather than a group. Therefore, strength in numbers when it comes to defying the current repression cannot be underestimated.
Diala Shamas
We must remind ourselves that, while we’re seeing an unprecedented scale in repression, we’re also witnessing an unprecedented amount of solidarity and people speaking out against what’s happening to Palestinians in Gaza. The rise in repression is, in fact, in direct correlation with the growing Palestine solidarity movement. In this moment, we cannot stop speaking out and opposing genocide.
With this in mind, it’s also important to be cautious. We are all really angry and outraged at what we are seeing and experiencing. We have seen some of the most horrific images and videos coming out of Gaza, and the sense of abandonment coupled with feelings of both rage and sadness is overwhelming. In this climate, it is really difficult to remain clear-headed and rational. This is when we see lapses in judgment that are sometimes exploited by the other side. Yet as Palestinians and as advocates for Palestinian rights, we cannot afford the luxury of a lapse in judgment because it results in our energies and attention being diverted.
If one finds themselves in a situation where they are facing repression, it is imperative to know your rights. In the US, if you are approached by any authorities for an interview, you are entitled to decline and refer them to your lawyer. Alternatively, you can take their number and have your lawyer reach out to them. For legal representation, you can contact Palestine Legal, the Center for Constitutional Rights, your local National Lawyers Guild chapter, your local CAIR chapter, or your local ACLU affiliate.
We must remind ourselves that, while we’re seeing an unprecedented scale in repression, we're also witnessing an unprecedented amount of solidarity Click To Tweet
If you are called into a meeting with your employer or your university administration, try to get a legal consult before going into that meeting, or don’t go in alone. It is also important to document everything. This can be in the form of notes or self-written emails, with timestamps of events as they occur. It might also make sense to try to be preemptive and reach out to your employer or your university administration to let them know what is happening and make sure that they are hearing from you first and not from those who are trying to smear you. Importantly, remember you’re not alone—if you can and are confident, speak out about the repression so that you can find solidarity with others and vice versa.
Over the years, we’ve gone back and forth on the question of whether we want to talk openly about how difficult it is to speak about Palestinian rights, because we don’t want to discourage folks from doing it. However, we are well past this point—everybody knows that this kind of repression is happening—so we now feel that speaking out actually draws support and solidarity and can also build on political organizing. We’ve seen really inspirational instances of activists coming together to support each other, as well as professionals offering support to colleagues to find alternative employment when someone’s employment has been terminated. This kind of solidarity is a really important way to build resilience in these moments of heightened repression.
Which legal resources would you suggest for people navigating this repression?
Layla Kattermann
We have several resources available on the ELSC website that are also country-specific and are aimed at educating people on their rights, because much of the current repression is unconstitutional and unlawful. Certainly, in many countries across Europe, the police are exercising unlawful conduct. In those situations, it’s always useful to record the police, to register the officer and unit number, and to make the abuse or conduct publicly known. As Diala said, one shouldn’t deal with such repression alone. From our experience, once publicized, people usually reach out and offer support. Indeed, at the moment, we are seeing people really helping each other and standing in solidarity with one another against this pushback.
If you are in Europe, you can report to the ELSC. There are also a lot of collectives of lawyers at the moment that are actively helping the Palestine solidarity movement.
Diala Shamas
People in the solidarity movement across the US should familiarize themselves with Palestine Legal’s website. It has a range of resources, including on how to navigate doxxing and hostile environments on university campuses. If someone is struggling with something specifically regarding state repression, whether it’s federal or local law enforcement, there are a range of organizations that can support you. The organizations I mentioned previously may be able to also refer you.
I’d also be remiss to not mention the importance of taking care of yourself—to breathe and remember that you have a community, because these small things allow us to continue our work. These are really, really difficult times. We are all feeling it. But we don’t have a choice other than to continue speaking out. Indeed, the consequences might be difficult for us here in the US or Europe, but the conditions are far worse for the people in Gaza, as well as for those in the rest of colonized Palestine.
South Taranaki’s iwi and council have drawn up a new partnership agreement just as the Aotearoa New Zealand’s new conservative coalition government plans to take an axe to co-governance.
He Pou Tikanga Partnership Strategy sets out why and how South Taranaki District Council will increase collaboration with the area’s four iwi.
The agreement was created by the council and the iwi post-settlement governance entities – Te Kaahui o Rauru, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui, Te Korowai o Ngāruahine and Te Kāhui o Taranaki.
LOCAL DEMOCRACY REPORTING: Winner 2022 Voyager Awards Best Reporting Local Government (Feliz Desmarais) and Community Journalist of the Year (Justin Latif)
Cooperation includes not just leaders but staff from both sides working together.
The agreement says South Taranaki District Council will pay to make this happen.
“As partners to council, iwi must have a participatory role in development of agreed relevant council policy, service delivery, special projects and decision making.
“More resourcing from the council and other avenues is needed for iwi to engage and this resourcing needs to be explicit.”
Cooperation crucial
Mayor Phil Nixon said it was crucial that staff from both sides worked alongside each other.
“If we don’t do it from the ground up — which takes it right from the officers to begin with — if we’re not all on the same page working together it doesn’t work.”
The council’s iwi committee Te Kāhui Matauraura last week endorsed He Pou Tikanga for inclusion in the 2024-34 long term plan.
But just two days later the new government set out its plan to wind back co-governance with Māori, including in local government rules.
The coalition deal said the previous government’s replacement for the Resource Management Act would be repealed by Christmas.
National Environment Standards on freshwater would be also replaced, along with the National Policy Statement on freshwater “to rebalance Te Mana o te Wai to better reflect the interests of all water users”.
Those new rules introduced under Labour had required more say for iwi and hapū in council decision-making.
Replacement rules
The new Minister for Regulation, ACT’s David Seymour, said the replacement rules would instead have “a founding principle of property rights which has been absent from those laws for far too long”.
Mayor Nixon hoped the government would stick with National’s promise to support localism.
“We work well with our iwi; I think we have a really good relationship, and so it’s a matter of building on that and continuing that because I don’t want to see any of this go backwards in any way.”
The coalition agreement also demands that any Māori council wards established without a referendum — which includes two in South Taranaki — face a referendum at the next local body elections.
Nixon hopes the community will get behind the wards and the new partnership agreement.
“When we were first talking about Māori ward . . . there was a certain amount of apprehension in the community here to what it was.
“But I think now, with the way we’re progressing with it, I think the community is seeing actually this is working.”
He Pou Tikanga has taken more than three years to negotiate, and iwi representatives on Te Kāhui Matauraura were enthusiastic about its potential.
Ngāruahine’s John Hooker said iwi and hapū strategic plans could now be counted in the council’s plans.
Ngāruahine’s John Hooker says growing trust between iwi and council will bring real benefits to the district. Image: Te Korimako o Taranaki/RNZ
Hooker said it made sense for iwi and council planners to cooperate, and for iwi project managers “to work collaboratively with sister projects occurring at district council level”.
He said the growing trust between council and iwi was influential in Ngāruahine refocusing its asset investment back in South Taranaki.
“We’re starting to focus a lot of that investment into our district, instead of it occurring at Wellington or nationally.”
Taranaki iwi representative Peter Moeahu said He Pou Tikanga was a huge change to the antagonistic response he received from South Taranaki’s council 35 years ago.
“What we have now is financial clout and everyone wants to be our friend.
“It cements the relationship between iwi and council so that we can build a better future for the whole community.”
Taranaki’s Peter Moeahu says the agreement is a huge improvement on his dealings with council 35 years ago. Image: Te Korimako o Taranaki/RNZ
He Pou Tikanga also sets out that:
Iwi and hapū will be involved as early as possible in decision making
The council will build its cultural capacity
Iwi involvement can cut consultation times and improve outcomes
Council and iwi will work closely on climate and environmental issues
Iwi and council will develop goals and actions in the annual planning cycle
The strategy doesn’t negate relationships between individual iwi and the council
The state of civic space in Indonesia has been rated as “obstructed” in the latest CIVICUS Monitor report.
The civic space watchdog said that ongoing concerns include the arrest, harassment and criminalisation of human rights defenders and journalists as well as physical and digital attacks, the use of defamation laws to silence online dissent and excessive use of force by the police during protests, especially in the Papuan region.
In July 2023, the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Alice Wairimu Nderitu, expressed concerns regarding the human rights situation in the West Papua region in her opening remarks during the 22nd Meeting of the 53rd Regular Session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
She highlighted the harassment, arbitrary arrest and detention of Papuans, which had led to the appropriation of customary land in West Papua.
She encouraged the Indonesian government to ensure humanitarian assistance and engage in “a genuine inclusive dialogue”.
In August 2023, human rights organisations called on Indonesia to make serious commitments as the country sought membership in the UN Human Rights Council for the period 2024 to 2026.
Among the calls were to ratify international human rights instruments, especially the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED), to provide details of steps it will take to implement all of the supported recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and to fully cooperate with the Special Procedures of the Council.
Call to respect free expression
The groups also called on the government to ensure the respect, protection and promotion of the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, for clear commitments to ensure a safe and enabling environment for all human rights defenders, to find a sustainable solution for the human rights crisis in Papua and to end impunity.
In recent months, protests by communities have been met with arbitrary arrests and excessive force from the police.
The arbitrary arrests, harassment and criminalisation of Papuan activists continue, while an LGBT conference was cancelled due to harassment and threats.
Human rights defenders continue to face defamation charges, there have been harassment and threats against journalists, while a TikTok communicator was jailed for two years over a pork video.
Ongoing targeting of Papuan activists Arbitrary arrests, harassment and criminalisation of Papuan activists continue to be documented.
According to the Human Rights Monitor, on 5 July 2023, four armed plainclothes police officers arrested Viktor Makamuke, a 52-year-old activist of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), a pro-independence movement.
He was subsequently detained at the Sorong Selatan District Police Station where officers allegedly coerced and threatened Makamuke to pledge allegiance to the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI).
A week earlier, Makamuke and his friend had reportedly posted a photo in support of ULMWP full membership in the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) — an intergovernmental organisation composed of the four Melanesian states.
Shortly after the arrest, the police published a statement claiming that Makamuke was the commander of the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) — an armed group — in the Bomberai Region.
The Human Rights Monitor reported that members of the Yahukimo District police arbitrarily arrested six activists belonging to the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) in the town of Dekai, Yahukimo Regency, on 6 July 2023.
KNPB is a movement promoting the right to self-determination through peaceful action and is one of the most frequently targeted groups in West Papua.
The activists organised and carried out a collective cleaning activity in Dekai. The police repeatedly approached them claiming that the activists needed official permission for their activity.
Six KNPB activists arrested Subsequently, police officers arrested the six KNPB activists without a warrant or justifying the arrest. All activists were released after being interrogated for an hour.
On 8 August 2023, three students were found guilty of treason and subsequently given a 10-month prison sentence by the Jayapura District Court.
Yoseph Ernesto Matuan, Devio Tekege and Ambrosius Fransiskus Elopere were charged with treason due to their involvement in an event held at the Jayapura University of Science and Technology (USTJ) in November 2022, where they waved the Morning Star flag, a banned symbol of Papuan independence.
Their action was in protest against a planned peace dialogue proposed by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM).
According to Amnesty International Indonesia, between 2019 and 2022 there have been at least 61 cases involving 111 individuals in Papua who were charged with treason.
At least 37 supporters of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) were arrested in relation to peaceful demonstrations to commemorate the 1962 New York Agreement in the towns Sentani, Jayapura Regency and Dekai, Yahukimo Regency, on 14 and 15 August 2023.
Allegations of police ill-treatment
There were also allegations of ill-treatment by the police.
On 2 September 2023, police officers detained Agus Kossay, Chairman of the West Papua National Coalition (KNPB); Benny Murip, KNPB Secretary in Jayapura; Ruben Wakla, member of the KNPB in the Yahukimo Regency; and Ferry Yelipele.
The four activists were subsequently detained and interrogated at the Jayapura District Police Station in Doyo Baru. Wakla and Yelipele were released on 3rd September 2023 without charge.
Police officers reportedly charged Kossay and Murip under Article 160 and Article 170 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) for “incitement”.
Kia ora koutou. Ko Ngāpuhi tōku iwi. Ko Ngāti Manu toku hapu. Ko Karetu tōku marae. Ko Myles Thomas toku ingoa.
I grew up with David Beatson, on the telly. Back in the 1970s, he read the late news which I watched in bed with my parents. Later, David and I worked together to save TVNZ 7 and also regional TV stations.
The Better Public Media (BPM) trust honours David each year with our memorial address, because his fight for non-commercial TV was an honourable one. He wasn’t doing it for himself.
He wasn’t doing it so he could get a job or because it would benefit him. He fought for public media because he knew it was good for Aotearoa NZ.
Like us at Better Public Media, he recognised the benefits to our country from locally produced public media.
David knew, from a long career in media, including as editor of The Listener and as Jim Bolger’s press secretary, that NZ’s media plays an important role in our nation’s culture, social cohesion, and democracy.
NZ culture is very important. NZ culture is so unique and special, yet it has always been at risk of being swamped by content from overseas. The US especially with its crackpot conspiracies, extreme racial tensions, and extreme tensions about everything to be honest.
Local content the antidote
Local content is the antidote to this. It reflects us, it portrays us, it defines New Zealand, and whether we like it or not, it defines us. But it’s important to remember that what we see reflected back to us comes through a filter.
This speech is coming to you through a filter, called Myles Thomas.
Better Public Media trustee Myles Thomas speaking beside the panel moderator and BPM chair Dr Peter Thompson (seated from left); Jenny Marcroft, NZ First candidate for Kaipara ki Mahurangi; Ricardo Menéndez March, Green Party candidate for Mt Albert; and Willie Jackson, Labour Party list candidate and Minister for Broadcasting and Media. Image: David Robie/APR
Commercial news reflects our world through a filter of sensation and danger to hold our attention. That makes NZ seem more shallow, greedy, fearful and dangerous.
The social media filter makes the world seem more angry, reactive and complaining.
RNZ’s filter is, I don’t know, thoughtful, a bit smug, middle class.
The New Zealand Herald filter makes us think every dairy is being ram-raided every night.
And The Spinoff filter suggests NZ is hip, urban and mildly infatuated with Winston Peters.
These cultural reflections are very important actually because they influence us, how we see NZ and its people.
It is not a commodity
That makes content, cultural content, special. It is not a commodity. It’s not milk powder.
We don’t drink milk and think about flooding in Queenstown, drinking milk doesn’t make us laugh about the Koiwoi accent, we don’t drink milk and identify with a young family living in poverty.
Local content is rich and powerful, and important to our society.
When the government supports the local media production industry it is actually supporting the audiences and our culture. Whether it is Te Mangai Paho, or NZ On Air or the NZ Film Commission, and the screen production rebate, these organisations fund New Zealand’s identity and culture, and success.
Don’t ask Treasury how to fund culture. Accountants don’t understand it, they can’t count it and put it in a spreadsheet, like they can milk solids. Of course they’ll say such subsidies or rebates distort the “market”, that’s the whole point. The market doesn’t work for culture.
Moreover, public funding of films and other content fosters a more stable long-term industry, rather than trashy short-termism that is completely vulnerable to outside pressures, like the US writer’s strike.
We have a celebrated content production industry. Our films, video, audio, games etc. More local content brings stability to this industry, which by the way also brings money into the country and fosters tourism.
BPM trust chair Dr Peter Thompson, senior lecturer in media studies at Victoria University, welcomes the panel and audience for the 2023 media policy debate at Grey Lynn Library Hall in Auckland last night. Image: Del Abcede/Asia Pacific Report
We cannot use quota
New Zealand needs more local content.
And what’s more, it needs to be accessible to audiences, on the platforms that they use.
But in NZ we do have one problem. Unlike Australia, we can’t use a quota because our GATT agreement does not include a carve out for local music or media quotas.
In the 1990s when GATT was being negotiated, the Aussies added an exception to their GATT agreement allowing a quota for Aussie cultural content. So they can require radio stations to play a certain amount of local music. Now they’re able to introduce a Netflix quota for up to 20 percent of all revenue generated in Aussie.
We can’t do that. Why? Because back in the 1990s the Bolger government and MFAT decided against putting the same exception into NZ’s GATT agreement.
But there is another way of doing it, if we take a lead from Denmark and many European states. Which I’ll get to in a minute.
The second important benefit of locally produced public media is social cohesion, how society works, the peace and harmony and respect that we show each other in public, depends heavily on the “public sphere”, of which, media is a big part.
Power of media to polarise
Extensive research in Europe and North America shows the power of media to polarise society, which can lead to misunderstanding, mistrust and hatred.
But media can also strengthen social cohesion, particularly for minority communities, and that same research showed that public media, otherwise known as public service media, is widely regarded to be an important contributor to tolerance in society, promoting social cohesion and integrating all communities and generations.
The third benefit is democracy. Very topical at the moment. I’ve already touched on how newsmedia affect our culture. More directly, our newsmedia influences the public dialogue over issues of the day.
It defines that dialogue. It is that dialogue.
So if our newsmedia is shallow and vacuous ignoring policies and focussing on the polls and the horse-race, then politicians who want to be elected, tailor their messages accordingly.
There’s plenty of examples of this such as National’s bootcamp policy, or Labour’s removing GST on food. As policies, neither is effective. But in the simplified 30 seconds of commercial news and headlines, these policies resonate.
Is that a good thing, that policies that are known to fail are nonetheless followed because our newsmedia cater to our base instincts and short attention spans?
Disaster for democracy
In my view, commercial media is actually disaster for democracy. All over the world.
But of course, we can’t control commercial media. No-one’s suggesting that.
The only rational reaction is to provide stronger locally produced public media.
And unfortunately, NZ lacks public media.
Obviously Australia, the UK, Canada have more public media than us, they have more people, they can afford it. But what about countries our size, Ireland? Smaller population, much more public media.
Denmark, Norway, Finland, all with roughly 5 million people, and all have significantly better public media than us. Even after the recent increases from Willie Jackson, NZ still spends just $44 per person on public media. $44 each year.
When we had a licence fee it was $110. Jim Bolger’s government got rid of that and replaced it with funding from general taxation — which means every year the Minister of Finance, working closely with Treasury, decides how much to spend on public media for that year.
This is what I call the curse of annual funding, because it makes funding public media a very political decision.
National, let us be honest, the National Party hates public media, maybe because they get nicer treatment on commercial news. We see this around the world — the Daily Mail, Sky News Australia, Newstalk ZB . . . most commercial media quite openly favours the right.
Systemic bias
This is a systemic bias. Because right-wing newsmedia gets more clicks.
Right-wing politicians are quite happy about that. Why fund public to get in the way? Even if it it benefits our culture, social cohesion, and democracy.
New Zealand is the same, the last National government froze RNZ funding for nine years.
National Party spokesperson on broadcasting Melissa Lee fought against the ANZPM merger, and now she’s fighting the News Bargaining Bill. As minister she could cut RNZ and NZ On Air’s budget.
But it wouldn’t just be cost-cutting. It would actually be political interference in our newsmedia, an attempt to skew the national conversation in favour of the National Party, by favouring commercial media.
So Aotearoa NZ needs two things. More money to be spent on public media, and less control by the politicians. Sustainable funding basically.
The best way to achieve it is a media levy.
Highly targeted tax
For those who don’t know, a levy is a tax that is highly targeted, and we have a lot of them, like the Telecommunications Development Levy (or TDL) which currently gathers $10 million a year from internet service providers like Spark and 2 Degrees to pay for rural broadband.
We’re all paying for better internet for farmers basically. When first introduced by the previous National government it collected $50 million but it’s dropped down a bit lately.
This is one of many levies that we live with and barely notice. Like the levy we pay on our insurance to cover the Earthquake Commission and the Fire and Emergency Levy. There are maritime levies, energy levies to fund EECA and Waka Kotahi, levies on building consents for MBIE, a levy on advertising pays for the ASA, the BSA is funded by a levy.
Lots of levies and they’re very effective.
So who could the media levy, levy?
ISPs like the TDL? Sure, raise the TDL back up to $50 million or perhaps higher, and it only adds a dollar onto everyone’s internet bill. There’s $50 million.
But the real target should be Big Tech, social media and large streaming services. I’m talking about Facebook, Google, Netflix, YouTube and so on. These are the companies that have really profited from the advent of online media, and at the expense of locally produced public media.
Funding content creation
We need a way to get these companies to make, or at least fund, content creation here in Aotearoa. Denmark recently proposed a solution to this problem with an innovative levy of 2 percent on the revenue of streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney.
But that 2 percent rises to 5 percent if the streaming company doesn’t spend at least 5 percent of their revenue on making local Danish content. Denmark joins many other European countries already doing this — Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, France and even Romania are all about to levy the streamers to fund local production.
Australia is planning to do so as well.
But that’s just online streaming companies. There’s also social media and search engines which contribute nothing and take almost all the commercial revenue. The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill will address that to a degree but it’s not open and we won’t know if the amounts are fair.
Another problem is that it’s only for news publishers — not drama or comedy producers, not on-demand video, not documentary makers or podcasters. Social media and search engines frequently feature and put advertising around these forms of content, and hoover up the digital advertising that would otherwise help fund them, so they should also contribute to them.
A Media Levy can best be seen as a levy on those companies that benefit from media on the internet, but don’t contribute to the public benefits of media — culture, social cohesion and democracy. And that’s why the Media Levy can include internet service providers, and large companies that sell digital advertising and subscriptions.
Note, this would target large companies over a certain size and revenue, and exclude smaller platforms, like most levies do.
Separate from annual budget
The huge benefit of a levy is that it is separate from the annual budget, so it’s fiscally neutral, and politicians can’t get their mits on it. It removes the curse of annual funding.
It creates a funding stream derived from the actual commercial media activities which produce the distribution gaps in the first place, for which public media compensates. That’s why the proceeds would go to the non-commercial platform and the funding agencies — Te Mangai Paho, NZ On Air and the Film Commission.
One final point. This wouldn’t conflict with the new Digital Services Tax proposed by the government because that’s a replacement for Income Tax. A Media Levy, like all levies, sits over and above income tax.
So there we go. I’ve mentioned Jim Bolger three times! I’ve also outlined some quite straight-forward methods to fund public media sustainably, and to fund a significant increase in local content production, video, film, audio and journalism.
None of it needs to be within the grasp of Melissa Lee or Willie Jackson, or David Seymour.
All of it can be used to create local content that improves democracy, social cohesion and Kiwi culture.
Myles Thomas is a trustee of the Better Public Media Trust (BPM). He is a former television producer and director who in 2012 established the Save TVNZ 7 campaign. Thomas is now studying law. This commentary was this year’s David Beatson Memorial Address at a public meeting in Grey Lynn last night on broadcast policy for the NZ election 2023.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.
Former Papuan Governor Lukas Enembe has presented his case for the defence, denying the corruption and bribery charges against him, with the end of the controversial and lengthy trial at the Tipikor Court of Jakarta Central District Court this week. The verdict is due on October 9.
During the hearing, Enembe and his legal team argued there was no evidence to support the allegations made by the Anti-Corruption Commission (KPK) prosecutor.
The two-term Papuan governor and his legal team firmly stated that the KPK prosecutors had no evidence in the indictment against him.
In a statement presented by his lawyer, Petrus Bala Pattyona, Enembe strongly denied the allegations of receiving bribes and gratuities from businessmen Rijatono Lakka and Piton Enumbi.
Enembe emphasised that the accusations made against him were “baseless and lacked substantial evidence”.
Enembe maintains innocence
He stated that his case was straightforward, as he was being accused of accepting a staggering amount of 1 billion rupiahs (NZ$100,000) from Rijatono Lakka, along with a hotel valued at 25.9 billion rupiahs (NZ$2,815,000) and a number of physical developments and money amounting to Rp 10,413,929,500.00 or 10.4 billion rupiahs (NZ$1,131,000) from Piton Enumbi, lawyer Pattyona said during the reading, reports Kompas.com.
Enembe maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings and asserted that he had never received any form of illicit payments or favours from either businessman.
The simplicity of Lukas’ case, as stated by his lawyer, Petrus Bala Pattyona, lay in the clarity of the accusations made against his client.
Enembe and his legal team emphasised that none of the testimony of the 17 witnesses called during the trial could provide evidence of their involvement in bribery or gratuities in connection with Lukas Enembe, reports National.okenews.com.
“During the trial, it was proven very clearly that no witness could explain that I received bribes or gratuities from Rijatono Lakka and Piton Enumbi,” Enembe said through his lawyer Pattyona during the hearing, reports Kompas.com.
“I ask that the jury of pure hearts and minds, who have tried my case, may decide on the basis of the truth that I am innocent and therefore acquit me of all charges,” Enembe said.
In addition to asking for his release, Enembe also asked the judge to unfreeze the accounts of his wife and son that were frozen by the authorities when this legal saga began last year.
He claimed his wife (Yulce Wenda) and son (Astract Bona Timoramo Enembe) needed access to their funds to cover daily expenses.
Ex-Governor Enembe also discussed gold confiscated by the KPK, calling on judges to allow its return.
Enembe asked that no party criminalise him anymore. He insisted he had never laundered money or owned a private jet, as KPK had claimed.
Enembe’s lawyer also requested that his client’s honour be restored to prevent further false accusations from emerging.
KPK prosecutor’s demands However, the public prosecutors of the KPK considered Lukas Enembe legally and conclusively guilty of corruption in the form of accepting bribes and gratuities when he served as Governor of Papua from 2013 to 2023.
The prosecutors alleged that there was evidence that Lukas Enembe had violated Article 12 letter A and Article 12B of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Criminal Acts and Article 55 paragraph. (1) of I of the Criminal Code jo Article 65, clause (1), of the Criminal Code, reports Beritasatu.com.
In addition to corporal crime, the two-term governor of Papua was fined Rp 1 billion. He was also ordered to pay Rp 47,833,485,350 or 47.9 billion rupiah (NZD$5,199,000) in cash, accusing him of accepting bribes totalling Rp 45.8 billion and gratitude worth 1 billion, reports Kompas.com.
A verdict date is set The Jakarta Criminal Corruption Court panel of judges is scheduled to read the verdict in the case against Enembe on 9 October 2023.
“We have scheduled Monday, October 9, 2023, for the reading of the verdict against the defendant Lukas Enembe,” said presiding judge Rianto Adam Pontoh yesterday at the Central Jakarta District Court after undergoing a hearing of the readings, reports CNN.com.
The date marks an important milestone in the trial as it will bring clarity to the charges against Enembe. The outcome of the judgement will have a profound impact on Enembe’s future and the public perception of his integrity and leadership, and most importantly, his deteriorating health.
Former Governor’s health Previously, the KPK prosecutor had requested a sentence of 10 years and six months in prison.
Enembe’s senior lawyer, Professor OC Kaligis, argued that imprisonment of Enembe for more than a decade would be tantamount to the death penalty due to the worsening of his illness, calling it “brutal demands” of the KPK prosecutors.
“The defendant’s health condition when examined by doctors at Gatot Soebroto Army Central Hospital (RSPAD) showed an increasingly severe illness status. So we, legal counsel, after paying attention to the KPK Public Prosecutor’s concern for the defendant’s illness, from the level of investigation to investigation, concluded that the KPK Public Prosecutor ignored the defendant’s human rights for maximum treatment.
“With such demands, the KPK Public Prosecutor expects the death of Lukas Enembe in prison,” said Professor Kaligis, reports mambruks.com.
Lukas Enembe’s life Former Governor Lukas Enembe was born on 27 July 1967 in Mamit village, Kembu Tolikara, Papua’s highlands. He graduated from Sam Ratulangi University, Manado, in 1995, majoring in socio-political science.
After returning to West Papua, he began his public service career in the civil service of Merauke district.
Enembe studied at Christian Cornerstone College in Australia from 1998 to 2001. In 2001, he returned to West Papua and ran for the regency election, becoming the deputy regent of Puncak Jaya.
In 2007, he was elected as the regent of Puncak Jaya.
Enembe served as the Governor of Papua from 2013 to 2018 and was re-elected for a second term from 2018 to 2023.
His tenure focused on infrastructure development and cultural unity in West Papua, leading to landmark constructions such as a world-class stadium and a massive bridge.
He also introduced a scholarship scheme, empowering hundreds of Papuan students to pursue education both locally and abroad — such as in New Zealand which he visited in 2019.
Enembe’s achievement as the first Highlander from West Papua to become governor is a groundbreaking milestone that challenged long-held cultural taboos.
His success serves as an inspiration and symbolises the potential for change and unity in the region.
His ability to break cultural barriers has significantly impacted the development of West Papua and the collective mindset of its people, turning what was once regarded as impossible into possibilities through his courage and bravery.
The fact that he is still holding on despite serious health complications that he has endured for a long time under Indonesian state pressure is widely regarded as a “miracle”.
One could argue that West Papua’s predicament as a whole is mirrored in Enembe’s story of struggle, perseverance, pain, suffering, and a will to live despite all odds.
Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Flashback: Papua Provincial Governor Lukas Enembe (rear centre in purple batik shirt) with some of the West Papuan students in Aotearoa New Zealand during his visit to the country in 2019. Image: APR
Hundreds of protesters have marched to Aotearoa New Zealand’s Parliament in Wellington today, where streets were closed and the precinct blocked off in preparation.
The march was met by a smaller group of counter protesters from Pōneke Anti-Fascist Coalition.
About 600 protesters had gathered at Civic Square before setting off, according to RNZ reporters on the scene.
There is an extra police presence in the capital, roads have been closed and bus routes diverted with police saying officers were “prepared and on alert” and would be “highly visible across Wellington city”.
The protest has been organised by a diverse range of groups including Brian Tamaki’s Freedom Rights Coalition, the Convoy Coalition and Stop Co-Governance protesting against the UN’s “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”.
New Zealand faces a general election on October 14.
Fact checks on UN claims For context, RNZ reports multiple news organisations have repeatedly debunked claims that the UN’s Agenda 2030 and a “Great Reset” is some sort of plan for global domination.
Hundreds of protesters have marched to Aotearoa New Zealand’s Parliament in Wellington today, where streets were closed and the precinct blocked off in preparation.
The march was met by a smaller group of counter protesters from Pōneke Anti-Fascist Coalition.
About 600 protesters had gathered at Civic Square before setting off, according to RNZ reporters on the scene.
There is an extra police presence in the capital, roads have been closed and bus routes diverted with police saying officers were “prepared and on alert” and would be “highly visible across Wellington city”.
The protest has been organised by a diverse range of groups including Brian Tamaki’s Freedom Rights Coalition, the Convoy Coalition and Stop Co-Governance protesting against the UN’s “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”.
New Zealand faces a general election on October 14.
Fact checks on UN claims For context, RNZ reports multiple news organisations have repeatedly debunked claims that the UN’s Agenda 2030 and a “Great Reset” is some sort of plan for global domination.
Prominent West Papuan independence activist Victor Yeimo was yesterday released from prison in Jayapura, Indonesia’s occupied capital of West Papua, sparking a massive celebration among thousands of Papuans.
His release has ignited a spirit of unity among Papuans in their fight against what they refer to as racism, colonialism, and imperialism.
His jailing was widely condemned by global human rights groups and legal networks as flawed and politically motivated by Indonesian authorities.
“Racism is a disease. Racism is a virus. Racism is first propagated by people who feel superior,” Yeimo told thousands of supporters.
He described racism as an illness and “even patients find it difficult to detect pain caused by racism”.
Victor Yeimo’s speech:
“Racism is a disease. Racism is a virus. Racism is first propagated by people who feel superior. The belief that other races are inferior. The feeling that another race is more primitive and backward than others.
“Remember the Papuan people, my fellow students, because racism is an illness, and even patients find it difficult to detect pain caused by racism.
“Racism has been historically upheld by some scientists, beginning in Europe and later in America. These scientists have claimed that white people are inherently more intelligent and respectful than black people based on biological differences.
“This flawed reasoning has been used to justify colonialism and imperialism in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, with researchers misguidedly asserting genetic and ecological superiority over other races.
“Therefore, there is a prejudice against other nations and races, with the belief that they are backward, primitive people, belonging to the lower or second class, who must be subdued, colonised, dominated, developed, exploited, and enslaved.
“Racism functions like a pervasive virus, infecting and spreading within societies. Colonialism introduced racism to Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, profoundly influencing the perspectives and beliefs of Asians, Indonesians, and archipelago communities.
“It’s crucial to acknowledge that the enduring impact of over 350 years of racist ideology from the Dutch East Indies has deeply ingrained in generations, shaping their worldview in these regions due to the lasting effects of colonialism.
“Because racism is a virus, it is transmitted from the perpetrator to the victim. Colonised people are the victims.
“After Indonesia became independent, it succeeded in driving out colonialism, but failed to eliminate the racism engendered by European cultures against archipelago communities.
“Currently, racism has evolved into a deeply ingrained cultural phenomenon among the Indonesian population, leaving them with a sense of inferiority as a result of their history of colonisation.
“Brothers and sisters, I must tell you that it was racism that influenced Sukarno [the first President of Indonesia] to say other races and nations, including the Papuans, were puppet nations without political rights.
“It is racist prejudice.
The release of Victor Yeimo from prison in Jayapura yesterday . . . as reported by Tabloid Jubi. Image: Jubi News screenshot APR
“There is a perception among people from other nations, such as Javanese and Malays, that Papuans have not advanced, that they are still primitives who must be subdued, arranged, and constructed.
“In 1961, the Papuans were building a nation and a state, but it was considered an impostor state with prejudice against the Papuans. It is important for fellow students to learn this.
“It is imperative that the Papuan people learn that the annexation of this region is based on racist prejudice.
“The 1962 New York Agreement, the 1967 agreement between Indonesia and the United States regarding Freeport’s work contract, and the Act of Free Choice in 1969 excluded the participation of any Papuans.
“This exclusion was rooted in the belief that Papuans were viewed as primitive and not deserving of the right to determine their own political fate. The decision-making process was structured to allow unilateral decisions by parties who considered themselves superior, such as the United States, the Netherlands, and Indonesia.
“In this arrangement, the rightful owners of the nation and homeland, the Papuan people, were denied the opportunity to determine their own political destiny. This unequal and biased treatment exemplified racism.”
A massive crowd welcoming Victor Yeimo after his release from prison. Image: YK
Victor Yeimo’s imprisonment According to Jubi, a local West Papua media outlet, Victor Yeimo, international spokesperson of the West Papua Committee National (KNPB), was unjustly convicted of treason because he was deemed to have been involved in a demonstration protesting against a racism incident that occurred at the Kamasan III Papua student dormitory in Surabaya, East Java, on 16 August 2019.
He was accused of being a mastermind behind riots that shook West Papua sparked by the Surabaya incident, which led to his arrest and subsequent charge of treason on 21 February 2022.
However, on 5 May 2023, a panel of judges from the Jayapura District Court ruled that Victor Yeimo was not guilty of treason.
Nevertheless, the Jayapura Court of Judges found Yeimo guilty of violating Article 155, Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.
The verdict was controversial because Article 155, Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code was never the charge against Victor Yeimo.
The article used to sentence Victor Yeimo to eight months in prison had even been revoked by the Constitutional Court.
On 12 May 2023, the Public Prosecutor and the Law Enforcement and Human Rights Coalition for Papua, acting as Victor Yeimo’s legal representatives, filed appeals against the Jayapura District Court ruling.
On 5 July 2023, a panel of judges of the Jayapura High Court, led by Paluko Hutagalung SH MH, together with member judges, Adrianus Agung Putrantono SH and Sigit Pangudianto SH MH, overturned the Jayapura District Court verdict, stating that Yeimo was proven to have committed treason, and sentenced him to one year in imprisonment.
Jubi.com stated that the sentence ended, and at exactly 11:17 WP, he was released by the Abepura Prerequisite Board.
The Jayapura crowd waiting to hear Victor Yeimo’s “freedom” speech on racism. Image: YK
International response
Global organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have condemned the Indonesian government’s treatment of Papuans and called for immediate action to address the issue of racism.
They have issued statements, conducted investigations, and raised awareness about the plight of Papuans, urging the international community to stand in solidarity with them.
Yeimo’s release brings new hope and strengthens their fight for independence.
His release has not only brought about a sense of relief and joy for his people and loved ones but has also reignited the flames of resistance against the Indonesian occupation.
At the Waena Expo Arena in Jayapura City yesterday, Yeimo was greeted by thousands of people who performed traditional dances and chanted “free West Papua”, displaying the region’s symbol of resistance and independence — the Morning Star flag.
Thousands of Papuans have united, standing in solidarity, singing, dancing, and rallying to advocate for an end to the crimes against humanity inflicted upon them.
Victor Yeimo’s bravery, determination and triumph in the face of adversity have made him a symbol of hope for many. He has inspired them to continue fighting for justice and West Papua’s state sovereignty.
Papuan communities, including various branches of KNPB offices represented by Victor Yeimo as a spokesperson, as well as activists, families, and friends from seven customary regions of West Papua, are joyfully celebrating his return.
Many warmly welcome him, addressing him as the “father of the Papuan nation”, comrade, and brother, while others express gratitude to God for his release.
Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
The top 5 percent of New Zealanders own roughly 50 percent of New Zealand’s wealth, while the bottom 50 percent of New Zealanders own a miserable 5 percent.
IRD proved NZ capitalism is rigged for the rich and business columnist Bernard Hickey calculates that if we had had a basic capital gains tax in place over the last decade, we would have earned $200 billion in tax revenue.
$200 billion would have ensured our public infrastructure wouldn’t be in such an underfunded ruin right now.
There are 14 billionaires in NZ plus 3118 ultra-high net worth individuals with more than $50 million each. Why not start start with them, then move onto the banks, then the property speculators, the climate change polluters and big industry to pay their fair share before making workers pay more tax.
Culture War fights make all the noise, but poor people aren’t sitting around the kitchen table cancelling people for misusing pronouns, they are trying to work out how to pay the bills.
‘Bread and butter’ pressures
“Bread and butter” cost of living pressures are what the New Zealand electorate wants answers to, and that’s where the Left need to step up and push universal policy that lifts that cost from the people.
The Commerce Commission is clear that the supermarket duopoly should be broken up and the state should step in and provide that competition.
We need year long maternity leave.
We need a nationalised Early Education sector that provides free childcare for children under 5.
We need free public transport.
We need free breakfast and lunches in schools.
We need free dental care.
We need 50,000 new state houses.
We need more hospitals, more schools and a teacher’s aid in every class room.
We need climate change adaptation and a resilient rebuilt infrastructure.
Funded by taxing the rich
We need all these things and we need to fund them by taxing the rich who the IRD clearly showed were rigging the system.
That requires political courage but there is none.
No one is willing to fight for tomorrow, they merely want to pacify the present!
Just promise me one thing.
Don’t. You. Dare. Vote. Early. In. 2023!
I can not urge this enough from you all comrades.
Don’t vote early in the 2023 election.
The major electoral issues facing New Zealanders in 2023 . . . inflation, followed by housing and crime. Climate is in fifth position, behind health. Image: The Daily Blog/IPSOS
Secrecy of the ballot box
I’m not going to tell you who to vote for because this is a liberal progressive democracy and your right to chose who you want in the secrecy of that ballot box is a sacred privilege and is your right as a citizen.
But what I will beg of you, is to not vote early in 2023.
Comrades, on our horizon is inflation in double figures, geopolitical shockwave after geopolitical shockwave and a global economic depression exacerbated by catastrophic climate change.
As a nation we will face some of the toughest choices and decision making outside of war time and that means you must press those bloody MPs to respond to real policy solutions and make them promise to change things and you can’t do that if you hand your vote over before the election.
Keep demanding concessions and promises for your vote right up until midnight before election day AND THEN cast your vote!
We only get 1 chance every 3 years to hold these politicians’ feet to the fire and they only care before the election, so force real concessions out of them before you elect them.
This election is going to be too important to just let politicians waltz into Parliament without being blistered by our scrutiny.
Demand real concessions from them and THEN vote on Election Day, October 14.
Inclusive talks in Paris between France and Kanaky New Caledonia’s politicians have yielded outcomes, including a French-submitted document on its future.
The talks, held last week, aimed at resuming all-round dialogue over a possible future status for New Caledonia.
Paris has tried but failed to bring pro-French and pro-independence parties to the same table.
Instead, there were only “bilateral” talks, separately, between France and the pro-independence camp, and between Paris and the pro-France camp.
During the latest round of talks from September 4 to 8, all sides were present for the first time in almost two years.
French Home Affairs and Overseas Minister Gérald Darmanin put on the table a working document which, he said, albeit “ambitious”, remained open to modifications from all sides of New Caledonia’s political spectrum.
Sensitive topics
The document covers sensitive topics such as New Caledonia’s future right to self-determination, but also ways to build and strengthen the notion of a “New Caledonian citizenship”.
“I have been personally involved, I have travelled to New Caledonia four times over the past year . . . We have had a lot of exchanges and a climate of confidence has emerged,” Darmanin told the French newspaper Le Monde.
“There was goodwill from all sides … We have decided to put this project on the table because nobody was doing it,” he added.
The working document, Darmanin said, contained what he described as a “modernisation of New Caledonia’s institutions”, including changes to the areas of responsibilities both on New Caledonia’s government level, but also for its three provinces.
“The project also reaffirms that New Caledonia remains French, but retains a specific paragraph in the [French] Constitution, which means the 1998 Nouméa Accord will not be affected in terms of a New Caledonian citizenship within the French citizenship” he told Le Monde in the same weekend interview.
Another sensitive issue was New Caledonia’s electoral roll for local elections to be held next year.
For the past 25 years, as part of the autonomy Nouméa Accord signed in 1998, the list of eligible voters was “frozen” to only include residents who were born in New Caledonia or established there before 1998 (including their descendents).
Temporary measure
The measure was supposed to be temporary for the duration of the Accord, which is now deemed to have expired.
From France’s point of view, these special measures are no longer tenable and should be brought closer to a one-person, one-vote system before New Caledonia’s provincial elections are held in 2024.
On New Caledonia’s right to self-determination, Darmanin’s draft “no longer includes a date or a timeline to achieve it”, he said, adding this would remove the “Damocles sword” of a “binary question YES or NO to independence”.
Instead, any future project would be submitted “by New Caledonians themselves”, and should be endorsed by a minimum two-thirds of the local Congress.
The document is understood to serve as a basis for further discussions to be finalised by the end of 2023, Darmanin said, adding the final version would result in a French Constitutional amendment scheduled to be put to the necessary vote of the French Congress (both the Senate and the National Assembly).
He said if no agreement was reached by then, “we will amend the electoral roll in order to hold provincial elections [in 2024]. This is a democratic requirement”.
Darmanin said he would travel again to New Caledonia at the “end of October” to pursue talks with all parties.
‘Responsibility in face of history’
“[Last] week, pro-independence and anti-independence (politicians) have held meetings with me in the same room . . . I am counting on those parties’ great sense of responsibility in the face of history,” he said.
French President Emmanuel Macron was in New Caledonia late July, when he announced plans for the Constitutional amendment and specific arrangements for New Caledonia sometime early 2024.
Last Friday, he met visiting New Caledonia politicians to mark the end of the week-long Paris talks.
“The President insisted on the need to reach an agreement in order to fully engage on the path of forgiveness and future,” Macron’s office said in a statement.
On the pro-French side, Sonia Backès — the pro-France President of New Caledonia’s Southern Province — said that “by October 11, we should have a document that lists all points of agreement and also those points of disagreement”.
“We have the feeling things are moving forward,” pro-independence FLNKS delegation member Victor Tutugoro told French public media television Outre-Mer la 1ère. “So we’re going to start working on this [document] and really open negotiations by the end of October,” he added.
All three referendums held between 2018 and 2021 have resulted in a majority of voters rejecting independence in New Caledonia.
Final steps required
France regards those results as one of the final steps required from the Nouméa Accord, signed 10 years after another deal, the Matignon-Oudinot Accord, was struck in 1988 to bring an end to half a decade of a bloody quasi-civil war.
But the FLNKS, the umbrella of pro-independence parties, is contesting the outcome of the third referendum held in late 2021, which was largely boycotted by the indigenous Kanak population, saying the covid restrictions and subsequent traditional mourning deterred many of the indigenous Kanaks from voting.
While pro-French parties have seen those three referendums results as evidence of the will for New Caledonia to remain French, the FLNKS is claiming it wants to bring the matter before the International Court of Justice.
It recently received in-principle support from the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) leaders who held their summit in Port Vila, Vanuatu in late August.
The MSG consists of Fiji, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and FLNKS as a non-state member.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Opposition National Party deputy leader Nicola Willis was among three political leaders who made a surprising commitment at a debate last night to build 1000 state houses in Auckland each year.
Labour Party leader and caretaker prime minister Chris Hipkins and Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson also agreed to do so, with resounding “yes” responses to the direct question from co-convenors Sister Margaret Martin of the Sisters of Mercy Wiri and Nik Naidu of the Whānau Community Centre and Hub.
All three political leaders also pledged to have quarterly consultations with a new community alliance formed to address Auckland’s housing and homeless crisis and other social issues.
The “non-political partisan” public rally at the Lesieli Tonga Auditorium in Favona — which included more than 500 attendees representing 45 community and social issues groups — was hosted by the new alliance Te Ohu Whakawhanaunga.
Filipina lawyer and co-chair of the meeting Nina Santos, of the YWCA, declared: “If we don’t have a seat at the table, it’s because we’re on the menu.”
Later, in an interview with RNZ Morning Report today, Santos said: “It was so great to see [the launch of Te Ohu] after four years in the making”.
‘People power’
“It was so good to see our allies, our villages and our communities — our 45 organisations — show up last night to demonstrate people power
“Te Ohu Whakawhanaunga is a broad-based alliance, the first of its kind in Tāmaki Makauarau. The members include Māori groups, women’s groups, unions and faith-based organisations.
“They have all came together to address issues that the city is facing — housing is a basic human right.”
She chaired the evening with Father Henry Rogo from Fiji, of the Diocese of Polynesia in NZ.
Political leaders put on the spot over housing at Te Ohu . . . Prime Minister Chris Hipkins (Labour, from left), Marama Davidson (Green co-leader) and Nicola Willis (National deputy leader). Image: David Robie/APR
Speakers telling heart-rending stories included Dinah Timu, of E Tū union, about “decent work”, and Tayyaba Khan, Darwit Arshak and Eugene Velasco, who relating their experiences as migrants, former refugees and asylum seekers.
The crowd was also treated to performances by Burundian drummers, Colombian dancers and Te Whānau O Pātiki Kapahaka at Te Kura O Pātiki Rosebank School, all members of the new Te Ohu collective.
“Hipkins told the crowd of about 500 . . . that he grew up in a state house built by the Labour government in the 1950s. ‘And I’m very proud that we are building more state houses today than at any time since the 1950s,’ he said.
“’Labour has exceeded the 1000 commitment. We’ve built 12,000 social house units since 2017, and 7000 of them have been in Tāmaki Makaurau. But there is more work to be done.’
“He reminded the audience that the last National government had sold state houses, not built them.
“Davidson said that housing was ‘a human right and a core public good’. The Greens’ commitment was greater than that of the other parties: it wanted to build 35,000 more public houses in the next five years, and resource the construction sector and the government’s state housing provider Kāinga Ora to get it done.
“’We will also put a cap on rent increases and introduce a minimum income guarantee, to lift people out of poverty.’
“Willis told the audience there were 2468 people on the state house waiting list in Auckland when Labour took office in 2017, and now there are 8175.
“’Here’s the thing. If you don’t like the result you’re getting, you don’t keep doing the same thing. We don’t think social housing should just be provided by Kāinga Ora. We want the Salvation Army, and Habitat for Humanity and other community housing providers to be much more involved.’
“Members of that sector were at the meeting and one confirmed the community housing sector is already building a substantial proportion of new social housing.”
Effort counts, but so does accuracy, writes Jerusha Mather. There’s much to commend about SBS Australia’s ground-breaking new series Latecomers, but….
Amid the applause for Latecomers, a new SBS series that delves into the romantic escapades of two individuals with disabilities in the pre-Christmas glow, my heart harboured a touch of disappointment. While the show possessed moments of undeniable beauty and heartfelt emotion, certain aspects fell short of accurately representing the lived experiences of people with disabilities.
To be clear, Latecomers is by no means a subpar production. The performances were commendable, and scenes like Elliot and Sarah’s beachside encounter were nothing short of heroic and deeply moving. However, I found some elements disconcerting, compelling me to address them here to ensure we do not perpetuate biases.
In the realm of reality, support workers or caregivers are bound by strict professional guidelines that discourage them from engaging in romantic relationships with their clients or their friends. Latecomers portrays instances of caregivers crossing these boundaries, which, from my perspective, felt uneasy.
Personally, when I embark on dates, I value privacy and professionalism. I typically request my support workers to grant me some space and pick me up when the date concludes. This professional boundary empowers my choices and independence.
Moreover, the series missed an opportunity to present a more comprehensive portrayal of cerebral palsy. For instance, I too have cerebral palsy and thoroughly enjoy activities such as swimming. My outlook on life is one of positivity, and I hold the belief that love will find its way into my life.
I am socially aware, intelligent, organized, and fiercely independent – qualities that I believe will be cherished by my future partner. Unfortunately, Latecomers failed to showcase this facet of disability. Instead, it presented a somewhat negative and demeaning view, particularly through the character of Frank.
Frank’s lack of social awareness and emotional intelligence does not accurately represent males with cerebral palsy, most of whom are polite, gentle, and respectful towards women.
The title Latecomers carries a harsh and derogatory implication, suggesting that people with disabilities are tardy in entering romantic relationships. In reality, we undergo the same experiences as anyone else during puberty, with the same emotions and desires. There is no need to label us as latecomers; we deserve the right to explore our feelings in a healthy and unrestricted manner, just like anyone else. We yearn for travel and the creation of cherished memories. It is disheartening to see us portrayed in this manner.
While Latecomers is certainly a commendable show, it falls short of providing a comprehensive view of disability. I am eager to witness more mainstream productions featuring people with disabilities. It is high time we extend them an open invitation to the table, as diversity is increasingly celebrated in our society.
On a personal note, I have taken a significant stride by joining JR Management as a fashion model, singer, and actor, with the aim of challenging the lack of representation. I understand the challenges of being heard in an industry that sometimes harbours biases among producers and community members. However, this is unacceptable, and the time has come for transformative justice.
Fashion model, singer, and actor Jerusha Mather.
Change must begin in our generation. It is time for individuals with visible disabilities, such as cerebral palsy, to be portrayed accurately in dramas like Family Reunion and Home and Away, as well as in reality TV shows like Married at First Sight and The Bachelorette. I have even made a personal commitment to become Australia’s first bachelorette with a visible disability – a journey that I am excited to embark upon.
To be clear, my intention is not to vilify Latecomers. It undeniably had moments that touched my soul profoundly. However, I also encountered elements that left me with a sense of disappointment.
No TV show is without its flaws, but I hold hope for a future where individuals with disabilities are included and afforded the same opportunities as everyone else. Their portrayal should not fundamentally differ; fairness and inclusivity should be the guiding principles.
I envision a world where a 16-year-old with cerebral palsy can confidently believe that someone will love her for who she truly is. Let us not allow the world to fill her with self-doubt and false narratives. Instead, let us enhance media representation to demonstrate that she can be her authentic self while enjoying shows like Stranger Things on Netflix.
I have shared these thoughts with the aim of fostering clarity and providing an objective perspective on disability. My intention is not to criticize a show with numerous merits, but rather to shed light on these issues. Constructive critique often paves the path to improvement and a better world for all.
In spite of again being denied full membership of the Melanesian Spearhead Group, the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) has welcomed the call from the MSG Leaders’ Summit in Port Vila last week for Indonesia to allow the long-awaited visit of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to West Papua.
“I hope that the MSG chair will honour the commitment to write to Indonesia as a matter of urgency, as every day that international intervention is delayed sees more West Papuans suffer and more Melanesian blood spilt,” ULMWP president Benny Wenda declared.
“Even in the run up to the MSG summit, with the eyes of the Pacific region on human rights in West Papua, Indonesia brutally cracked down on peaceful rallies in favour of ULMWP full membership, arresting dozens and killing innocent civilians,” he said in a statement.
As an associate member of the MSG, Indonesia must respect the chair’s demand, Wenda said.
“If they continue to deny the UN access, they will be in violation of the unified will of the Melanesian region.
“As the leaders’ communique stated, the UN visit must occur this year in order for the commissioner’s report to be put before the next MSG summit in 2024.”
Wenda said he also welcomed the MSG’s commitment that it would write to the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) chair to ensure that the UN visit was undertaken.
‘Guarantee UN visit’
“The PIF must honour this call and do all they can to guarantee a UN visit,” he said.
United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) interim chair Benny Wenda being interviewed by Vanuatu Television during MACFEST2023.
“And yet Indonesia has come no closer to allowing the United Nations access. Mere words are clearly not enough: the MSG Leaders’ Summit must be the trigger for international pressure of such overwhelming force that Indonesia has no choice, but to allow a UN visit.
“Although we are disappointed to have been denied full membership on this occasion, our spirit is strong and our commitment to returning home to our Melanesian family is undiminished.
“We are not safe with Indonesia, and will only find security by standing together with our Pacific brothers and sisters.
“Full membership is our birthright: culturally, linguistically, ethnically, and in our values, we are undeniably and proudly Melanesian.”
6/9) @MsgSecretariat must set terms, that should Indonesia fail to allow & respect the visits of an independent fact-finding mission by PIF, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, then Indonesia must be BANNED from the MSG. pic.twitter.com/FUrJZQSvK0
Youngsolwara Pacific criticises MSG
Meanwhile, the Youngsolwara Pacific movement has made a series of critical statements about the MSG communique, including deploring the fact that the leaders’ summit was not the place to discuss human rights violations and reminded the leaders of the “founding vision”.
They called on the MSG Secretariat to “set terms, that should Indonesia fail to allow and respect the visits of an independent fact-finding mission by PIF, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, then Indonesia must be BANNED from the MSG.”
They also demanded “clarity on the criteria for associate members and their respective engagement”.
Indonesia is the only associate member of the MSG while the ULMWP has observer status.
Earlier this year, New Matilda published the first in a three-part feature by editor Chris Graham, entitled Left Jab: From Heaven To Hell In The Shadow Of A Vaccine. ‘The Numbers Games’, is Part Two. It was delayed significantly (and un-ironically) due to illness. Part One focussed on Chris’ extraordinary downward health spiral, which began in September 2021, shortly after his second Covid-19 jab. It also looked at some of the successful aspects of Australia’s effort to confront the global Covid-19 pandemic. This edition looks in detail at some of the problems with our national response. Part 3 drops next week, on August 31.
Fear can do amazing things to populations, and to politicians. Just ask Scott Morrison.
In February 2020, the former Australian Prime Minister had just finished bungling his way through an unprecedented summer bushfire crisis, holidaying in Hawaii as his country burned and then over-correcting on his panicked return, forcing himself on victims as he toured the nation’s fire grounds.
Obviously, Morrison paid in the polls for his hapless, atrocious performance. Almost 60 per cent of voters reported they were “dissatisfied” with the PM, and for the first time, Opposition leader Anthony Albanese passed Morrison as ‘preferred Prime Minister’. And then along came a global pandemic.
Within two months, Morrison’s polling had flipped, literally, on its head, climbing almost 20 points to 59 per cent “satisfied”. Only fear, and perhaps loathing (see ‘John Howard’ and ‘Tampa’) can unite a population behind a leader like that, regardless of how incompetent or unpopular that leader might ultimately turn out to be.
In Morrison’s case, he would leave office two years later as the most unpopular Prime Minister since records began in 1987, but not before subjecting an ungrateful nation to a roller coaster ride of truly epic proportions.
Through the first full year of the pandemic, Morrison’s numbers stayed at record highs, and by February 2021, his approval rating had climbed to a staggering 65 per cent, polling which was simply inconceivable a year earlier. Indeed, things were going so well for Morrison that rumours began to circulate Anthony Albanese might face a leadership challenge. The Liberals might even call an early election?
Alas, that was as high as Morrison would ever fly because before the month was out, his polling had started to crash, and the unravelling of his shambolic government would begin. In the background of Morrison’s rapid descent was Craig Kelly, a one-time furniture salesman for his failed family business and the member for the seat of Hughes, a middle-class electorate on the southern fringes of Sydney.
Like Morrison, Kelly was a member of the religious faction of the Liberal Party, opposing policies like same-sex marriage and action on climate change. Also like Morrison, before the pandemic struck Kelly had managed to find himself on the wrong side of the bushfire crisis, which, if you know anything about the electorate of Hughes, was deeply ironic.
Of the two dozen federal electorates in Sydney, Hughes – which includes the sprawling Royal National Park on its most southerly border – has traditionally been one of the most seriously impacted by fire. That knowledge didn’t stop Kelly from giving a now infamous train wreck interview on British television, downplaying the role of climate change in the catastrophe sweeping across the nation while his electorate literally burned.
It was unedifying stuff, but just as it had for Morrison, fear around the pandemic caused a lot of people to forget the damage Kelly had done to himself during the bushfire crisis. But unlike Morrison, where the pandemic was concerned Kelly wasn’t prepared to take the win and quietly ‘defer to the science’. Instead, he began using his social media accounts to push fringe theories on how to survive the ‘Great Plandemic’. Chief among his recommendations were claims that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin, a horse wormer, could stop Covid-19 in its tracks, both claims which have since been utterly debunked.
All along, Morrison had tried ignoring Kelly’s increasingly strident claims, but by the end of 2020, Kelly’s posts were openly contradicting federal government advice which was, of course, informed by the nation’s most senior scientists.
Then, a year into the pandemic, and after amassing more than 100,000 followers, Kelly was finally banned from Facebook for spreading vaccine misinformation. Sensing a chink in the Liberal armour, and perhaps even a stirring of her own leadership ambitions, former deputy Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek pounced.
On the morning of February 2, 2021 Plibersek staged an impromptu press conference, and while she was lining up the Member for Hughes, who should come barrelling along the halls of the press gallery but the man himself, Mr Craig Kelly.
KELLY: You making any big announcements?
PLIBERSEK: Yes, I’m actually, I’m actually, telling them that the PM needs to stop you spreading these crazy conspiracy theories….
KELLY: Did you hear about Professor Clancy? You’ve gotta listen to our most senior immunologist Tanya, is Professor Robert Clancy (sic). Listen to him. Go and get his stuff. Read what he’s saying, and you’ll find out. And then you can come and apologise to us.
PLIBERSEK: My mum lives in your electorate and I don’t want her exposed to people who are not going to be vaccinated because of these crazy conspiracy theories that you’re spreading.
Politicians generally only play the ‘family card’ when they’re really desperate, and not usually 30 seconds into an exchange. So it’s pretty obvious Plibersek had been thinking about her ‘intervention’ for some time. And that’s deeply perplexing, because according to an Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) study from 2017, when the pandemic hit Australia, Plibersek’s electorate had some of the worst vaccination rates in the country, a fact that must have been well known to its local member.
In 2011-12, the postcode ‘2000’ – literally, the suburb of Sydney, after which Plibersek’s electorate is named – had the equal worst vaccination rate for one-year-olds in the country (between 70 and 74 percent). The goal, for the record, is 95 percent. Even worse, for five-year-olds during the same period, the rate was below 70 per cent.
According to the AIHW, only a handful of other postcodes around the nation were able to match the appallingly low rates in Plibersek’s electorate, and it wasn’t just restricted to one suburb. The postcode 2011 – which includes Potts Point, Elizabeth Bay, Woolloomooloo and Rushcutters Bay – also recorded rates below 70 per cent. Ultimo, Chippendale, Darlington, Pyrmont, Surry Hills, Darlinghurst, Waterloo and Zetland, all wealthy inner-city suburbs in Plibersek’s electorate, recorded rates below 80 percent.
At this point, you might be wondering what the vaccination rates were for suburbs in Craig Kelly’s electorate? The short answer is ‘the equal highest rates in the country’. Right across Hughes, suburbs such as Sutherland, Kirrawee, Loftus, Kareela, Grays Point, Engadine, Heathcote, Woronora Heights, Yarrawarrah, Waterfall, Menai, Illawong, Bangor, Barden Ridge, Alfords Point, Voyager Point, Sandy Point, Pleasure Point, Wattle Grove, Holsworthy, Jannali, Como, Bonnet Bay, Oyster Bay boasted vaccination rates of 95 to 100 per cent.
Those numbers are for child vaccinations, and they’re pre-pandemic, so you might also be wondering how the subsequent Covid-19 vaccination roll-out fared? According to the Commonwealth, it mirrored the attitudes to vaccination exposed by the AIHW study. The numbers don’t neatly match – the AIHW looked specifically at federal electorates, while the Commonwealth data is broken down into Local Government Areas (local councils). But comparisons, while a little clumsy, can be made… although Plibersek probably wishes they couldn’t be.
The Local Government Area (LGA) of Sutherland Shire, which takes in the largest part of Craig Kelly’s former electorate, had the equal highest vaccination rate in the entire nation, exceeding 95 per cent of the population aged over 16.
The Sydney LGA – which takes in large chunks of Plibersek’s electorate – had the fourth worst vaccination rate in NSW at just 88 per cent, and the 375th worst in the nation, out of a possible 411.
In other words, Tanya’s mum was comparatively safe throughout the pandemic provided she stayed within Craig Kelly’s electorate, and didn’t go visit her daughter for dinner.
I mentioned earlier that Plibersek must have been aware of the criminally low vaccination rates of children in her own electorate. How do we know this? Well, the punchline is that for a two-year period in the AIHW study, Plibersek served as the Minister for Health and Medical Research… i.e. she was the single most senior person in the nation responsible for public confidence in Australia’s vaccination program.
Still, all’s fair in politics and pandemics, right? Speaking of which….
It’s all about the confidence, stupid
If you held a gun to the head of an Australian bureaucrat and demanded they create a system that, under close scrutiny, could undermine public confidence in vaccines, then they might come up with something that looks very much like what we have today. Or you could just do this.
The footage is from a federal parliamentary inquiry earlier this month, when Queensland Liberal National Party senator Gerard Rennick attempted to get a straight answer from pharmaceutical giant Pfizer about why Comirnaty, their Covid-19 vaccine, had been linked to widespread instances of cardiac inflammation, such as Myocarditis or Pericarditis. The phrase ‘drawing blood from a stone’ leaps to mind.
By way of very brief background, Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle, and Pericarditis an inflammation of tissue that surrounds the heart. There’s also Myopericarditis which, as the name suggests, is a combination of both. Any one of them are considered a serious condition and should get emergency attention, although once treated the result is usually complete recovery within a few days.
The reason Pfizer is under scrutiny by Senator Rennick – and he’s not alone, the company has been pursued in parliamentary inquiries all over the world – is because Comirnaty is an mRNA vaccine, and more than other Covid-19 vaccines, mRNAs have been linked to cardiac inflammation. This article from the renowned Mayo Clinic in the US explains the different types of vaccines very well, but briefly and in very simplistic terms:
mRNA vaccines deliver a copy of a virus’ genetic code, rather than a portion of the actual virus itself. Pfizer (Comirnaty) and Moderna (Spikevax) are mRNAs;
Vector vaccines (AstraZeneca, also known as Vaxzevria) place a modified version of the Covid-19 virus into a harmless host virus, which stimulates your body to create antibodies;
Protein subunit vaccines (Novavax) include only parts of a vaccine that best stimulate your immune system. Some people consider these types of vaccines the most safe.
mRNA technology is considered an easier way to make vaccines. It hadn’t been widely used until the pandemic came along, hence it’s considered by some to be ‘untested’ and ‘controversial’. In fact, the technology has been around since the 1960s. In the 1990s, it was used to create vaccines for Ebola – one of the deadliest viruses known to humans – but, of course, Ebola outbreaks have so far been restricted to Africa, where mostly black people live. So commercial development of mRNA technology stalled, until Covid-19 came along.
A publication like New Matilda isn’t going to resolve the debate around mRNA vaccines any time soon, but if you’re inclined, there are more cogent arguments ‘for and against’ here.
One of the things that is clear is that “mRNA and viral vector vaccines more often elicit transient mild to moderate side effects than other vaccine types”, according to a prominent Australian vaccine safety surveillance organisation. We’ll get to them a little later, but back to the Senate….
SENATOR GERARD RENNICK: Okay, so initially when the vaccine was rolled out, Myocarditis and Pericarditis wasn’t a recognised side effect. Does Pfizer understand why the vaccine causes Myocarditis and Pericarditis, and if not how then can it guarantee that it’s not also injuring other organs? And can you explain the process why the vaccine causes Myocarditis and Pericarditis?
Dr KRISHAN THIRU, PFIZER: Based on our clinical trials and pharmacovigilance data, as well as real world evidence following the distribution now of billions of doses of vaccine, we retain confidence, strong confidence, in the safety profile of the vaccine….
SENATOR RENNICK: [INTERRUPTING] Sorry Chair, point of order. I’ve asked, do you understand why it causes – I know that it’s a low risk – I’m asking do you understand why it causes Myocarditis? I want you to explain to me why it causes Myocarditis? Do you understand why it causes Myocarditis?
Dr THIRU: Pfizer is aware of very rare reports of Myocarditis and Pericarditis that have been temporarily associated with vaccination, however….
SENATOR RENNICK: [INTERRUPTING] Well, that’s still ongoing for some people.
COMMITTEE CHAIR TONY SHELDON: [INTERRUPTING] Senator Rennick, Dr Thiru should answer the question. Thank you Dr Thiru.
No prizes for guessing, Dr Thiru does not answer the question. Instead, in a scene straight out of a Yes Minister episode, he continues to simply recite from a prepared statement which has no relevance whatsoever to the question, while an increasingly exasperated Senator Rennick continues to interrupt.
In the end, Dr Thiru eventually concedes he doesn’t actually know the answer, which, frankly, is hard to believe. It seems more likely Dr Thiru just hasn’t been told what to say yet. Either way, he resolves to “take the question on notice”. The answer, I’ll guess, is some weeks or months away, if it ever arrives at all. But in the meantime, it’s worth correcting a few of the known ‘misdirections’ offered up by Dr Thiru.
Firstly, he tries to ‘share the blame’ by suggesting that ‘Pfizer is aware of very rare reports of Myocarditis and Pericarditis that have been temporarily associated with vaccination….’ In fact, cardiac inflammations, while linked to all Covid-19 vaccinations, have specifically been linked to mRNA vaccines like Pfizer (and Moderna) at much greater rates than other vaccines like AstraZeneca and Novavax. Pfizer has already admitted publicly (as has Moderna) that its vaccine causes cardiac inflammation.
Secondly, the phrase “very rare reports” is about as misleading a statement you can make without actually telling a bald-faced lie. We’ll come back to why shortly. In the interim, New Matilda contacted Pfizer to offer Dr Thiru the opportunity to answer the questions he clearly dodged. As you might have guessed, our emails were ignored. We did, however, receive a response from the Commonwealth government to a pile of questions about its response to Covid-19. The spin doctors from the federal Department of Health and Aged Care (DoHAC) appear to have taken a leaf out of Dr Thiru’s book.
Singapore vs Australia: who got it right?
In May 2021, a full three months before I got my second Pfizer jab, the Singaporean Government issued a public warning that citizens should “avoid strenuous exercise” for 12 to 24 hours after a Covid-19 vaccination. Singapore, if you hadn’t heard, was widely considered to be a leading nation in its response to the pandemic. It had the lowest Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of all ‘very highly developed’ nations on earth, at 290 deaths per million.
By June 11, Singapore had expanded that advice to avoid exercise for a full week, and by September – the month I happened to get my second Pfizer jab – Singapore was recommending no strenuous exercise for two weeks after the jab.
“As a precautionary measure, all individuals, especially adolescents and men below 30 years of age, who have received any dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, are advised to avoid strenuous physical activities such as running, weightlifting, competitive sports, or playing ball games for two weeks after the vaccination.”
I’m no adolescent, nor am I under 30. But at 49, I was a pretty fit, active guy. To recap briefly, two days after my second Pfizer shot, I went out for a surf – like I did every other day – and got into quite a bit of trouble. You can read more about that here, in Part 1 of this feature. Within six weeks I was being airlifted to a Brisbane hospital, and in the year and a bit since, as I’ve checked in and out of hospitals in two states and one territory, I’ve started to wonder more and more about that health warning from Singapore.
Specifically, I’ve wondered why they saw the need to issue it, and Australia didn’t? A journalist in New Zealand has wondered the same thing, noting that while no official notice came from the NZ Government, individual doctors were issuing advice against strenuous exercise after vaccination. I’ve heard the same anecdotal information regarding many Australian GPs. So I went to the federal Department of Health and Aged Care (DoHAC), and asked them: “Does the TGA have any comment on why the Singaporean Government issued a warning against vigorous exercise after a Covid-19 vaccine, but Australia did not issue this advice?”
It’s a pretty simple question… which DoHAC promptly ignored. Rather than explain why that advice wasn’t issued in Australia, DoHAC instead waffled on about who made the decision, which, if you were of suspicious mind, kind of looks like them pre-emptively throwing someone else under a bus:
“The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) advises the Minister for Health and Aged Care on the National Immunisation Program (NIP) and other immunisation issues. This includes clinical advice to medical practitioners and patients on how to administer and manage immunisation in clinical practice. ATAGI has developed specific guidance on Myocarditis and Pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccines, including advice on exercise. This guidance was produced with the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ), the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP), the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM), the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT).”
In other words, ‘We don’t know why Singapore issued that advice and Australia didn’t…’ or possibly, ‘We do know why, and we’re not going to tell you’. Either way, we still don’t know the answer to why Singapore advised citizens not to exercise, and Australia didn’t. But we do know this: someone is almost certainly going to turn out to be wrong, and I have a feeling in my bones it’s not going to be Singapore.
I also know this: when a government agency so blatantly ignores a simple question, there’s usually a reason for that. So I’ll either wait for a leak (‘deepthroats’ can contact me via Signal or Telegram on 0407 555 328), or I’ll slip some questions to a friendly politician for the next Senate hearing (Senator Rennick, expect a call sometime soon).
In the meantime, there’s some other ‘conflicts between nations’ – or rather, conflicting approaches to the pandemic – that warrant closer inspection.
Canada vs Australia: who got it right, eh?
By early 2021, a year after the pandemic started, Australia was poised to begin rolling out our national immunisation program. Our first planeload of Pfizer vaccines – 142,000 doses in all – touched down in Sydney on February 15. Coincidentally, they made it here via a Singapore Airlines flight.
One week later, people were getting jabbed, including Scott Morrison, whose standing in the polls, coincidentally, had recently started to head south, courtesy of the federal government’s repeated failures to meet self-imposed timelines for the vaccine roll-out.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison receiving his second Covid-19 vaccination jab, in early 2021.
Around the same time, the Delta variant of Covid-19 was starting to take hold, so there was growing pressure on health authorities to get vaccines into arms as quickly as possible. One of the measures they adopted to speed things up was to reduce the gap between first and second doses for the AstraZeneca vaccine, from 12 weeks to between four to eight weeks. This was also around the time AstraZeneca was developing an increasingly bad reputation, after several early deaths were directly linked to the vaccine.
I remember wondering at the time, what might that haste actually cost us? Is it safe to get two jabs closer together? Surely, if the ideal time is three months apart, then it’s better to wait? But obviously, there’s a reason I don’t serve on Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisations (ATAGI) which made the call, and that’s that I know bugger all about immunisations.
I also remember feeling that the growing criticism of Morrison and the Commonwealth was a bit harsh. My thinking was partly influenced by the fact this was a pandemic – a first for everyone – and that the only certainty was things were going to go wrong. But my view was mostly influenced by what New Matilda’s Geoff Russell wrote about how poorer countries without the buying power of their richer neighbours might access vaccines.
Geoff argued that if wealthy nations gobbled up all the vaccines as quickly as possible, deaths in poorer nations would be even higher: “The Economist this week had a special feature on the impact of the virus in poor countries; they noted that Uganda had more cabinet ministers than ICU beds. We don’t only have to halt this virus for our own benefit, but for everybody’s. We really are all in this together.”
Apparently, Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, doesn’t read Geoff Russell or New Matilda, because it subsequently emerged that his ‘left-wing’ government did what Australians did when it came to toilet paper: it panicked. By the end of 2020, Trudeau had signed seven different contractual arrangements for vaccines, and in the process secured Canada up to 414 million vaccine doses… for a population of just 38 million. In other words, screw the poor.
Ironically, in one of those ‘careful what you wish for’ moments that you generally only ever see in Hollywood films, by early 2021, Canada found itself trailing most of the rest of the first world’s vaccination rollout. Very badly.
In fact, they were doing even worse than Australia was, and that’s because in trying to gobble up all the vaccines he could find, Trudeau had been forced to order from Europe, not his neighbours in the United States. And that’s because US president Donald Trump was engaged in the same game of political populism as Trudeau, with threats to ban vaccine exports under his ‘America First’ policy.
Europe, to a lesser extent, did the same thing by prioritising its own citizens, and so Canada found itself stuck with a huge back order of vaccines that it mostly didn’t need, that it also couldn’t fill, and that it would ultimately not need.
In the end, it meant that while nations like Australia were reducing the time gap between first and second doses with AstraZeneca, over in Canada they were increasing the time gap for two Pfizer shots from three weeks to a whopping four months, more than five times longer than the recommended gap by the Pfizer clinical trials. Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunisation (NACI) explained:
“… In the context of limited COVID-19 vaccine supply, jurisdictions should maximize the number of individuals benefiting from the first dose of vaccine by extending the interval for the second dose of vaccine up to four months. [This creates] opportunities for protection of the entire adult population within a short timeframe… [and will also]contribute to health equity.”
In laymen’s terms, Canada’s strategy was to get ‘less of the vaccine’ in more arms, thus providing a greater proportion of the population at least some protection. But there’s a rub, and it’s the sort of thing you never see in Hollywood films.
According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, Canada’s initial greed turned out to be a ‘stroke of good fortune’. Not only did the gap between doses increase the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine by stimulating a stronger immune response, but according to a study subsequently published on medRxiv, the further apart the first and second doses of mRNA vaccines were administered, the lower the rate of injury.
Canadian PM Justin Trudeau.
“Overall reporting rates were higher when the inter-dose interval was shorter (less than 30 days) for both vaccine products,” the report discovered.
Injury, in particular cardiac inflammation, was found to be significantly higher after the second dose, and the reason why was surprisingly simple: the viral load in the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) was quite high, so waiting longer between doses gave the body time to adjust.
And there you have it: in seeking to ingratiate himself with Canadian voters by screwing over the rest of the world, Justin Trudeau had actually protected them from greater harm. Although harm is all relative, of course. Because the same study also found this:
“The highest reporting rate of Myocarditis/pericarditis was observed in males aged 18-24 years following [Moderna] as the second dose; the rate in this age group was 5.1 times higher than the rate following [Pfizer] as the second dose.”
In other words, the mRNA vaccines caused the highest rates of cardiac inflammation in the people least likely to suffer harm from Covid-19 itself. Although that’s not what you would have come to understand if you relied on the spin put out by Big Pharma and government officials, particularly in Australia.
Rare is in the eye of the beholder
Pharmaceutical companies, media outlets and governments around the world have been at pains to point out that dangerous reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines – also known as ‘adverse events’ – are ‘rare’ or ‘very rare’. What they don’t tell you is what ‘rare’ or ‘very rare’ actually means, numerically speaking.
Helpfully, the United Nation’s World Health Organisation (WHO) does. A chart which outlines the categories reveals that any adverse event – and that can include anything from a sore arm where you got the jab, all the way to death – occurring at a rate of greater than ‘one in 1,000’ is considered ‘rare’; and anything occurring at greater than ‘one in 10,000’ is considered ‘very rare’.
Or course, like beauty, the perception of what is and isn’t ‘rare’ or ‘very rare’ is in the eye of the beholder. And to no small degree, it depends on what you’re being asked to do or accept.
If I told you that out of 1001 planes sitting on a tarmac, one of them was going to crash and burn, now pick which one you want to fly in, you’d probably choose to drive instead. Suddenly, ‘one in 1001’ doesn’t seem so rare.
Of course, during the pandemic, Australians weren’t being asked to choose between a ‘one in 1001’ chance between life and death. For most of us, we were being asked to choose between the risk of an ‘adverse event’, most of which were extremely mild, and a virus, which had a reasonably good chance of making us very sick.
Ordinarily, that would feel like a pretty simple choice, and traditionally high vaccination rates in Australia suggest it is. But problkems start when governments spin data to try and strengthen public confidence. Like the federal government did when I emailed them a pile of questions earlier this year about incidences of cardiac inflammation after Covid-19 vaccination (you can read all the questions from New Matilda, and the government’s response, here).
DoHAC’s answers were consistent with information already promoted throughout the pandemic, including daily Covid-19 vaccine safety reports from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the government agency that oversees vaccine distribution and safety in Australia:
“Myocarditis and Pericarditis (inflammation of the heart or membrane around the heart) are known but very rare side effects of COVID-19 vaccination. Myocarditis is reported in around1-2 in every 100,000 people who receive Comirnaty (Pfizer) and around 2 in every 100,000 of those who receive Spikevax (Moderna).”
The emphasis is mine, because while the claims are technically correct, they’re also deeply misleading, which is exactly what they were calculated to be, and how they got there is a master class in spin.
Firstly, isolate the figures to one condition, for example ‘Myocarditis’. Don’t mention Myopericarditis or Pericarditis, the latter of which had a reporting rate three times that of Myocarditis. And whatever you do, don’t give a figure for ‘cardiac inflammation’, which, while obviously more accurate and relevant would reveal a considerably higher number of injuries.
Secondly, talk about ‘doses’, not actual people. You can do this by only providing figures for adverse events associated with the second dose of the vaccine. Don’t mention figures for the first dose as well, in other words, don’t combine the figures for the first and second doses. And don’t even think about including figures from third, fourth etc doses. This avoids giving a ‘total number of people injured by the vaccine’, and limits the number to a much more narrow band.
Thirdly, and most importantly, quote figures from across the entire Australian population, rather than specific age groups.
For example, while it’s true to say ‘Myocarditis is reported in around 1-2 in every 100,000 people who received an mRNA vaccine’ it’s also correct to say that boys aged 12 to 17 years who received an mRNA vaccine experienced cardiac inflammation in about one in every 4,200 cases. That’s one hell of a long way from ‘1-2 in every 100,000’. And it still only relates to one condition (just Myocarditis, not Pericarditis as well) and one dose (the second).
It’s also true that men aged 18 to 29 may have experienced cardiac inflammation at rates of about one in 3,333. And in all likelihood, even those rates are grossly understated, and we’ll come to why in a minute, because as alarming as the real numbers are, it would be unfair not to emphasize that while authorities acknowledge cardiac inflammation is no trifling matter, “cases are usually mild and resolve within a few days”.
So said DoHAC, who added that the TGA was “carefully monitoring and reviewing reports of these adverse events and publishes fortnightly updates in the COVID-19 vaccine safety report. ATAGI continues to emphasise that the protective benefits of the mRNA vaccines far outweigh the rare risk of these side effects”.
Notably, this study published in 2021 found that the risk of people aged under 20 developing Myocarditis from an actual Covid-19 infection was more than twice that of the known risk from vaccination: in males aged 16-19 it was as high as one in 1,666, which is getting close to ‘uncommon’, rather than the ubiquitous and far less scary ‘rare’.
That argument however, is seriously undermined by the reality that the vaccines largely didn’t prevent transmission or contraction of Covid-19. So, risking cardiac inflammation from vaccination to remove or significantly reduce the risk of cardiac inflammation from the disease itself is a moot point, because you’re basically risking cardiac inflammation twice.
Of course, vaccines weren’t aimed at just preventing cardiac inflammation, and they did, undeniably, make people who subsequently got the disease less sick. But to add literal insult to injury, even the ‘bad’ vaccination figures which reflect high rates of injury don’t tell the full story.
Bring out your dead
Believe it or not, there’s no universal agreement on how best to monitor vaccine injury across Australia. Known as an ‘Adverse Event Following Immunisation (AEFI)’, it is mandatory for health providers in NSW, Western Australia, Queensland, Northern Territory and the ACT to notify authorities if they believe a vaccine or medicine may have caused harm. It is not mandatory in South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania.
Ostensibly to plug that gap, in 2012 the Commonwealth set up a public website where everyone – health officials, pharmaceutical companies, and especially members of the public – could report their suspicions around vaccine and medicine injury. Called the Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN), entries are de-identified and then released to the public in a searchable database 14 days after they’re “accepted” by health officials.
The DAEN has been relied on by pharmaceutical companies, health authorities and successive federal governments as a key component in the ongoing effort to promote public confidence in vaccine safety. But in truth, the data collected by the website is complete rubbish, a reality the TGA all but acknowledges with a caveat on its website.
“We encourage people to report even if there is only a very small chance that a medicine was the cause. These reports are entered into the database without being confirmed or assessed to determine if they are caused by a medicine. Many of the reports are made voluntarily and may be incomplete or inaccurate.”
That’s somewhat of an understatement. But let’s have a look at the numbers regardless, before we delve into the detail, which on this occasion is where the devil is hanging out.
Pre-pandemic, in a ‘good’ year, the DAEN might get about 21,000 or so reports of ‘adverse events’ where medicines or vaccines are suspected as the cause. But in 2021, after the Covid-19 vaccines arrived in Australia, reporting exploded.
The DAEN is what’s known as a ‘passive’ vaccine surveillance system because, in effect, the federal government is 'passively' relying on you, the public (along with doctors, nurses, health workers etc) to come to them and tell them ‘what happened’. You can probably guess how that might go, particularly amidst the panic of a pandemic.
In the first six months of the vaccine roll-out – February to August 2021 – the DAEN received 2,316 reports from ‘chest pain’ after vaccination was listed as the adverse event. Over the same period, there were 1,208 reports of ‘palpitations’; 977 reports of ‘tachycardia’ (which means a rapid heartbeat); 875 reports of Hypertension (high blood pressure); 113 reports of ‘Troponin increased’ (which suggests a cardiac problem); and 295 cases of ‘Hypotension’ (low blood pressure).
At the same time, there was 1,154 reports of ‘chest discomfort’, which sounds an awful lot like ‘chest pain’; 423 reports of ‘heart rate increased’ (another way of saying ‘Tachycardia’); 508 reports of ‘blood pressure increased’ (also known as ‘Hypertension’); 99 cases of ‘blood pressure decreased’, aka ‘Hypotension’; and at least five additional listings describing ‘Troponin’ in various ways. There were separate listings for heart murmurs; for heart flutters; for heart attacks; for Myocardial infarctions; for Atrial fibrillation; for Bradycardia and slow heart beats; and it goes on, and on and on, with almost 4,000 separate entries.
You can probably see where this is heading: the repetition in the DAEN almost beggars belief, to the point where it renders the data absolutely worthless. It’s basically a free-for-all when it comes to naming adverse events.
That appears to be how 15 people came up with “hangover” as an adverse event. While it may ultimately transpire that Covid-19 vaccines are bad for your heart, they almost certainly shouldn’t get you drunk. Having said that, so far 32 people have reported that’s how they felt after their vaccination. Another 33 revealed their jabs caused an adverse event known as “crying”, and 14 reported “hunger”, one of whom claims to have died shortly thereafter.
One person listed “moaning” as their adverse event, but on the upside, another reported their “exercise tolerance increased” (somebody should let the World Doping Agency know that Covid-19 vaccines can knock time off your 100-metre sprint).
One of the more puzzling entries was “drowning”, which, curiously, was not listed as a case where “death was a reported outcome”. But by far my favourite entry was a claim that the Pfizer vaccine gave someone “Genital herpes zoster”, which sounds a bit like Mary trying to explain to Joseph how the Virgin birth came about. Or in this case, ‘I swear to God honey, I got genital herpes from the Covid-19 vaccine….’
It’s also a free for all when it comes to categorising adverse events. As you might expect, many of the cardiac issues that arose were listed under the category ‘Cardiac disorders’. But tens of thousands were listed under other categories, including ‘vascular disorders’, ‘general disorders and administration site conditions’, and ‘Investigations’. Under the category ‘Injury’ you’ll find almost 800 pointless entries for ‘Adverse event following immunisation’… on a database set up specifically to register ‘Adverse Events Following Immunisation’.
The practical effect of this kind of ‘Choose your own adventure/medical condition’ is that anyone seeking to inform themselves about the safety of a vaccine – which is why the DAEN purports to be publicly available in the first place – needs a degree in mathematics to make any sense of it, before they quickly realize that no-one, not even someone with a degree in mathematics, could ever make any sense of it.
The information in the form its presented to the public is not only worthless, but leaves itself open to abuse by individuals and groups seeking to undermine public confidence in Australia’s immunisation program (more on them in Part 3 of this special series).
Speaking of confidence…
What the Database of Adverse Event Notifications lacks in quality, it absolutely does not make up for in quantity. According to a February 2021 paper published in Australian Prescriber, “Probably less than 5% of adverse reactions are reported, even in countries where reporting is mandatory.” And just a reminder, Australia is not a country where reporting is mandatory in all jurisdictions.
During the pandemic, AusVaxSafety reached out directly via email and phone to Australians who’d been vaccinated, almost five million of them in the first six months of the vaccine roll-out (February 22 to August 31, 2021). 3,035,983 of them responded.
As AusVaxSafety itself acknowledges, there’s likely to be a bias towards people who suffered an adverse event: “People experiencing AEFI may be more motivated to respond, inflating the apparent frequency of AEFI. Conversely, those with severe AEFI may be less able to respond.”
However it comes out in the wash, a survey that motivates just over three million people to share their recent vaccination experience is, by any reckoning, a massive sample size, and an impressive feat.
Here’s what AusVaxSafety found: “… 35.9% of respondents reported one or more AEFI… up to three days after the first Comirnaty dose; 54.7 per cent after the second Comirnaty dose; 52.8 per cent after the first Vaxzevria dose; and 22 per cent after the second Vaxzevria dose.”
So what does that mean in raw numbers? 1,300,162 people reported an adverse event shortly after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. It’s important to acknowledge what those adverse events mostly were: “Local pain, fatigue, headache, and myalgia were the most frequently reported symptoms.”
So they were mild adverse events. But equally, it’s ridiculous to think that if the level of mild reactions increases exponentially the more you ask people, the level of more serious reactions won’t also increase, even if its likely to increase at gentler rate.
Over the same period of time, the ‘passive’ DAEN system logged 60,780 events, a tiny percentage of what the active surveillance system found. And bear in mind, the AusVaxSafety numbers only cover the first six months of the roll-out, a period when less than one-third of the Australian population had been vaccinated, and they only reached about 25 per cent of the estimated number of people vaccinated.
Now here’s the rub: 28,298 of those people – almost ‘one in every 100’ surveyed, and more than 'one in 50' who reported an adverse event - were so unwell they required ‘medical review’ within three days of vaccination. Of those people, 17,065 returned to their doctor, and 5,107 ended up presenting to hospital.
As shocking as that might sound, when you boil it all down, vaccine safety really is just a numbers game. In crude terms, it’s about how many people you can save, versus how many you harm along the way. Big Pharma calls it the ‘benefit-risk ratio’, although politicians tend to view it more like ‘what you can get away with’.
If you’re Scott Morrison, numbers are about polling and how popular you are. Or if you’re Tanya Plibersek, they're about trying to make someone else’s electorate look more dangerous than yours. For Craig Kelly, numbers can help you make crackpot ‘cures’ look safer than they really are. And if you’re a large government department charged with safeguarding public confidence in our health system, then numbers might be useful to convince a journalist that ‘only about 1-2 in every 100,000 people’ developed Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine.
From my perspective, numbers are much more personal, because if you’d told me way back in September 2021, just before I had my second Pfizer jab, that ‘about 1-2 in every 100 responders’ to a massive vaccine safety survey would need to seek medical help within three days of receiving their second dose of Pfizer, well, I’m not so sure I’d have agreed to take it.
And if you’d told me that of those people, about one in every eight of them would end up in a hospital emergency department, just like I did, well….
See what I did there?
Part 3 – the final edition of this special investigation - will be published in New Matilda on August 31. In the meantime, you can support Chris' work, and that of New Matilda, by making a one-off contribution here, or by subscribing here.
Upon this big boat rests prayers, hopes, longings, struggles, dreams, and ideals with a profound sense of justice, peace, and dignity.
According to Reverend Dr Yoman, the ULMWP is a symbol of unity among the Papuan people. It is a representation of their collective desires and relentless pursuit of justice.
Reverend Dr Socratez Yoman . . . a Papuan public figure, leader, academic, church leader, prolific writer, and media commentator. Image: Yamin Kogoya/APR
Therefore, West Papuans living in the Land of West Papua, including those living abroad, all pray, hope, and support ULMWP. It is the responsibility of the nation of West Papua and its people to safeguard, maintain, care for, and protect ULMWP as their common home.
Because ULMWP provides a collective shelter for many tears, blood droplets, bones, and the suffering of West Papua.
Reverend Dr Yoman says in his message to me that I have translated that the ULMWP carries the spirits of our ancestors, fallen heroes, and comrades. The ULMWP is the home of their spirits, and he wrote some of their names as follows:
Johan Ariks
Lodewijk Mandacan
Barens Mandacan
Ferry Awom
Permenas Awom
Aser Demotekay
Bernandus Tanggahma
Seth Jafet Rumkorem
Jacob Prai
Herman Womsiwor
Markus Kaisiepo
Eliezer Bonay
Nicolaas Jouwe
F. Torrey,
Nicolass Tanggahma
Dick Kereway
Melky Solossa
Samuel Asmuruf
Mapia Mote
James Nyaro
Lambert Wakur
S.B. Hindom,
Louis Wajoi
Tadius Yogi
Martin Tabu
Arnold Clemens Ap
Eduard Mofu
Willem Onde
Moses Weror
Clemens Runaweri
Andy Ayamiseba
John Octo Ondowame
Thomas Wapay Wanggai
Wim Zonggonauw
Yawan Wayeni
Kelly Kwalik
Justin Morip
Beatrix Watofa
Agus Alue Alua
Frans Wospakrik
Theodorus Hiyo Eluay
Aristotle Masoka
Tom Beanal
Neles Tebay
Mako Tabuni
Leoni Tanggahma
Samuel Filep Karma
Prisila Jakadewa
Babarina Ikari
Vonny Jakadewa
Mery Yarona and Reny Jakadewa (the courageous female spirits who raised the Morning Star flag at the Governor’s Office on August 4, 1980).
Also, the spirit of Josephin Gewab/Rumawak, the tailor who created the Morning Star flag.
In honour of these fallen Papuan heroes and leaders, Reverend Yoman says:
“It is you, the young generation, who carry forward the baton left by the names and spirits of these fighters, as well as the hundreds and thousands of others who have not been named.
“If there is someone who fights and opposes the political platform of the ULMWP, that individual is questionable and is damaging the big house and the big boat, which contains the tears, blood, bones, and suffering of the People and Nation of Papua as well as the spirits of our ancestors and leaders.
“The eyes and faces of the LORD, the spirits of our ancestors, and the spirits of our leaders who have passed on always guard, protect, and nurture the honest, humble, and respectful members of the ULMWP.”
By this message, he urges the ULMWP to never forget these names and stand bravely with courage on their shoulders.
Reverend Yoman’s letter: a brief comment Indigenous people view life as a system of interconnected relationships between beings, spirits, deities, humans, animals, plants, and the celestial heavens.
Their holistic cosmology is held together by this interconnectedness — a sacred passageway to multidimensional realities. Although Indigenous cosmologies differ, most, if not all, subscribe to the tenet of interconnectedness.
Having a strong connection to one’s ancestors’ roots is an integral part of being Indigenous.
During times of need, rituals, and grief, ancestral and fallen heroes are mentioned and invoked. A specific ancestor’s name may be mentioned in response to a specific situation, such as grief, conflict, sacred ceremonies, or rituals.
This helps to connect modern generations to the ancestral spirits, providing a source of strength and guidance while honouring the legacy of those who have gone before.
Those who adhere to original cultural values understand why Reverend Dr Yoman mentioned some of these Papuans.
In the chronicle of Papuans’ liberation story, these names are mentioned.
There were some who suffered martyrdom, some who became traitors, who died of old age, and others who died from disease. However, they all have stories connected to West Papua’s Liberation.
Mentioning these names is intended to invoke a specific energy within the consciousness of West Papua’s independence leaders. Inviting the new generation of fighters to take up the cause of their fallen comrades.
It is important to encourage Papuans to see the greater picture of a nation’s liberation struggle — which spans generations. Calling on them to revive their minds, spirits, and bodies through the spirit of fallen Papuans and the spirit of Divine during times of turmoil.
Who is Rev Dr Yoman and why did he mention these names? Most people are familiar with Reverend Dr Yoman. He is everywhere — on television, on the news, known in churches, involved in human rights activism, mentioned in public speeches, appears in seminars, and lectures and so on.
He is well known, or at least heard of, by the Papuan and Indonesian communities, as well as the broader community.
Reverend Dr Socratez Sofyan Yoman is a public figure, leader, academic, church leader, prolific writer, and media commentator. He is a descendant of the Lani people of Papua.
He is one of the seeds of the civilisation project launched by Christian missionaries in the Highlands between the 1930s and 1960s. His life has been shaped by four significant events in his homeland — the teachings of his elders, the arrival of Christianity, Indonesian invasions, and the resistance of the Papuans.
He rose to become an exceptionally accomplished thinker, speaker, writer, and critic of injustice, oppression, and upholds humanity’s values as taught by the Judeo-Christian worldview within these collusions of worlds.
Growing up among Lani village elders taught him many sacred teachings of the original ways — centred around Wone’s teachings. This is one of the most important aspects of his story.
Wone is the cornerstone of life for the Lani people. Wone is the principle of life and the foundation for analysing, interpreting, evaluating, debating, understanding, and exchanging life.
As with many other Lani, Papuan, Melanesian, and Indigenous leaders, Wone is the reason for his birth, survival, and leadership. He has thus a deep sense of duty and responsibility to serve and fight for his people, as well as other marginalised and oppressed members of society.
Reverend Dr Yoman stands firmly in his beliefs in the face of grief, tragedies, and death in his ancestral homeland. His commitment is unwavering, as he continually strives to stand up for and protect the rights of those who are most vulnerable and in need of a voice.
Wone has inspired him to lead a life of purpose and integrity, making him a pillar of strength and an example to others. In a dying forest, he becomes the voice of the falling leaves.
Among his greatest contributions to West Papua, Indonesia, and the world, will be his writings. Generations to come will remember his research and writings regarding history and the fate of his people.
West Papua will be high on the agenda at the Melanesian Spearhead Group Leaders’ Summit in Vanuatu this week.
West Papua’s United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) is also present in Vanuatu. Other factions have arrived and are on their way to witness MSG’s decision on West Papua’s fate as well as their own leaders’ summit.
A feeling of anxiety pervades Reverend Dr Yoman as he prays — prompting him to write this letter as he recognises the many challenges ULMWP faces and warns them that they cannot afford even the slightest misstep.
This is the time inspiring Papuans and the ULWMP leadership must remember their fallen comrades, heroes and ancestors.
Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Debate has flared up in Victorian media recently over the merits (or otherwise) of a three-day working week. Jeet Singh, a year 8 student from Melbourne, throws in her two cents worth.
Recently, a light has been shone on the voices of those who say there should be a three-day weekend. However, the introduction of a three-day weekend would be a disadvantage to people.
Owing to the working day week being shortened to four days, it means that many departments and businesses will close for the day off. This means that there will be less work to be done, affecting many sectors of the economy such as trade, education, manufacturing, finance, tourism, construction, etc.
That will cause Australia’s economy to be seen as less competitive, and we will have to surrender to other progressing economies such as the United States, Japan, and China. For Australia’s economy to thrive and be seen as a serious competitor globally, a three-day weekend should not be established.
A three-day weekend can significantly increase the average household’s spending. People may find themselves spending a lot of money on shopping, tickets to sporting events, restaurant bills, and more. This unnecessary spending of money can put many people under financial stress or can make it difficult to pay necessities like mortgages, rent, or bills.
Also, a three-day weekend would be detrimental to young people’s education. Teachers might be already under enormous pressure to do everything they have to teach in a limited amount of time, which is why they must skim or skip certain topics to fit in with more important ones. Skipping certain topics and ignoring them causes gaps in a student’s learning, and they may struggle to pass certain exams and attain qualifications.
Some would argue that a three-day weekend would reduce work travel and thus carbon emissions. However, as many people leave their homes to engage in other activities or forms of entertainment, a significant proportion of them will travel by car. Conversely, more fossil fuels are emitted as cars travel longer distances than simply just commuting to work, such as weekend trips.
In conclusion, a three-day weekend should not be considered. It disproportionately damages young people’s learning, increases unnecessary spending, and can wreak havoc on the economy.
If the average person thinks that a well-educated, less financially stressful, economically prosperous lifestyle is a healthy one, then we should not be instituting three-day weekends.
The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) Aotearoa, the longest running women’s peace group in New Zealand, has called on the Japanese government to change its plan to release treated nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station into the Pacific Ocean.
The protest comes as Pacific leaders remain undecided over the controversial — and widely condemned — Japanese move as reports suggest the start of the wastewater release could begin in the next few days.
“Releasing more radioactive materials is a wilful act of harm that will spread further radioactive contamination into the global environment,”said WILPF in its protest letter sent to Japanese Ambassador Ito Koichi last weekend.
“The treated water contains tritium, which cannot be removed. Tritium will be dumped into the ocean for several decades.
“There has been no assessment of future biological impacts. Nor has there been a review of less expensive and safer alternatives.”
An RNZ Pacific report said today that the past, present and future Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) chairs — known as “the Troika” — had not decided if they were for or against the imminent discharge.
The Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) meeting in Port Vila, Vanuatu, this week has been urged to call on Japan to drop plans for the wastewater release.
Accident reminder
WILPF reminded the Japanese government in its protest letter that after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami which caused the accident at the power station, the radioactive contaminated water was treated by a multi-nuclide removal system (ALPS) and stored in more than 1000 tanks on the power plant site.
It also reminded Tokyo of its pledge about Fukushima at the time.
The Japanese government and the operating company, TEPCO, stated that this water would not be disposed of in any way without the understanding of the concerned parties and would be stored on land.
The London Convention, which Japan ratified in 1980, strictly regulates the dumping of radioactive waste into the ocean.
“Therefore,” said the protest letter, “the release of treated water is a violation of international law.
“Such an action would also damage the trust between Japan and its neighbours and the Pacific Islands.”
It’s 2023 – four decades since Bob Hawke won office, introduced Medicare, and then corrupted his own creation. And yet despite overwhelming scientific and medical consensus of the harm it causes children, Australia still subsidises male circumcision, writes Chris Coughran.
“Every Australian, from newborn babe to prime minister, can share in the cheapest, simplest, and fairest health insurance scheme Australia’s ever had,” Bob Hawke boasted in 1984. But by July of the following year, Hawke was personally intervening in health department affairs in order to create loopholes in the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS).
The issue was neonatal circumcision, and its planned removal from the MBS on 1 July 1985. Such a swift policy excision had been the legally, ethically, medically, and fiscally responsible course of action recommended to health minister Neal Blewett by the Australian College of Paediatrics, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the MBS Revision Committee.
Although widely applauded, the decision did not go down well with people of the book, especially the Jewish community in Melbourne.
Blewett recalls Hawke telephoning to berate him for signing off on this particular aspect of Medicare reform: “You’ve united the Jews and the Moslems for the first time in a thousand years, and against us.”
“If it’s good enough for me it’s good enough for the MBS,” Hawke would summarily conclude correspondence with a senior health department official seeking advice on the matter from the prime minister’s office.
“I’m an Israeli,” Hawke had proclaimed to Blanche d’Alpuget two years earlier. “If I were to have my life again, I would want to be born a Jew.” Throughout the 1970s, as leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Hawke had visited Israel on several occasions, befriending the likes of Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.
East Jerusalem, Palestine, which remains under Israeli occupation. (IMAGE: Chris Graham, New Matilda)
Honorary Jewishness was effectively conferred in 1976, when “a forest of 10,000 trees on the southern side of Mount Carmel in northern Israel was named in Hawke’s honour.” Hawke was deeply moved by the gesture, but—according to Hawke’s most recent biographer, Troy Bramston:
“Rawdon Dalrymple, Australia’s ambassador to Israel from 1973 to 1975, revealed that Israeli leaders cultivated Hawke. “They regarded Bob as a bit naive,” he said. “They saw him as someone who is not a fool but swallows a line.” This view is backed up by a dispatch sent from the British High Commission to London after Hawke became prime minister. “Hawke seems to me to have been the archetypal sucker upon who the Israelis are always ready to seize, and to con, feeding uncritical minds with skilful Israeli propaganda,” John Mason wrote.”
At home, Hawke’s philosemitism was proudly on display, much to the consternation of Australian Labor Party (ALP) stalwarts including rival leader Bill Hayden. Hawke’s growing reputation as “a genuine legend” among the Australian Jewry fuelled speculation:
“… that Melbourne’s Jewish community had established a fund for Hawke to ensure that he had whatever he needed to make the transition into parliament. It was referred to as a political “nest egg.” He could use it for travel, accommodation and meeting policy experts.”
Hawke’s philosemitism, Bramston says, was “fostered by friendships he developed in the Melbourne business community.” It was also psychologically driven, by Hawke’s need of “atonement for past sins”.
Melbourne businessman Isi Leibler recalls Hawke confiding to him that he had once “engaged in an anti-Semitic act that nauseated him to such an extent that he was determined to compensate for [it]by showing his friendship to Jews.” Specifically, Hawke had once used antisemitic language and “beat up a Jewish boy.”
The confessional nature of such a disclosure betokens deep familiarity and trust. According to the influential Leibler, his friendship with Hawke was “extremely warm on both personal and political grounds”.
Indeed, Leibler had been the catalyst for Hawke’s ACTU missions in the early 1970s to negotiate freedoms on behalf of Russian Jews detained in the Soviet Union (so-called “refuseniks”). For almost 20 years Leibler would serve as president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.
According to Bramston, Leibler was also inaugural chairman, in 1978, of the ACTU–Jetset Travel Service, a successful public–private partnership that delivered not only $1 million per annum in travel discounts to trade union members but also “a regular stream of revenue to the ACTU”.
Capitulation to religious interests dealt a significant blow to the integrity of the MBS, almost from its inception. The Hawke government’s backflip on male circumcision, as Robert Darby suggests, has had a chilling effect on Medicare reform, with dire consequences for the health and human rights of Australian children.
Non-therapeutic circumcision procedures — and even the emergency repair of botched ones (separate MBS item) — continue to cost Medicare millions of dollars per annum. Medicare data even reveals a significant proportion of female “circumcision of the penis” rebate claimants.
Was Hawke corrupt? Perhaps no more so than any other Australian political leader. In politics, as in patriarchal religion, sacrifices must be made. In 1996, under John Howard’s conservative coalition prime ministership, “senior federal government figures” reportedly “stopped a plan to remove circumcision from Medicare” in order to mollify “the wealthy Jewish community and the conservative Christian churches”.
Within today’s ALP government, the cult of Hawke looms large, and Medicare — even when ravaged by crisis — remains the illustrious former leader’s signature policy, revered as “totemic” and “sacrosanct” among the party faithful.
Providers of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision services, meanwhile, continue to advertise the Medicare rebate on websites and street signage, immune from discipline or censure, much less prosecution.
Declaration: The author is a survivor of a botched, government-funded, neonatal (eighth-day) circumcision procedure.
In a significant breakthrough, Dementia Australia has hailed the release of trial findings unveiling the efficacy of Donanemab, a promising new drug that slows the progression of early Alzheimer’s symptoms.
Developed by pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, the drug functions by stimulating antibodies designed to target and eliminate amyloid plaques from the brain.
A decade ago, in 2011, the leading cause of death for non-Indigenous men and women in Australia was coronary heart disease. This remains the case for men in 2021, but dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, claimed the number one ranking for women. (For Indigenous Australians, the leading cause of death remains coronary heart disease, followed by diabetes).
(Source: AIHW)
Maree McCabe, CEO of Dementia Australia, expressed her enthusiasm for this groundbreaking development, hailing it as a critical advancement in diversifying dementia treatment options.
“These results instil much-needed hope for those experiencing symptoms, mild cognitive impairment, or early-stage Alzheimer’s,” Ms McCabe said.
The research also underscores the vital significance of early diagnosis, ensuring timely access to treatment and support.
“Increasing dementia awareness and understanding will help reduce discrimination and stigma, thus encouraging individuals with cognitive concerns to seek information and support at the earliest opportunity,” she said.
Timely support and services have demonstrated superior health, care, and lifestyle outcomes for those affected.
Dementia Australia has urged cautious optimism as Donanemab awaits approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for its use in Australia.
Professor Blossom Stephan, Chair of Dementia Curtin University and Dementia Australia, lauded the trial’s results as encouraging, noting the study revealed that participants with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia experienced a reduction of up to 35 per cent in cognitive decline through Donanemab treatment.
“This research also highlights the need to ensure that healthcare services are equipped to deliver the intervention as well as make sure that access to treatment is equitable and available to everyone,” Professor Stephan said.
Bill Yeates, a Dementia Advocate with Dementia Australia was diagnosed with younger-onset-dementia in 2019. He expressed awe at the trial results.
“This demonstrates that it is possible to significantly slow down cognitive decline by removing amyloid beta (plaques) from the brain,” Mr Yeates said. “For me it’s that ‘ray of hope’ that I believed would happen one day, where people living with dementia can have a future. One where you can lead a better life, one that you value.”
The study’s publication in a prestigious international journal and its presentation at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference in Amsterdam add further weight to its significance.
As the authoritative source of reliable information, education, and services for over 400,000 Australians living with dementia and their 1.5 million caregivers, Dementia Australia remains committed to advocating positive change and supporting vital research. For assistance, contact the National Dementia Helpline at 1800 100 500, with interpreter services available. The helpline is funded by the Australian Government, and those seeking information can also visit dementia.org.au.
Consensus-building can be a long and challenging process that requires all stakeholders involved to be committed to reaching an agreement. In the case of the Palestinian liberation project, achieving consensus among the forcibly fragmented Palestinian people is both particularly difficult and of critical importance in order to create a united national movement. What, precisely, is the role of consensus-building in the context of a liberation struggle?
Al-Shabaka Policy Analyst Jaber Suleiman sheds light on this question, drawing on examples from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the lived experience of Palestinians in Lebanon. Suleiman has worked as a consultant and coordinator for the Lebanese Palestinian Dialogue Forum at the Common Space Initiative, formerly affiliated with the UN Development Programme’s (UNDP) Support Project on Consensus Building, Civil Peace, and Constitutional Strengthening in Lebanon. With extensive experience in consensus-building practices, Suleiman offers reflections on what worked, which struggles arose, and how such efforts in Lebanon can inform a wider consensus-building process for Palestinians.
Consensus-Building in the Palestinian Struggle
Consensus-building takes on a uniquely important role within the context of an emancipatory project. Confronting settler colonialism and military occupation necessitates national unity in order to forge an effective liberation movement. Overcoming political, religious, ethnic, and ideological differences is crucial, as it allows for collective and unified confrontation with the oppressor.
Confronting settler colonialism and military occupation necessitates national unity in order to forge an effective liberation movement Click To Tweet
In the context of Palestine, consensus-building is of great importance for resisting Zionist settler colonialism bent on the erasure of the Palestinian people, culturally and materially. In fact, the PLO emerged in 1964 through consensus precisely to achieve this goal. And although the PLO constituted a national front in its mission and charter—much like Algeria’s National Liberation Front, South Vietnam’s National Liberation Front, and South Africa’s African National Congress—it underwent several periods of division, including the 1978 Camp David Accords, the 1993 Oslo accords, and thereafter. External factors certainly hampered the PLO’s ability to achieve its emancipatory goals, but the destructive divisions were also an inevitable outcome of failed leadership that deviated from consensus and abandoned the organization’s Palestinian National Charter.
While there have been many attempts to reconcile divisions within the PLO—including the 2005 Cairo Declaration, the 2006 National Consensus Document, the 2007 Mecca Agreement, and the 2011 Cairo Agreement—all have failed. This is largely due to the lack of political will among Palestinian factions, especially Fatah and Hamas, to prioritize achieving an inclusive national consensus over their own agendas and narrow interests.
It is worth noting that one of the largest consensus-driven initiatives in Palestinian history stems from civil society, through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement. The movement is steered by the BDS National Committee (BNC)—the broadest coalition of Palestinian civil society groups—and was originally endorsed by over 170 Palestinian organizations during its July 2005 launch.
A Case Study on Consensus-Building: Palestinians in Lebanon
Lebanon is a unique context given its many sectarian and political divisions, but the 1989 Taif Agreement, officially known as the National Reconciliation Agreement, was a crucial milestone for building national consensus and restoring peace in the country following 15 years of civil war. Unfortunately, Palestinians were excluded from the reconciliation process, even though they were undeniably part of the war. Nonetheless, there were several attempts following Taif to forge a reconciliatory consensus between the Lebanese and Palestinians in Lebanon.
In May of 1991, on the sidelines of the Arab League summit in Cairo, Lebanese Foreign Minister Farés Boueiz met with the head of the PLO’s political department, Farouk Kaddoumi, to discuss preliminary reconciliation efforts. As a result, several Lebanese ministerial committees were formed to initiate dialogue between both sides. The Palestinians also formed a unified delegation consisting of PLO and opposition factions.
The two sets of delegations held their first meeting in September of 1991, during which the Palestinians presented a memorandum entitled “The Civil and Social Rights of the Palestinian People.” The thrust of the reconciliation agreement was that Palestinians would hand over weapons in exchange for civil rights. Subsequently, the Lebanese delegation requested time to review the document and respond to the Palestinians’ demands. However, the response never came, and the dialogue was suspended. This was due to the lack of Lebanese political will to reach consensus on the exchange and to lingering resentment towards the Palestinians following the war. As a result, Palestinians in Lebanon endured many more years of oppression in Lebanese camps.
Throughout the rest of the 1990s, the PLO continued its dialogue efforts with Lebanese policymakers, presenting another memorandum in 1999 entitled “Towards a New Palestinian-Lebanese Relations.” Nonetheless, Lebanese counterparts failed to utilize the directive in any concrete manner.
It was not until 2005 that reconciliation efforts between the Lebanese and Palestinians were again revived.In November of that year, the prime minister’s office established the Lebanese Palestinian Dialogue Committee (LPDC), a governmental body meant to tackle different aspects of the Palestinian presence in Lebanon. The committee was tasked with: collaborating with UNRWA to address the socio-economic, legal, and security conditions of Palestinian refugees in the country; regulating Palestinian access to arms in and outside of the refugee camps; and exploring the re-establishment of relations with PLO representatives in Lebanon. Importantly, the PLO’s offices were reopened in Lebanon in 2006—having been shut since 1982—and upgraded to the status of embassy in 2011.
The process of consensus-building remains a valuable achievement in and of itself. Rather than merely focusing on the final result...it is imperative to highlight the means with which such a goal is reached. Click To Tweet
In January of 2015, the LPDC launched an intensive internal Lebanese dialogue among representatives from different parliamentary blocs to discuss the rights and living conditions of Palestinians in Lebanon. The committee initiated this dialogue on the basis that any reconciliation efforts between the Lebanese and Palestinians first require Lebanese consensus on fundamental issues. The outcome of the dialogue was a document titled “A Unified Lebanese Vision for Palestinian Refugee Issues in Lebanon,” released in January of 2017. Unfortunately, different parliamentary blocs failed to abide by the stipulations of the agreement as outlined in the document; thus, the vision remained a theoretical framework that had no tangible effect on Lebanese state policies towards the Palestinians.
Palestinian representatives in Lebanon also took steps to reach reconciliation through consensus. For example, in January of 2008, Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon Abbas Zaki issued “The Declaration of Palestine in Lebanon,” which represented an apology for any harm the Palestinians caused to Lebanon during the PLO’s presence in the country prior to 1982. Three months later, in response to the Palestinian declaration, over 40 Christian Lebanese figures convened at the Frankness and Reconciliation–Remembering April 13 conference and issued a counter-apology for harm they committed against the Palestinians.
These initiatives raised public awareness and encouraged dialogue in Lebanon about the need to address fundamental aspects of the Palestinian presence in the country, allowing for the creation of the Common Space Initiative (CSI). The CSI was established in 2009 as a UNDP project in Lebanon. In 2011, the Lebanese Palestinian Dialogue Forum (LPDF) was created within the CSI. Since then, the LPDF has worked to bring Lebanese and Palestinian communities together in order to change prejudiced and stereotypical thinking on both sides, while also pressuring Lebanese legislators and policymakers to discuss the basic human rights of Palestinian refugees. This is particularly difficult given the tumultuous history of Lebanese and Palestinian relations in the country, which has entrenched misconceptions, fears, and acrimony between the two communities.
In addition, the LPDF faces the challenge of overcoming obstacles created by the Lebanese governing establishment, especially those related to discriminatory Lebanese policies that regulate the Palestinian presence in Lebanon. Compounded with the lack of will among Lebanese legislators and political parties, the ruling elite refuses to address the basic rights of Palestinians in Lebanon within the context of universal human and refugee rights protected by international law. Undoubtedly, this is in part due to the fear among different Lebanese constituents that, if Palestinians are afforded basic rights, they will remain in Lebanon and upset the country’s precarious sectarian balance.
Lessons to Inform Future Palestinian Consensus-Building
There are examples of successful consensus-building initiatives created by Palestinian civil society organizations from which Palestinians can draw.
As co-founder of the Center for Refugee Rights (Aidoun) in Lebanon, I was part of an effort to forge a reconciliation and reconstruction program with the Palestinian Center for Policy Research and Strategic Studies (Masarat) in Ramallah, with the support of the Finnish Crisis Management Initiative (CMI). This program ran from 2012-2016 and hosted meetings in different Arab cities, with the participation of high-ranking figures from the PLO and Hamas, as well as independent researchers and academics.
It also resulted in the production of two documents: “Reconstruction of PLO Institutions,” which was the outcome of several consensus-building sessions that took place between December of 2012 and March of 2013, and the "National Unity Document,” which was produced in February of 2016 and laid out a phased transitional plan to achieve consensus between the participants. Aidoun and Masarat even organized a meeting in Lebanon in June of 2016 among civil society organizations to discuss these materials. Like other initiatives, these proposals remain theoretical frameworks and have yet to be realized.
In August of 2015, Aidoun and Masarat held a consultative meeting on ways to reactivate popular representation and develop a unified position for Palestinians in Lebanon. It was a grassroots initiative to unify, rebuild, and activate the popular committees that were formed in Palestinian refugee camps while the PLO operated in Lebanon. This was particularly significant, given that camps are divided politically between Fatah-led PLO committees and others affiliated with the factions of the Hamas-led National Coalition forces. The meeting was attended by representatives of the PLO, the coalition factions, and civil society organizations, and resulted in the formation of a ten-person committee consisting of representatives from the three aforementioned actors.
While these efforts have met the same fate as other reconciliation and consensus-building initiatives, given the complexity of the reconciliation process itself, successes were achieved from which lessons can be gleaned.
The three main Palestinian constituents in Lebanon—the PLO factions, the National Coalition factions, and civil society organizations—were able to agree on a unified vision regarding the Palestinian presence in the country and related human rights and livelihood issues. That is, Palestinian factions and civil society organizations succeeded in overcoming—or neutralizing—the state of Palestinian division in order to present unified demands to the Lebanese state. They did so on more than one occasion.
Fundamentally, the process of consensus-building remains a valuable achievement in and of itself. Rather than merely focusing on the final result–i.e. whether national consensus has been achieved–it is imperative to highlight the means with which such a goal is reached. Consensus is a long-term objective; the building of it through these initiatives facilitates trust, camaraderie, and a radical rethinking of current political paradigms for those involved.
Of course, the situation in colonized Palestine differs from that in the diaspora, and confronting settler colonization on a daily basis requires a particular approach to consensus-building. Indeed, overcoming Palestinians’ forced geographic fragmentation across colonized Palestine and the diaspora would just be the start. Additionally, reforming and reconstituting the PLO as a unified national front would need considerable work among Palestinian representatives across the world—work that seems increasingly unlikely with the ongoing Palestinian political divide.
However, the instances of success among Palestinians in Lebanon indicate the power of consensus-building. The political factions and civil society organizations came together to agree on demands to present to the Lebanese state, knowing well that waiting for consensus to be built from the top among the ruling powers would undoubtedly lead to continued division. This remains true today and points to the necessity of adopting a bottom-up approach to achieving Palestinian consensus.
Consensus-building can be a long and challenging process that requires all stakeholders involved to be committed to reaching an agreement. In the case of the Palestinian liberation project, achieving consensus among the forcibly fragmented Palestinian people is both particularly difficult and of critical importance in order to create a united national movement. What, precisely, is the role of consensus-building in the context of a liberation struggle?
Al-Shabaka Policy Analyst Jaber Suleiman sheds light on this question, drawing on examples from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the lived experience of Palestinians in Lebanon. Suleiman has worked as a consultant and coordinator for the Lebanese Palestinian Dialogue Forum at the Common Space Initiative, formerly affiliated with the UN Development Programme’s (UNDP) Support Project on Consensus Building, Civil Peace, and Constitutional Strengthening in Lebanon. With extensive experience in consensus-building practices, Suleiman offers reflections on what worked, which struggles arose, and how such efforts in Lebanon can inform a wider consensus-building process for Palestinians.
Consensus-Building in the Palestinian Struggle
Consensus-building takes on a uniquely important role within the context of an emancipatory project. Confronting settler colonialism and military occupation necessitates national unity in order to forge an effective liberation movement. Overcoming political, religious, ethnic, and ideological differences is crucial, as it allows for collective and unified confrontation with the oppressor.
Confronting settler colonialism and military occupation necessitates national unity in order to forge an effective liberation movement Click To Tweet
In the context of Palestine, consensus-building is of great importance for resisting Zionist settler colonialism bent on the erasure of the Palestinian people, culturally and materially. In fact, the PLO emerged in 1964 through consensus precisely to achieve this goal. And although the PLO constituted a national front in its mission and charter—much like Algeria’s National Liberation Front, South Vietnam’s National Liberation Front, and South Africa’s African National Congress—it underwent several periods of division, including the 1978 Camp David Accords, the 1993 Oslo accords, and thereafter. External factors certainly hampered the PLO’s ability to achieve its emancipatory goals, but the destructive divisions were also an inevitable outcome of failed leadership that deviated from consensus and abandoned the organization’s Palestinian National Charter.
While there have been many attempts to reconcile divisions within the PLO—including the 2005 Cairo Declaration, the 2006 National Consensus Document, the 2007 Mecca Agreement, and the 2011 Cairo Agreement—all have failed. This is largely due to the lack of political will among Palestinian factions, especially Fatah and Hamas, to prioritize achieving an inclusive national consensus over their own agendas and narrow interests.
It is worth noting that one of the largest consensus-driven initiatives in Palestinian history stems from civil society, through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement. The movement is steered by the BDS National Committee (BNC)—the broadest coalition of Palestinian civil society groups—and was originally endorsed by over 170 Palestinian organizations during its July 2005 launch.
A Case Study on Consensus-Building: Palestinians in Lebanon
Lebanon is a unique context given its many sectarian and political divisions, but the 1989 Taif Agreement, officially known as the National Reconciliation Agreement, was a crucial milestone for building national consensus and restoring peace in the country following 15 years of civil war. Unfortunately, Palestinians were excluded from the reconciliation process, even though they were undeniably part of the war. Nonetheless, there were several attempts following Taif to forge a reconciliatory consensus between the Lebanese and Palestinians in Lebanon.
In May of 1991, on the sidelines of the Arab League summit in Cairo, Lebanese Foreign Minister Farés Boueiz met with the head of the PLO’s political department, Farouk Kaddoumi, to discuss preliminary reconciliation efforts. As a result, several Lebanese ministerial committees were formed to initiate dialogue between both sides. The Palestinians also formed a unified delegation consisting of PLO and opposition factions.
The two sets of delegations held their first meeting in September of 1991, during which the Palestinians presented a memorandum entitled “The Civil and Social Rights of the Palestinian People.” The thrust of the reconciliation agreement was that Palestinians would hand over weapons in exchange for civil rights. Subsequently, the Lebanese delegation requested time to review the document and respond to the Palestinians’ demands. However, the response never came, and the dialogue was suspended. This was due to the lack of Lebanese political will to reach consensus on the exchange and to lingering resentment towards the Palestinians following the war. As a result, Palestinians in Lebanon endured many more years of oppression in Lebanese camps.
Throughout the rest of the 1990s, the PLO continued its dialogue efforts with Lebanese policymakers, presenting another memorandum in 1999 entitled “Towards a New Palestinian-Lebanese Relations.” Nonetheless, Lebanese counterparts failed to utilize the directive in any concrete manner.
It was not until 2005 that reconciliation efforts between the Lebanese and Palestinians were again revived.In November of that year, the prime minister’s office established the Lebanese Palestinian Dialogue Committee (LPDC), a governmental body meant to tackle different aspects of the Palestinian presence in Lebanon. The committee was tasked with: collaborating with UNRWA to address the socio-economic, legal, and security conditions of Palestinian refugees in the country; regulating Palestinian access to arms in and outside of the refugee camps; and exploring the re-establishment of relations with PLO representatives in Lebanon. Importantly, the PLO’s offices were reopened in Lebanon in 2006—having been shut since 1982—and upgraded to the status of embassy in 2011.
The process of consensus-building remains a valuable achievement in and of itself. Rather than merely focusing on the final result...it is imperative to highlight the means with which such a goal is reached. Click To Tweet
In January of 2015, the LPDC launched an intensive internal Lebanese dialogue among representatives from different parliamentary blocs to discuss the rights and living conditions of Palestinians in Lebanon. The committee initiated this dialogue on the basis that any reconciliation efforts between the Lebanese and Palestinians first require Lebanese consensus on fundamental issues. The outcome of the dialogue was a document titled “A Unified Lebanese Vision for Palestinian Refugee Issues in Lebanon,” released in January of 2017. Unfortunately, different parliamentary blocs failed to abide by the stipulations of the agreement as outlined in the document; thus, the vision remained a theoretical framework that had no tangible effect on Lebanese state policies towards the Palestinians.
Palestinian representatives in Lebanon also took steps to reach reconciliation through consensus. For example, in January of 2008, Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon Abbas Zaki issued “The Declaration of Palestine in Lebanon,” which represented an apology for any harm the Palestinians caused to Lebanon during the PLO’s presence in the country prior to 1982. Three months later, in response to the Palestinian declaration, over 40 Christian Lebanese figures convened at the Frankness and Reconciliation–Remembering April 13 conference and issued a counter-apology for harm they committed against the Palestinians.
These initiatives raised public awareness and encouraged dialogue in Lebanon about the need to address fundamental aspects of the Palestinian presence in the country, allowing for the creation of the Common Space Initiative (CSI). The CSI was established in 2009 as a UNDP project in Lebanon. In 2011, the Lebanese Palestinian Dialogue Forum (LPDF) was created within the CSI. Since then, the LPDF has worked to bring Lebanese and Palestinian communities together in order to change prejudiced and stereotypical thinking on both sides, while also pressuring Lebanese legislators and policymakers to discuss the basic human rights of Palestinian refugees. This is particularly difficult given the tumultuous history of Lebanese and Palestinian relations in the country, which has entrenched misconceptions, fears, and acrimony between the two communities.
In addition, the LPDF faces the challenge of overcoming obstacles created by the Lebanese governing establishment, especially those related to discriminatory Lebanese policies that regulate the Palestinian presence in Lebanon. Compounded with the lack of will among Lebanese legislators and political parties, the ruling elite refuses to address the basic rights of Palestinians in Lebanon within the context of universal human and refugee rights protected by international law. Undoubtedly, this is in part due to the fear among different Lebanese constituents that, if Palestinians are afforded basic rights, they will remain in Lebanon and upset the country’s precarious sectarian balance.
Lessons to Inform Future Palestinian Consensus-Building
There are examples of successful consensus-building initiatives created by Palestinian civil society organizations from which Palestinians can draw.
As co-founder of the Center for Refugee Rights (Aidoun) in Lebanon, I was part of an effort to forge a reconciliation and reconstruction program with the Palestinian Center for Policy Research and Strategic Studies (Masarat) in Ramallah, with the support of the Finnish Crisis Management Initiative (CMI). This program ran from 2012-2016 and hosted meetings in different Arab cities, with the participation of high-ranking figures from the PLO and Hamas, as well as independent researchers and academics.
It also resulted in the production of two documents: “Reconstruction of PLO Institutions,” which was the outcome of several consensus-building sessions that took place between December of 2012 and March of 2013, and the "National Unity Document,” which was produced in February of 2016 and laid out a phased transitional plan to achieve consensus between the participants. Aidoun and Masarat even organized a meeting in Lebanon in June of 2016 among civil society organizations to discuss these materials. Like other initiatives, these proposals remain theoretical frameworks and have yet to be realized.
In August of 2015, Aidoun and Masarat held a consultative meeting on ways to reactivate popular representation and develop a unified position for Palestinians in Lebanon. It was a grassroots initiative to unify, rebuild, and activate the popular committees that were formed in Palestinian refugee camps while the PLO operated in Lebanon. This was particularly significant, given that camps are divided politically between Fatah-led PLO committees and others affiliated with the factions of the Hamas-led National Coalition forces. The meeting was attended by representatives of the PLO, the coalition factions, and civil society organizations, and resulted in the formation of a ten-person committee consisting of representatives from the three aforementioned actors.
While these efforts have met the same fate as other reconciliation and consensus-building initiatives, given the complexity of the reconciliation process itself, successes were achieved from which lessons can be gleaned.
The three main Palestinian constituents in Lebanon—the PLO factions, the National Coalition factions, and civil society organizations—were able to agree on a unified vision regarding the Palestinian presence in the country and related human rights and livelihood issues. That is, Palestinian factions and civil society organizations succeeded in overcoming—or neutralizing—the state of Palestinian division in order to present unified demands to the Lebanese state. They did so on more than one occasion.
Fundamentally, the process of consensus-building remains a valuable achievement in and of itself. Rather than merely focusing on the final result–i.e. whether national consensus has been achieved–it is imperative to highlight the means with which such a goal is reached. Consensus is a long-term objective; the building of it through these initiatives facilitates trust, camaraderie, and a radical rethinking of current political paradigms for those involved.
Of course, the situation in colonized Palestine differs from that in the diaspora, and confronting settler colonization on a daily basis requires a particular approach to consensus-building. Indeed, overcoming Palestinians’ forced geographic fragmentation across colonized Palestine and the diaspora would just be the start. Additionally, reforming and reconstituting the PLO as a unified national front would need considerable work among Palestinian representatives across the world—work that seems increasingly unlikely with the ongoing Palestinian political divide.
However, the instances of success among Palestinians in Lebanon indicate the power of consensus-building. The political factions and civil society organizations came together to agree on demands to present to the Lebanese state, knowing well that waiting for consensus to be built from the top among the ruling powers would undoubtedly lead to continued division. This remains true today and points to the necessity of adopting a bottom-up approach to achieving Palestinian consensus.
For a lot of people, mention of the French Revolution conjures up images of wealthy nobles being led to the guillotine.
Thanks to countless movies, books and half-remembered history lessons, many have been left with the impression the revolution was chiefly about chopping off the heads of kings, queens, dukes and other cashed-up aristocrats.
But today what’s known in English as Bastille Day and in French as Quatorze Juillet — a date commemorating events of July 14 in 1789 that came to symbolise the French Revolution — it is worth correcting this common misconception.
Bonne fête nationale aux Française! The Régiment de Service Militaire Adapté always steals the show at Noumea’s Bastille Day parade, with their moving song in the Negone language. I was very proud a marching pipe band of fellow Aussies participated too – recognise this song? pic.twitter.com/jMZRKEakAL
In fact, most people executed during the French Revolution — and particularly in its perceived bloodiest era, the nine-month “Reign of Terror” between autumn 1793 and summer 1794 — were commoners.
[…] more carters than princes were executed, more day labourers than dukes and marquises, three or four times as many servants than parliamentarians. The Terror swept French society from base to comb; its victims form a complete cross section of the social order of the Ancien régime.
The ‘national razor’
The guillotine was first put to use on April 15 1792 when a common thief called Pelletier was executed. Initially seen as an instrument of equality, however, the guillotine soon acquired a grim reputation for its list of famous victims.
Miniature guillotine, French revolution era, Musée Carnavalet. Image: Les musées de la ville de Paris/The Conversation
But it wasn’t just “celebrities” executed at the guillotine.
While reliable figures on the definitive number of people guillotined during the Revolution are hard to find, historians commonly project between 15,000 and 17,000 people were guillotined across France.
The bulk of it occurred during the the Reign of Terror.
When the decision was made to centralise all (legal) executions in Paris, 1376 people were guillotined over just 47 days, between June 10 and July 27, 1794. That is about 30 a day.
The bulk of the executions occurred during the the Reign of Terror. Image: Bibliothèque nationale de France/The Conversation
The guillotine wasn’t the only method However, the guillotine represents just one way people were executed.
Historians estimate around 20,000 men and women were summarily killed — either shot, stabbed or drowned — during the Terror across France.
They also estimate that in just under five days, 1500 people died at the hands of Parisian mobs during the 1792 September massacres.
The vast majority of these people killed were ordinary French men and women, not members of the elite.
Overall, Greer estimates 8.5 percent of the Terror’s victims belonged to the nobility, 6.5 percent to the clergy, and 85 percent to the Third Estate (meaning non-clerics and non-nobles). Women represented 9 percent of the total (but 20 percent and 14 pecent of the noble and clerical categories, respectively).
Priests who had refused to take the oath of loyalty to the Revolution, émigrés who had fled the country, hoarders and profiteers who made the price of bread much dearer, or political opponents of the moment, all were deemed “enemies of the Revolution”.
Why was so much blood shed during the Reign of Terror? The paranoia of the regime in 1793–94 was the result of various factors.
France fought at its borders against a coalition led by Europe’s monarchs to nip the revolution in the bud before it could threaten their thrones.
Meanwhile, civil war ravaged the west and south of France, conspiracy rumours circulated across the country, and political infighting intensified in Paris between opposing factions.
All these factors led to a series of laws voted up in late 1793 that enabled the expedited judgment of thousands of people suspected of counterrevolutionary beliefs.
The measures contained in the infamous “Law of Suspects” were, however, relaxed in the summer of 1794 and completely abolished in October 1795.
How the focus came to be on beheaded nobility
For many people, however, mention of this period of French history leads to the vision of a bloodthirsty Revolution indiscriminately sending to their death thousands of nobles.
This is largely influenced by the fate of Queen Marie-Antoinette and its many depictions in pop culture.
British counter-revolutionary propaganda in the 1790s and 1800s also helped popularise the idea that aristocrats were martyrs and the main victims of revolution executioners.
This representation was mostly forged via the abundant publication in the 19th century of memoirs and diaries of survivors and relatives of victims, usually from the social and economic elite fiercely opposed to the Revolution and its legacy.
A broader legacy Beyond the guillotine and the Reign of Terror, the legacies of the revolution run far deeper.
The revolution abolished entrenched privileges based on birth, imposed equality before the law and opened the door to emerging forms of democratic involvement for everyday citizens.
The Revolution ushered in a time of reforms in France, across Europe and indeed across the world.
According to Damanik, who was chair 2017-2022, this is because the current Komnas HAM leadership has taken a position tending to follow the government line and “doesn’t have the courage” to resolve humanitarian problems in Papua.
Damanik cites as an example the “humanitarian pause” agreement that was unilaterally cancelled by Komnas HAM, which triggered an escalation of violence in Papua, including the seizing of the Susi Air pilot by rebels demanding Papuan independence.
The humanitarian pause in Papua was an agreement reached by the Komnas HAM leadership for the 2017-2022 period to temporarily halt armed contact between the conflicting groups in Papua.
“Since they unilaterally cancelled the humanitarian pause without any good reason, as well as the lack of communication between parties, especially with our Papuan friends, it is difficult to expect them to play a role in Papua,” Damanik said in a text message on Friday.
“The one-side cancellation caused anger among those who were pushing for a humanitarian pause in Papua.
“With such a position, it is difficult to expect a strategic role for Komnas HAM. Their position tends to just follow what is being done by the government,” he added.
Communications deadlock
Yet, according to Damanik, by maintaining the independence of its authority, the Komnas HAM could break the communication deadlock between the demands of the hostage takers, — the West Papua National Liberation Army armed wing of the Free Papua Organization (TPNPB–OPM) — and the government.
Hostage NZ pilot Philip Mehrtens as he appeared in a recent low resolution video . . . “There is no need [for Indonesia’s bombs], it is dangerous for me and everybody here.” Image: TPNPB screenshot APR
Moreover, there has been an offer by the TPNPB group led by Egianus Kogoya for the Papua Komnas HAM Representative Office to act as negotiator in the hostage case.
“Including the [Philip Mehrtens] hostage negotiations, the Egianus group asked for the involvement of the Papua representative [office] head’s help. My hope is that the Komnas HAM national is welcomed in Papua, so it is better to provide full support to the Komnas HAM Papua representative office,” Damanik added.
Damanik also hopes that Komnas HAM, which is now headed up by Atnike Nova Sigiro, could be critical of central government policies that are wrong.
“Communicating criticism like this is what we used to do [when I served at Komnas HAM] and there is no need to worry about tension in the relationship [with the government]. That’s normal in relationships between institutions,” said Damanik.
Earlier, Sigiro said that the commission had entrusted all matters related to dealing with the New Zealand pilot’s hostage case to the government, saying they hoped that the case could be resolved peacefully.
Authority ‘with government’
“Authority for dealing with the hostage case is in the government’s hands,” said Sigiro earlier this month.
Mehrtens was taken hostage by the TPNPB on February 7 when his plane was set on fire after landing at the Paro airstrip in Nduga regency, Papua Highlands.
At the time, the plane was transporting five indigenous Papuan passengers. Mehrtens and the five passengers reportedly fled in different directions.
The five Papuans returned to their respective homes while Mehrtens was taken hostage by the pro-independence militants.
“The amendments establish clear legal process for the escalated use of up to (sic) lethal force, powers of search and seizure, and detention, for acts of domestic terrorism,” he said.
“It is high time that we call these criminals domestic terrorists, because that is what they are, and we need harsher measures to bring them to justice one way or another.”
PNG Police Commissioner David Manning . . . “It is high time that we call these criminals domestic terrorists.” Image: PNG police/RNZ Pacific
Manning, in a statement, went on to say domestic terrorism included the “deliberate use of violence against people and communities to murder, injure and intimidate, including kidnapping and ransoms, and the destruction of properties.
Includes hate crimes
“An accurate definition of domestic terrorism also includes hate crimes, including tribal fights and sorcery-related violence.”
Transparency International Papua New Guinea chair Peter Aitsi said he doubted the new law would be effective.
He said police already had lethal powers.
“I think in terms of changing the act to give them more power, I think they already have it,” he said.
“But I doubt whether it will have any significant improvement in terms of the response to this emerging problem we are having now, of hostage taking and ransom seeking.”
Aiitsi said that in the Highlands there was a proliferation of guns, and government authority had been overwhelmed by one or two individuals with the money and guns to maintain power.
“So in this type of environment you can see the police and authorities, so-called authorities, would be powerless, because it’s these individuals that control these large sections of these communities, that are now well armed, that are the power in these areas.”
PNG authorities “would be powerless, because it’s [some] individuals that control these large sections of these communities, that are now well armed”. Image: Koroi Hawkins/RNZ Pacific
Call For a different approach
Cathy Alex was one of a group kidnapped in February, along with a New Zealand-born Australian archaeologist and two others.
She said she had got some insight into the age and temperament of the kidnappers.
“Young boys, 16 and up, a few others,” she said.
“No Tok Pisin, no English. It’s a generation that’s been out there that has had no opportunities.
“What is happening in Bosavi is a glimpse, a dark glimpse, of where our country is heading to.”
She said there was a need for a focus on providing services to the rural areas as soon as possible.
Transparency International PNG’s Peter Aitsi . . . PNG has allowed its government system to be undermined by political elites with “our people really being pushed to the real margins of our development”. Image: Transparency International PNG/RNZ Pacific
Peter Aitsi said that over the past 20 years PNG had allowed its government system to be undermined with political elites taking control of sub-national services.
He said this had led to “our people really being pushed to the real margins of our development”.
Not engaged in society
“So as a result they are not engaged in the process of society building or even nationhood.”
Aitsi said this results in the lawless conduct.
“Their interest is to serve those who can put food on the table for them, and essentially what they see as people who care about their welfare, but they are just using them for their individual outcomes.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
In 1988, our National Housing Commission declared, “New Zealand does not have the huge, insoluble problems of homelessness and substandard housing which confront many other nations.”
This was the final report of the then disestablished commission, which to that point had reported detailed data every five years to keep the country and policy-makers informed about what we had once considered the foundation of stable society — a home for New Zealanders to call their own.
I was born six years after that report, and in those years and across my lifetime, deliberate political choices — specifically, political choices by people sitting in Parliament — have shredded that once-guaranteed housing dignity and stability.
They traded it for a game of Monopoly, which, the pecuniary interests register tells us, also happens to disproportionately benefit around half of the “representatives” in there with interests in more than one property (notably, approximately just 2 percent of the general population are landlords).
This dire situation is the direct consequence of political decisions, and it is disproportionately hurting the 1.4 million renters in this country that our Parliament, by majority, and as an overwhelming majority of comfortable homeowners, continues to structurally disempower.
In spite of this, we have made some slow progress. In 2017, the Greens worked with Labour to introduce Healthy Homes Standards and a slate of amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, removing no-cause evictions and allowing renters to take claims to the Tenancy Tribunal anonymously.
Some standards, we obviously agreed, were better than nothing. A set of rules means it’s clear how a game should be played, but those rules become pretty meaningless if there’s no consistent referee monitoring and enforcing them.
Compliance not tracked
Unfortunately, that’s what the Healthy Homes Standards have become. My parliamentary written questions last year showed the government isn’t tracking how many private rentals are compliant.
It doesn’t know how many landlords and property managers have decided to self-exclude their properties from compliance. It has no tabs on the cottage industry of companies that have cropped up to verify these standards, let alone the variance in their approaches.
This leaves the third of New Zealanders who rent left to shoulder the burden of enforcing these basic rules which are supposed to protect them.
It’s a funny thing that whenever the Greens mention renters, we’re immediately shouted down and told that the problem is, somehow, that landlords aren’t given enough free rein. That the solution is more commodification of basic human rights.
Ironically, this is exactly what the National Housing Commission warned against back in 1988, that shifting of responsibility from the state to the private sector would, “add little to the total housing supply while allowing private landlords and property speculators to make even higher charges for a non-expanding supply of housing… rais[ing] the purchase price of land and rented property”.
We now know, viscerally, how right they were. Whatever metric you choose, we have the most expensive housing in the world.
The Accommodation Supplement, once rationalised in the state-housing sell-off to help support lower income New Zealanders pushed into the private sector, is now paid out to the tune of $2 billion a year with evidence showing it primarily serves to just bid up rental prices and effectively subsidise private landlords.
Special tax preferential
We remain one of the only countries in the developed world that continues to provide special tax treatment and preference to properties, incentivising the flow of capital into unproductive property speculation, or what University of Auckland researchers called, “a politically condoned, finance-fuelled casino”.
In less than 40 years, political decisions have not only made housing one of the major drivers of poverty and inequality in this country, but one of the major determinants of both physical and mental health, not to mention education achievement and school attendance.
So, who pays the cost?
Most immediately, it’s the 1.4 million renting New Zealanders, who Statistics New Zealand tells us spend more of their income on older, smaller, mouldier, lower quality housing.
Renting is no longer a transient state — unless you’re talking about the literal transience which sees renters in this country maintaining their tenancies for, on average, just 16 months at a time.
Almost all of us will know families with children and friends in their 30s and 40s who are flatting. A quarter of retirees don’t own their own home.
This didn’t happen overnight. It happened within a generation of political decisions that sold our human right to housing to the highest bidder.
As depressing as that may be, it makes clear that the status quo is not an inevitability. It can and must change if we want any hope of a fairer society.
Chlöe Swarbrick is the Green Party MP for Auckland Central. This article was originally published in The New Zealand Herald and is republished here with the author’s permission.
Australia’s policies on blood donation within the GBT community are out of step with international norms, writes Dr Sharon Dane and Rodney Croome.
The lifting of restrictions on people with new tattoos giving blood highlights another contentious restriction, the ban on blood donation by gay men, and bisexual men and trans women who have sex with men (GBT donors).
Debate about gay blood donation is likely to grow in coming months because Australia’s Lifeblood Service has proposed that GBT donors be allowed to give plasma but not whole blood. We are concerned this will replace an old form of discrimination with a new one.
We feel there is a better path forward with both the science and the international experience showing it is possible to have a safe blood supply and treat all donors equally regardless of sexuality or gender.
The ‘Plasma Pathway’
Last year Lifeblood asked the Australian Government to amend the blanket ban on gay blood donation so men who have sex with men can give plasma but not whole blood. The so-called ‘plasma pathway’ has since been approved by the government’s blood regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
Now, it will go to state and federal health ministers and the private blood trading company, CSL Behring, for their approval.
But there are significant problems with only allowing GBT people to donate plasma and not whole blood.
While it may increase the supply of plasma it entrenches discrimination and misses an opportunity to tap into a new source of safe whole blood that will help save lives.
The local and national situation
Currently in Australia, gay men, and bisexual men and trans women who have sex with men, are barred from blood donation unless they are sexually abstinent for three months prior to donation. This includes those in long-term, monogamous relationships.
That policy dates from the 1980s when a blanket blood donation ban was imposed on men who have sex with men to stop the spread of HIV through blood transfusion.
A lot has changed since then. Within just the last two years gay male blood donation has been allowed in the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Greece, Israel and most recently the US.
Instead of barring all gay men, and some bi and trans people, these countries assess all donors for their individual risk, gay and straight, cis and trans.
In the UK, Canada and the US all donors are asked if they have had anal sex with a new partner, or multiple partners, in the previous three months and are deferred if they say yes. In other words, instead of turning away all gay men, and some bi and trans folk, and allowing all heterosexuals through, like the current Australian policy, individual risk assessment screens out everyone who may be at risk.
Lifeblood pushes back
The Australian Lifeblood Service has taken an inexplicably negative view of this rational and proven approach.
It has claimed individual risk assessment will decrease the blood supply by removing heterosexual donors who engage in anal sex with new or multiple partners, or by offending existing heterosexual donors who don’t want to be asked about anal sex.
What Lifeblood is effectively saying is that heterosexuals should be allowed to donate even if they engage in risky behaviour and that Australians are more prudish than Brits, Canadians and Americans. Australians would rightly be sceptical about both assertions.
Fortunately, science has a response to Lifeblood’s negativity.
The Canadian Blood Service conducted a survey at all its blood collection centres which found less than one per cent of existing donors would be deferred or offended by questions about anal sex during individual risk assessment screening.
What’s more, this small loss would be addressed by gaining new, safe gay, bisexual and transgender donors.
Lifeblood also tries to justify the current ban by claiming some GBT people may inadvertently donate during the short period between when HIV infection occurs and when it is detected, referred to as ‘the window period’. But as the rate of new HIV infection in Australia has drastically declined among gay and bisexual men, and blood screening technology has become more sensitive to detection, fears about window-period infections are no longer a convincing reason to exclude GBT people from blood donation.
Research from numerous countries that have lifted the ban has shown that the likelihood of a gay or bisexual man who has recently acquired HIV infecting the blood supply is so low it is no longer deemed a meaningful risk.
A dead end
Ignoring all this, Lifeblood remains committed to a gay plasma-only donation policy. Plasma undergoes a different treatment process which renders it safer in terms of blood-borne diseases. However, other countries that trialled the plasma-only option for gay men, notably Canada and Israel, quickly abandoned the idea and moved on to whole blood donation by gay men instead.
Why didn’t these countries go down the ‘plasma pathway’? A longitudinal study from Canada found that many gay and bisexual male participants felt that a plasma-only policy would ultimately make them “second-class donors” by creating a two-tier system.
Instead of removing discrimination, plasma-only donation simply served to highlight it. As one participant in the study explained it would result in an “us vs. them” system.
Put simply, plasma-only donation is to gay blood donation what civil unions were to marriage equality: an unsatisfactory substitute for true equality.
Many gay and bisexual men in the Canadian study also pointed out that, while donating plasma was a good thing to do for those in need, plasma donation was more difficult and inconvenient than whole-blood donation.
Plasma donation involves a more complex process and takes more time, with these factors acting as a deterrent to donors.
In short, the ‘plasma pathway’ is a dead-end.
Questions for government
Don’t get us wrong, we welcome a possible increase in plasma supplies. But that increase can and should happen without continuing discrimination against gay, bi and trans people.
Why hasn’t the Australian Lifeblood Service learnt from the failure of the plasma-only option overseas? Why is it so staunchly against individual risk assessment when that policy is working so well in many other countries, including those similar to Australia? And why does it think the LGBTIQA+ community, which is all-too-familiar with ‘separate and unequal’, will embrace the ‘plasma pathway’ as a substitute for full equality?
These are all questions we will be putting to Australia’s health ministers as they consider Lifeblood’s proposal.
Most of all we will be reminding health ministers that Australia needs more whole blood, that each whole-blood donation can save three lives and that thousands of gay men, and bisexual men and trans women who have sex with men, are ready to donate whole blood with no risk to the safety of the blood supply.
It’s time for Australia to stop mucking about with ‘pathways’ that lead nowhere and move instead toward the policy that offers a new source of safe whole blood and treats everyone equally.
Fiji got to celebrate World Oceans Day this week — a day when our conscience gets the occasional prick on matters related to the value of the ocean in sustaining life.
I like to brag about growing up surrounded by the sea and those unique moments during childhood I spent rowing across Qamea’s picturesque and mangrove-fringed Naiviivi Bay, plucking seashells from shallow tide pools and digging up vetuna (sandworm) from the sand.
The ocean covers more than 70 percent of the planet.
It is our life source, supporting humanity’s sustenance and existence, and that of every other organism on earth.
The ocean produces much of the oxygen we breath and need to survive, it is the habitat of most of earth’s biodiversity and is the main source of meat protein for more than a billion people around the world.
40 million ’employees’
The ocean is key to our economy with an estimated 40 million people to be employed by ocean-based industries by 2030.
In Fiji, an estimated 60 percent of the 900,000 population are thought to live in coastal communities, surviving on activities linked to the ocean, and our fisheries and tourism sectors are so intrinsically connected to the health of the ocean.
But the ocean we call our home is facing a variety of threats that challenges its existence and endangers humanity.
United Nations statistics say that we have depleted 90 percent of big fish populations and destroyed 50 percent of coral reefs.
“We are taking more from the ocean than can be replenished. We need to work together to create a new balance with the ocean that no longer depletes its bounty but instead restores its vibrancy and brings it new life,” the UN says.
With such dreadful reality in the backdrop, the 2023 WOD theme seemed timely and relevant — “Planet Ocean: tides are changing”.
It provides us with an opportunity to rethink what we’ve done, what we need to do and how to work together with world leaders, decision-makers, indigenous leaders, scientists, private sector executives, civil society, celebrities, and youth activist to make the health of the ocean a public agenda.
Veiuto Primary School Year 2 student Josaia Waqaivolavola takes part in the beach clean up at the My Suva Picnic Park along the Nasese foreshore in Suva on Tuesday. Image: Jonacani Lalakobau/Fiji Times
Clean up day
On Wednesday this week, The Fiji Times’ front page photo was of Josaia Waqaivolavola, a Year 2 student from Veiuto Primary School who was captured on camera participating in a beach clean up at My Suva Picnic Park along the Nasese foreshore.
His group collected 10 trash bags filled with plastics, among others.
It’s when we see the amount of rubbish along our coastlines and in the sea around us that we begin to realise that all the talk about “putting rubbish in the bin” is not working.
We talk about responsible citizenship but plastics continue to pollute our communities, roads, streets and parks, and our oceans.
Plastics have become so cheap to produce that we are producing things we don’t intend to keep for long.
In other words, we are producing plastics only to throw them away.
We are now mass producing disposable plastics at a phenomenal rate that the world’s waste management systems are finding hard to keep up.
40% of plastics disposable
It is estimated that about 40 percent of the now more than 448 million tonnes of plastics produced every year is disposable and used in products intended to be discarded virtually soon after purchase.
Just go to the beach and you’ll find them on the sand.
World statistics estimate that each day billions upon billions of plastic material find their way into our rivers, streams and eventually into our oceans.
During my childhood years on Qamea, my family’s livelihood depended on the sea.
At a time, when village canteens had no refrigerators to store meat, the sea was our main source of daily meat protein.
Many years ago, scientists and environment experts were warning us that the amount of plastics in the world’s ocean would increase 10 times by 2020.
That was three years ago.
Too polluted for fish
They further advised that by 2050, if statistical predictions remain true, we’d have so much plastics in the sea and our oceans would too polluted that fish and other delicacies would be unsafe to eat or we’d not be able to even swim anymore.
Cleaning the ocean is good but may not be good enough.
We need to nip this spiralling issue in the bud.
We need to work before the plastic reaches the ocean.
We need to work on land where they are produced before we go to the ocean.
In Fiji, the concern over disposable plastic waste is the same as the threat in other countries of the world — we are using more disposable plastics at a rate faster than we are able to effectively dispose them that our waste managing systems are struggling to contain the problem.
Recycling not effective
Our recycling initiatives are not effectively solving our disposable plastic dilemma.
During this year’s WOD celebrations, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the ocean as “the foundation of life”.
That pretty much sums everything up.
If the ocean is life, then why can’t we get out act together.
The ball is in everyone’s court and the time to act is now.
Until we meet again, stay blessed, stay healthy and stay safe!
John Mitchell is a Fiji Times journalist and writes the weekly “Behind The News” column. Republished with permission.
Thank God for lawmakers in Texas. Not only have they stepped in to save little children from the clutches of evil drag queens, but they’re almost certainly going to turn their attention to new legislation to save kiddies from school shooters. Soon. Ish. Probably.
During the most recent session of Texas parliament, which ended last week, Republican politicians found time to pass a literal suite of new bills targetting LGBTQ Texans, including ending public funding for libraries that host ‘drag queen story times’. Because, you know, it’s anyone’s guess how many Texan children have died during a bawdy reading of Spot The Dog.
Unfortunately, the Texas legislature ran out of time this parliamentary session to pass any new gun safety laws… turns out it’s a complicated business not infringing on the second amendment rights of well-armed militias. And given Texas Parliament only meets once every two years, January 2025 will be the earliest Texans can expect any new legislation to try and curb the ever-growing violence in Texas streets and shopping malls.
On the good news front, at least some Texan parents can feel a little more confident about getting their little ones home from school after families in the Dallas area last week received free copies of Stay Safe: Run, Hide, Fight, an exciting new children’s book that helps teach kids the best way to survive a mass school shooting.
“If there is danger, let Winnie-the-Pooh and his crew show you what to do!” promises the book.
If there is danger and it is safe to get away we should RUN like Rabbit instead of stay.
Help friends that need it, but we can’t quit until we are safe with a teacher or the police.
If danger is near, do not fear.
HIDE like Pooh does until the police appear.
Doors should be locked, the passage blocked and lights turned off.
We should all hide without making a sound in a place where we cannot be found.
If we have a cell phone it should be in silent zone.
Granted, the timing is a little awkward. The release of Winnie The Pooh’s gun safety book just happened to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 students, aged nine to 11, and two teachers were massacred, with a further 18 injured.
‘Run, Hide, Fight’ is actually the name of the FBI’s public training video for adults: “You can survive a mass shooting… if you’re prepared.”
But at least they’re doing something, right? Because even though drag queens are slaughtering kids in unprecedented numbers, guns stubbornly remain the leading cause of death for children in Texas and beyond, ahead of car accidents and cancer.
Interestingly, that’s not just bad news for Texans – the gun culture there is so bad, it’s impacting on life in neighbouring Mexico. Figures from the US Government Accountability Office for 2009 to 2014 reveal that a staggering 41 per cent of illicit ‘crime guns’ (firearms used in the furtherance of a criminal offence) recovered by Mexican police have their origins in Texas. Which sheds a whole new light on former president Donald Trump’s past claims that Mexico is sending rapists and drug dealers to the US.
Guam has long faced tensions due to the heavy United States military presence on the island.
But as Washington moves to counter China’s presence in the region it is sending more soldiers and missiles to the US territory and updating naval facilities.
There are an estimated 22,000 American troops on Guam currently and that figure is expected to increase up to 27,000.
Director of the Pacific Islands Development Programme at the Hawai’i-based East West Center, Dr Mary Therese Hattori, told RNZ Pacific the military build-up makes Guam a target and puts the safety of its indigenous Chamorro people at risk.
Dr Hattori, who is a Chamorro herself, said the reaction from the locals to the US military presence varies.
“We are seeing all of this tension in the region and it may mean that more of a military build-up and greater defence capabilities on Guam will actually make us a target,” she said.
“The current administration will highlight positives; the employment opportunities for locals, the investment for local infrastructure.”
Chamorro people feeling ‘unsafe’
But she said the people were feeling less safe.
“So, while the country may feel that it is better defended, the safety of the Chamorro people is not part of the equation.”
“We are seeing all of this [military] tensions in the region and it may mean that more of a military build-up and greater defence capabilities on Guam will actually make us a target.
“We feel less safe because Guam is now part of the target . . . you know, the tip of the spear is going to break first in a battle,” she added.
Guam, which has a population of just under 170,000, is still one of the few places where the indigenous people are denied a right to self-determination so that is still an issue.
East-West Centre’s Dr Mary Therese Hattori . . . “The US really needs to take a look at its track record and its relationships and meaningful engagement with Pacific Islands.” Image: EWC
US presenting as ‘Pacific nation’
Dr Hattori said the US is putting itself forward as a Pacific nation and claiming to have commitment and a deep desire for meaningful engagement with the region in response to China’s engagement in the Pacific.
“But as a Chamorro woman, who lives in the state of Hawai’i, I would argue that US really needs to take a look at its track record and its relationships and meaningful engagement with Pacific Islands with which it has historic relations [such as] American Samoa, Guam, the COFA [Compact of Free Association] nations, and native Hawai’ians.”
“So, look at the track record; look at Red Hill [Hawai’i], the contamination of the water, lack of self-determination on Guam, military build-up, environmental degradation.”
“If this is how US treats Pacific nations with whom it has historic ties, how can other Pacific islanders really believe that the US wants to be a true partner and a Pacific nation,” she added.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
(@AusCGNoumea) 
