text:
ABP Responsible Investments Seminar
ABP Responsible Investments Seminar 2021: Tax transparency
"Different perspectives on responsible tax behaviour".
In 2020, ABP published its new tax policy and tax principles. Responsible tax behavior is one of the main pillars of our tax policy. In our view, responsible tax behavior can partially be achieved by being transparent about tax. Through an open dialogue with our stakeholders, we aim to inspire others to increase transparency and awareness on tax behavior. With this year's seminar, we underscore the importance of tax transparency for society.
Over the past years, the topic of taxation has gained momentum in politics, media and society. Taxation contributes to the sustainability of public finances and a stable society in which public facilities are available to the wider public. As one of the larger pension funds globally, we believe that responsible tax behavior should not only be expected from us, but that we also have a role in achieving responsible tax behavior at the level of companies that we invest in or partner with. In this seminar we aim to discuss the topic of tax transparency through different perspectives, including the perspective of institutional investors, policy makers, regulators, scholars and companies.
Program (indicative)
2pm – 4 PM CET
Participants can enter through livestream connection.
13.50 – 14.00 Livestream will be open
Introduction by Rob Verjans and Stef van Weeghel
14.25 – 14.30 Questions from participants
14.30 – 15.15 Panel discussion on role and vision of regulators and policy makers
15.15 – 15.55 Panel discussion on perspective of taxpayers (multinationals) and investors
15.55 – 16.00 Closing statement by Stef van Weeghel
• Stef van Weeghel (international tax policy leader PwC and professor international tax law UvA)
• Rob Verjans (Managing Director Business Management ABP)
• Grace Perez Navarro (Deputy Director OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration)
• Benjamin Angel (Director TAXUD European Commission)
• John Connors (Vodafone Group Tax Director)
• Janine Juggins (EVP Global Tax and Treasury)
• Jean-Jacques Barberi (Amundi Asset Management)
• Allison Christians (McGill University Faculty of Law)
• Alexandra MacLean (Canada Revenue Agency)
Stef van Weeghel
Stef van Weeghel is a tax partner at PwC and is currently PwC's Global Tax Policy Leader. In addition, Stef is a Professor in international tax law at the University of Amsterdam. Stef is regularly called upon as an expert witness before committees of the Dutch and European Parliament, as well as in tax cases for taxpayers and governments in courts and arbitration procedures.
Rob Verjans
Rob is one of the two managing directors of ABP, overseeing various teams including asset management, pension policy, risk management, internal control and tax, legal & compliance. Rob joined ABP in 2014 and is in his current role since 2016. Between 2014 and 2016 Rob acted as General Counsel. Before joining ABP Rob has worked three years for another Dutch pension fund and before that as a lawyer for several large international law firms in the field of banking, securities and regulatory law.
Grace Perez Navarro
Grace Perez-Navarro is the Deputy Director of the OECD's Centre for Tax Policy and Administration. As such, she plays a key role in all of the OECD's tax work including the tax challenges of digitalisation, the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project, improving international tax cooperation, tackling illicit financial flows, promoting better tax policies and engaging developing countries in OECD tax work.
Benjamin Angel
Benjamin Angel is Director of the Direct taxation, tax coordination, economic analysis and evaluation unit of the European Commission and acting Director for indirect taxation and tax administration. He has joined the European Commission (the EU executive) in 1994. His experience mixes posts in the cabinets of the European Commissioners for economic and monetary with positions in the services in charge of economic and financial affairs.
John Connors
Group Tax Director, Vodafone Group plc. John is the global head of tax for Vodafone, responsible for their tax strategy, tax compliance and any tax issues across the Group. He instigated the publication of Vodafone's annual 'Total tax and economic contribution' report, which now includes a copy of the company's OECD standard country by country tax report. John joined Vodafone in 2007 and has been in his current role since 2012. He is a former tax inspector with HMRC and international tax policy advisor at HM Treasury and spent three years at the European Commission, where he primarily supported the work on the EU's Code of Conduct for business taxation.
Janine Juggins
Janine Juggins is the Executive Vice President of Global Tax at Unilever. She is also chair of the UK CBI Tax Committee and co-chair of the HMRC Business Tax Forum. Janine has presented on the practical perspectives of a multinational company in the areas of tax and development, the OECD's BEPS and Pillars 1 and 2 projects, the tax policy and design considerations of natural resources taxation regimes, and on the subjects of responsible tax, tax morale and tax transparency, and contributed a chapter to the IMF book International Taxation and the Extractive Industries published in 2016.
Jean-Jacques Barbéris
Jean-Jacques Barbéris is General Management and Executive board member at Amundi. He is the head of Institutional and Corporate Clients Coverage and supervises the ESG department. Jean-Jacques is also chairman of Amundi Germany and of CPR asset management. Before joining Amundi, Jean-Jacques acted as advisor for Economic and Financial affairs in the staff of the French President of the Republic, where he served from 2013-2016. He is also a Young Global Leader of the World Economic Forum since 2019 and vice-chairman of Finance for Tomorrow, the French financial association devoted to sustainable finance.
Photo: Delporte
Allison Christians
Allison Christians is the H. Heward Stikeman Chair in the Law of Taxation at the McGill University Faculty of Law where she teaches and writes on national, comparative, and international tax law and policy. She focuses especially on the relationship between taxation and economic development, the role of government and non-government institutions and actors in the creation of tax policy norms, and the intersection of taxation and human rights. She has written numerous scholarly articles, essays, and book chapters, as well as essays, columns, and articles in professional journals and has been named one of the "Global Tax 50" most influential individuals in international taxation.
Alexandra MacLean
Alexandra MacLean is a lawyer by training. She joined the Tax Legislation Division of the Canadian Department of Finance in 1996. From 2000 to 2003, she worked in the tax group of a large Canadian regional law firm, Stewart McKelvey. She returned to the Department of Finance in 2003, where she occupied a variety of positions, most recently heading up the Tax Legislation Division from 2013 to 2016. In 2016, she joined the Canada Revenue Agency where she is now the Director General of the International and Large Business Directorate.


Last week, the Connecticut Supreme Court sent a jolt through the legal commentariat with its decision in Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International, the lawsuit brought against the manufacturers and sellers of the semi-automatic rifle used in the tragic 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. In a 4 to 3 decision, the state Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs—the estates of nine of the Sandy Hook victims—stated legally viable claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) based on the defendants' alleged "wrongful marketing" of the AR-15 rifle to civilians for use in "offensive, military-style missions." The majority further held that applying CUTPA to the defendants' "militaristic marketing" would not run afoul of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal statute that broadly immunizes gun manufacturers and sellers from civil liability for crimes committed with their products. The state high court remanded the case to the trial court for discovery and eventually a potential trial.
Not surprisingly, much of the early commentary on Soto has emphasized the court's preemption analysis under the PLCAA and, in particular, the prospects for further review of that question. That is indeed a major ruling, which may well be headed for the U. S. Supreme Court. But for product manufacturers and sellers that do business in Connecticut, Soto's interpretation of CUTPA is just as noteworthy and in the end may have the more enduring legal impact.
(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of Title 18.
The key question under this so-called "predicate exception" is whether a particular state-law rule qualifies as a "statute applicable to the sale or marketing of [firearms]." Id. In past cases, some courts have taken a relatively narrow view of this exception in view of "the specific context in which the term 'applicable' is used and the broader context of the statute as a whole." E.g., Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126, 1134 (9th Cir. 2006). These courts have noted that in enacting the PLCAA, Congress expressly "listed examples of predicate statutes," all of which "pertain specifically to sales and manufacturing activities" and most of which "target the firearms industry specifically." Id. These statutory examples, combined with congressional findings that targeted state-law suits seeking an "unjustified 'expansion of the common law,'" have convinced some courts that the predicate exception covers only "statutes that regulate manufacturing, importing, selling, marketing, and using firearms or that regulate the firearms industry," as opposed to "general tort theories that happened to have been codified by a given jurisdiction." Id.
The Soto majority's analysis is in some tension with this approach. As Justice Palmer's majority opinion notes, "the principal definition of 'applicable'" in Black's Law Dictionary "is simply 'capable of being applied.'" There is little doubt that "state consumer protection statutes such as CUTPA" are "capable of being applied to the sale and marketing of firearms." The court did acknowledge that the specific examples of predicate statutes listed by Congress were narrower in scope. The majority also recognized that under the "ejusdem generis canon" of statutory interpretation, "a general category encompasses only things similar in nature to the specific examples that follow." But the court concluded that the ejusdem generis canon "should not be applied ... when the legislative history of a statute reveals a contrary intent." As the court saw it, the legislative history of the PLCAA suggested that the specific statutory examples were not intended "to define, clarify, or narrow the universe of laws that qualify as predicate statutes." The court thus concluded that the PLCAA erected no bar to the imposition of CUTPA liability for gun manufacturers' "unethical" and "militaristic" marketing of the semi-automatic rifle used by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook.
As Chief Justice Robinson explained in his dissent, the majority's conclusions are debatable, and they may well meet with some skepticism at the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular, the majority's refusal to apply statutory canons of construction "when the legislative history reveals ... a contrary intent" is arguably out of step with modern U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. Compare Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (where the ejusdem generis canon reveals a clear meaning, the court "need not assess the legislative history"). Moreover, the very legislative history relied upon by the Soto majority suggests a congressional intent to foreclose actions seeking an unjustified "expansion of the common law." CUTPA, as the Connecticut Supreme Court has often stated, was enacted by the General Assembly "so that courts might develop a body of law" governing unfair trade practices that "embrace[s] a much broader range of business conduct than does the common law tort action." Associated Inv. Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Williams Associates IV, 230 Conn. 148, 157–58 (1994). The Connecticut Supreme Court's extension of its broad, evolving CUTPA jurisprudence to the "militaristic" marketing of civilian firearms arguably brings this lawsuit within the core of the immunity that Congress sought to establish in the PLCAA.
Because of the importance of the federal preemption question and the tension between Soto's analysis and the reasoning of earlier PLCAA cases, the defendants may have a better chance than most of obtaining U.S. Supreme Court review of the preemption question. That may be why the PLCAA issue has drawn lots of attention from reporters and legal commentators. But whatever the ultimate result on that issue, the most enduring legacy of Soto for companies doing business in Connecticut may be the majority's expansion of CUTPA.
The court viewed the plaintiffs' CUTPA claims as being based on two different theories of unfair trade practice: (1) that the sale of assault rifles such as the AR-15 is inherently unreasonable and dangerous, and (2) that the defendants marketed and promoted their AR-15 weapons in an unethical, oppressive, immoral and unscrupulous manner. The court determined that the first of these theories was barred by the statute of limitations. The court's analysis of the second of these theories, related to marketing in an unethical manner, expands the scope of CUTPA beyond anything previously recognized in Connecticut case law.
The Soto majority broke new ground in Connecticut law on unfair trade practices and product liability in at least four ways. First, the court held as a matter of first impression that CUTPA permits recovery for personal injuries, fatal or otherwise, that result directly from wrongful advertising practices. The court concluded that the language of the statute itself was ambiguous, and the legislative history was silent on the issue of personal injuries. The court nevertheless concluded that the statute could be reasonably construed to allow claims for personal injuries and that the broad remedial purpose of CUTPA favored this expansive interpretation. In addition, the court looked to the activities of the Federal Trade Commission and rulings under the Federal Trade Commission Act addressing the issue of physical harm as supporting its conclusion. Finally, the court looked to the law in other states, which have allowed personal injury claims pursuant to broadly worded consumer protection statutes. Before the trial court's decision in Soto, there had been no decision since 2001 that had allowed for the recovery of personal injuries under CUTPA. Now the state Supreme Court has officially sanctioned these claims as consistent with Connecticut law.
Second, the Soto court determined that a plaintiff does not need to have any business relationship with the defendant (such as that of a customer, competitor or consumer) in order to bring a CUTPA claim. This was somewhat surprising in light of earlier Connecticut Supreme Court cases and lower-court case law suggesting or assuming that such a business relationship was critical to CUTPA standing. For example, in 2005, in Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC, 275 Conn. 105, 157 (2005), the plaintiffs argued that a business relationship is not required to have CUTPA standing, and the court rejected that argument, noting that the plaintiffs provided no authority for their position. In contrast, the Soto court emphasized that CUTPA refers to "any person who suffers an ascertainable loss," not just persons with whom the defendant has a business relationship. In addition, the court looked to the legislative history of CUTPA and existing case law to determine that courts should apply traditional notions of remoteness and directness rather than a business relationship test to assess whether an injured party has standing. Any party directly injured by conduct resulting from unscrupulous or illegal advertising, the Soto majority held, may bring an action pursuant to CUTPA. The Soto plaintiffs therefore had standing to sue defendants on the theory that marketing firearms for military-style attack missions could have inspired Adam Lanza or intensified the carnage he inflicted on the victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Third, the Soto court considered when the statute of limitations begins to run for CUTPA claims based on marketing a product in an unethical, oppressive, immoral or unscrupulous manner. The court determined that where wrongful death claims are brought pursuant to CUTPA, a plaintiff must satisfy both the wrongful death and CUTPA statute of limitations. For claims based on marketing, the CUTPA statute of limitations does not run from the time of the purchase or sale of the product, as some might have expected, but instead begins running only once the challenged marketing scheme ends or causes an injury, which in Soto was the date of the shooting.
Fourth, the court held that the exclusivity provision of the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA) did not bar plaintiffs' CUTPA personal injury claims relating to marketing and advertising. The CPLA provides in part that a product liability claim "may be asserted and shall be in lieu of all other claims against product sellers, including actions of negligence, strict liability and warranty, for harm caused by a product." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572n(a). Until Soto, the scope of this exclusivity provision seemed to be settled by two earlier Connecticut Supreme Court decisions, Gerrity v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 263 Conn. 120 (2003), and Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C., 278 Conn. 305, 326 (2006). In Gerrity, the court held the CPLA was the exclusive remedy for a party who seeks recompense for "personal injury, death or property damage ..." caused by a product defect but that the exclusivity provision did not serve as a bar to additional claims, including one brought under CUTPA, either for an injury not caused by the defective product or if the party is not pursuing a claim for "personal injury, death or property damage ... ." Thus, the court held that the plaintiff's claims for financial injury—being forced to pay a higher price for cigarettes than she would have had to pay in the absence of the claimed wrongful conduct—were outside the scope of CPLA and could be brought under CUTPA. Three years later, in Hurley, the court held that the plaintiffs' CUTPA count sought to recover for personal injuries caused by the defendant's product, and "[a]ccordingly, the plaintiffs' claim falls within the scope of the liability act and thus is barred by the exclusivity provision under § 52–572n (a)."
In Soto, the court recognized that a "product liability claim" includes all claims or actions for injury, death or property damage caused by a variety of activities relating to a product, including marketing, but held that prior case law regarding the exclusivity provision of the CPLA applied only to claims for damages caused by a defective product. This distinction between injuries caused by defective products and injuries caused by marketing products in an unethical manner is not well-developed and will create significant line-drawing problems. The Soto court suggested that one way to distinguish these two categories might be to determine whether marketing materials affect only the specific products at issue or the commercials create a risk as to other similar products. The court used as an example the risk that a viewer of a car commercial featuring unsafe driving practices with the disclaimer "professional driver, closed course, do not attempt this at home" might try the same stunt at home in any car, not just the advertised car. How this line of reasoning may be applied in future cases is difficult to predict and may well lead to expansive new claims against product sellers under CUTPA.
Soto's federal preemption holding has rightly grabbed headlines. But even putting that important issue to one side, the decision also represents a significant expansion of CUTPA liability that could well ensnare many product manufacturers and sellers that do business in Connecticut.
It is sometimes said that bad facts make bad law. The horrific massacre of innocent children and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School is about as bad as the facts can get, and those facts have now led to a significant expansion of Connecticut unfair trade practices law. Whether Soto's expansive view of CUTPA liability will have staying power in other areas not involving the marketing of firearms remains to be seen. But even if Soto's holdings are narrowly limited to their unique facts, at the very least, Connecticut businesses face the prospect of years of motion practice, trials and appeals testing the decision's broader impact.
 See, e.g., Timothy D. Lytton, "Sandy Hook lawsuit court victory opens crack in gun maker immunity shield," The Conversation (March 15, 2019); Mark Joseph Stern, "Connecticut Supreme Court Issues Stunning Decision Allowing Sandy Hook Families to Sue Gun Manufacturer," Slate (March 14, 2019); David French, "The Connecticut Supreme Court Just Placed the Firearms Industry under Legal Threat," National Review (March 18, 2019).
 See also City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 524 F.3d 384, 403-04 (2d Cir. 2008).


text:
Open City's Dan Yemin on Trump, Wu-Tang, and the Art of Protest Music
The punk guitarist says, "I don't really particularly want to do any music that isn't framed as protest music"
Open City (L to R: Andy Nelson, Rachel Rubino, Chris Wilson, Dan Yemin). Photo by Scott Troyan
https://media.blubrry.com/culture_creature/p/www.culturecreature.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/dan-yemin-interview-culture-creature2.mp3
Today on the Culture Creature podcast: an interview with guitarist and vocalist Dan Yemin. Listen to the interview above or in iTunes.
Dan Yemin is a founding member of seminal punk bands including Lifetime, Paint It Black, Kid Dynamite and more. Dan's new band Open City recently released its self-titled debut album. Open City also includes Andy Nelson (Paint It Black, Ceremony, Dark Blue), Rachel Rubino (Bridge And Tunnel), and Chris Wilson (Ted Leo & The Pharmacists). Dan Yemin is also a licensed clinical psychologist.
Dan Yemin Interview Highlights
Dan Yemin on the psychology of President Trump: "We need to be kind of careful about [analyzing Trump] because I certainly can't diagnose someone that I haven't evaluated face to face. But as a citizen with training and background in psychology, I can say that if one were to draw conclusions about his personality based on how he behaves in public, he seems pretty regressed to me. In some ways maybe even preadolescent. Certainly you don't need to be a psychologist to recognize narcissism. But yeah, he's got the impulse control of an early teen. The way he behaves on social media is reminiscent of the way early teens conduct themselves. Not the most sophisticated of early teens either. It does a disservice to teenagers to make that comparison. I would say it's not fair to teenagers to make the comparison. I was working on a lyric the other day, I was thinking about this idea that 'calling you pig would be unfair to a gentle animal.' I kinda feel the same way about comparing the president to an adolescent. I think adolescents can and do strive to have their shit together more than the president does."
Dan Yemin on protest music: "I don't really particularly want to do any music that isn't framed as protest music. As a force, art is really well-suited to that. And I'm not particularly adept at other kinds of activism."
Related: Hear interviews with members of Operation Ivy, Screaming Females and Fugazi
Dan Yemin on competition: "I never talk about [competition] because it's not cool in punk to talk about competing because I associate it with toxic masculinity and capitalism – which are two things that I wanna be as separate from as possible. Not just toxic masculinity but kind of conventional and traditional masculinity. That's something that has always been a trap … and more and more, [it feels like a trap] as the culture wars play out in the twenty-first century. But competition is – if you think about it a different way – really important."
Stay tuned to Culture Creature for more great interviews and new music:
Subscribe to the Culture Creature podcast on iTunes
Like Culture Creature on Facebook
Follow Dan Redding on Twitter
Tags: Dan Yemin, Lifetime, Open City, Punk
Basement: The Culture Creature Interview (Listen Now)
Listen: Punk Supergroup Beach Rats Share Debut Song
An Update On Beach Rats (members of Minor Threat, Lifetime, Bouncing Souls)
Members of Minor Threat, Lifetime & Bouncing Souls Form Beach Rats

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Cleaner Air for Scotland 2: consultation
Environment and Forestry Directorate
Building, planning and design, Business, industry and innovation, Communities and third sector, +8 more … Coronavirus in Scotland, Energy, Environment and climate change, Farming and rural, Health and social care, Programme for Government, Public sector, Transport
Consultation on a draft new air quality strategy for Scotland, taking into account the recommendations arising from the independent review of the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy.
2. Integrated Policy
About this consultation
Responding to this consultation
1. Health – A Precautionary Approach
3. Placemaking
5. Public Engagement and Behaviour Change
6. Industrial Emissions Regulation
7. Tackling Non Transport Emissions Sources
9. Governance, Accountability and Delivery
10. Further Progress Review
35. The public health effects of indoor air quality and noise pollution correlate strongly with those of outdoor air pollution. Similarly, there is significant overlap between the measures needed to address climate change and improve air quality in areas such as transport, agriculture and industrial emissions. Effort to address these issues in a more co-ordinated way offers additional likely co-benefits. Improving air quality makes an important contribution to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals[26] and the Scottish Government's National Outcomes[27]. In a wider context, further progress in embedding placemaking principles across all policy areas will deliver benefits for both physical and mental health through creating better urban spaces that are more attractive to spend time and easier to move around in.
36. CAFS 2 must work in tandem with other key Scottish Government strategies, notably the National Transport Strategy 2, Climate Change Plan[28], National Planning Framework and Infrastructure Investment Plan, in order to achieve the vision for Scotland to have the cleanest air quality in Europe. Clear synergies exist between these strategies.
37. It is crucial that our transport and placemaking agendas interact in a way that drives tangible and measurable emissions reduction, whilst enabling great places where people live, work and play to become even more connected, accessible, affordable and efficient.
Air pollution and climate change
38. Greenhouse gases and air pollutants share common sources, notably transport, energy generation and land use practices, and will thus benefit from many of the same policy interventions. Some air pollutants can also act as greenhouse gases (e.g. ozone) or contribute to their formation (e.g. nitrogen oxides). Conversely, changes in the climate will impact on air quality; increases in temperature may affect ozone formation, increasing the frequency and severity of summer smogs, and increase emission rates of ammonia. At the same time, air pollution and climate change generally act at different scales, both spatially and temporally. Greenhouse gases are most active high up in the atmosphere, whereas the most important factors for air quality are the location and level of concentration of pollutants nearer the earth's surface, with increased impacts near emission hotspots. There are also complex relationships and trade-offs between the various pollutants that need to be managed. For example black carbon makes a significant warming contribution, besides being an important component of PM. Reducing such emissions therefore has a clear benefit for both climate change and air quality. On the other hand, whilst reducing sulphur dioxide emissions has been positive for both public health and the environment, atmospheric cooling from sulphate or "white" aerosols (secondary PM) it helps to form is also reduced.
39. With transport being Scotland's largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting sector[29], the NTS climate action and health/wellbeing priorities highlight the crucial role of transport in delivering improvements to both climate and air quality emissions. Actions on climate change and air quality can present policy interlinkages and offer tangible co-benefits[30]in a way that supports delivery of our air quality vision[31].
40. Employers across all sectors are adapting Carbon Management Plans (CMPS) to formulate GHG strategies that support the net-zero agenda[32] and circular economy. In doing so, many CMPs are broadening their reach beyond traditional aspects such as estate energy management and travel planning, but we should not lose sight of these core tenets, particularly given the thinking and lessons learnt around homeworking and estate management prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
41. In 2016, the CAFS Governance Group commissioned a report 'Synergies and tensions between climate change and air quality actions'[33]. The report, including 50 key recommendations, was intended to help inform the 2018 Scottish Climate Change Plan. The report also contributed to the work of a UK cross-department group that has been set up to explore the requirements and opportunities for cross disciplinary research to provide a stronger evidence base for analysing the synergies and tensions of policy and regulation of air quality and climate change. Of the 50 recommendations made in the report, 38 presented strong evidence of synergies between tackling climate change and improving air quality simultaneously.
42. By 2018, Scotland's source greenhouse gas emissions had declined by over 45% since 1990. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019[34] sets a target of net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases by 2045. The Act also sets a 75% emissions reduction target for 2030, and 90% by 2040, from a 1990/95 baseline. The Scottish Government is updating its current Climate Change Plan[35] to account for the new targets in the 2019 Act. The Climate Change Plan update will be published later this year and will set out plans for a green recovery from COVID-19, alongside a strategy to meet future emissions reduction targets. Building on the initial policies set out in the Scottish Government's Programme for Scotland 2019-20[36] to end Scotland's contribution to climate change, the updated Climate Change Plan will contain a wide range of measures that will provide air quality benefits and aligns closely with the aims of this strategy.
43. A key part of the Scottish Government's approach on climate change is ensuring a just transition. This means reducing emissions in a way which is fair for all and leaves no-one behind. The Climate Change (Emission Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 contains a set of just transition principles, that Ministers must have regard to when setting out plans to reduce emissions.
44. To further support the application of just transition principles, the Scottish Government established the Just Transition Commission to advise Ministers on how we can maximise the economic and social opportunities of meeting our climate change targets, while managing the challenges.[37] The Commission published its interim report in February 2020, and is due to deliver its final report to Ministers in early 2021.
45. The Scottish Government's approach on just transition is in line with the desired outcome of better air quality. Embedding just transition principles in Government policy will therefore help deliver a win-win in the form of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality for people all over Scotland, in turn ensuring the benefits of climate action are shared widely.
Air pollution and noise
46. As yet there are no fixed noise level targets in Scotland or the rest of the UK. In 2002 the EU adopted the Environmental Noise Directive which stipulates that measurements must be taken of ambient noise, with the results being made publicly available and action plans for noise reduction must be agreed. The World Health Organisation (WHO) published guidance in 2018 on environmental noise levels taking account of existing health effects evidence[38].
47. In Scotland's four biggest cities, it has been estimated that over one million people are exposed to noise levels in excess of the WHO guidelines during the daytime and over 0.8 million during the night, with evidence indicating that deprived communities suffer more[39]. The health impact costs have not been directly estimated in Scotland but, based on WHO estimates elsewhere, may be considerable.
48. As with urban air pollution, the major source of ambient noise is road traffic. The adverse impacts of air pollution are closely correlated with those of noise, making it difficult to assess the impact of traffic noise on health separately. However, this does mean that many interventions aimed at reducing traffic sourced air pollution are also likely to help reduce excess traffic sourced noise. These interventions range from traffic reduction in urban areas to physical solutions such as green barriers along roads.
Work with local authorities to ensure that noise action plans are closely aligned with air quality action plans to deliver co-benefits. Guidance will be produced to facilitate this.
Ensure that all actions taken by the Scottish Government to address air quality maximise the potential for co-benefits with climate change mitigation and adaptation. The 50 recommendations for maximising co-benefits set out in the CAFS Governance Group climate change report will be used to guide this process. We will work with local authorities to ensure that a similar approach is taken at local level.
Ensure that actions in the Scottish Government's Climate Change Plan maximise co-benefits for air quality.
Questions on integrated policy
2. Do you agree with the package of actions put forward in the integrated policy chapter?
A) Yes
C) Neither agree nor disagree
Additional comments in support of your answer
3. What in your opinion and/or experience are the barriers to cross departmental working within local authorities or other organisations on air quality and how can these barriers be overcome?
Email: andrew.taylor2@gov.scot


Suits.S03E03.720p.WEB-DL.DD5.1.H.264-Abjex [PublicHD] 0: 1: . tivo 1080i or 1080p difference [P2PDL] 0: 0: Jul. 31st '13: 1.0 GB 0: l33tSp33d: First << 34; 35 .Spartacus S03E03 720p HDTV x264-EVOLVE [eztv] (720p, 5.1) DC89380FA60BA55448CF19C8739CD74E1D967C63 Download torrents at Zooqle .. Community ----- Suits.S03E03.720p.HDTV.x264-EVOLVE [PublicHD] Length.: 43mn 0s Video.: H264 3393Kbps (1280x720) FPS .Up to 40% Off & Get wallpaper full hd 1080p christmas Shipping infamous second son 1080p wallpaper gaming Qualifying Orders, Shop Now!Suits.S03E03.720p.HDTV.x264-EVOLVE (1.04GB--275MB) [Encoder]:.:[ nItRo. Get this torrent.Browse Suits . Type. Name (Order by: Uploaded, Size, ULed by, SE, LE) . Suits.S06E11.720p.HDTV.[TorrentCounter][Season.6.Episode.11] Uploaded 01-26 05:48, .Suits - Third Season Imdb. Release info: Suits.S03E03.720p.HDTV.x264-EVOLVE A tamil 1080p blu ray video songs mkv files by . elderman sync, corrected by elderman .


Families of children entering middle school or high school in the fall of 2019 can get an overview of Arlington's middle schools or high schools and programs, including their program focuses, application dates, orientation schedules, transfer procedures at special information nights. Breakout sessions with individual school principals will be provided. These sessions will outline unique programs and activities offered at their individual schools. Some simultaneous Spanish interpretation services will be available. Contact School & Community Relations at 703-228-6005.
School Board Policy J-5.3.31 Options and Transfers effective for admissions, options and transfers for SY 2018-19.
For information about school choices in Arlington Public Schools, contact the Welcome Center at 703-228-8000.
The H-B Woodlawn program serves students countywide. The focus is on students who need less restriction and a degree of freedom similar to that of college students.
Transportation: Provided to students living more than 1.5 miles away from the school.
Population H-B serves: H-B Woodlawn is a countywide program open to all students in middle and high school via application to the 6th or 9th grade entry levels. (Note: spaces at the 9th grade entry level may be limited).
A School Options Application must be submitted between November 5, 2018 and January 18, 2019 for the 2019-20 school year. Paper copies will also be available, and must be submitted to the Welcome Center (2110 Washington Blvd., Arlington, VA 22204). Parents are encouraged to attend transfer orientations. Please visit https://www.apsva.us/school-options/ for information.
Parents are encouraged to attend a school options orientation at both the neighborhood school and at H-B Woodlawn (no RSVP required to attend). The application will be submitted centrally and confirmation will be provided to the parent/guardian. Applications must be received on or before 4:00 pm on January 18, 2019.
Application to H-B Woodlawn is online and decisions are made by lottery. Applications must be received on or before 4:00 pm on January 18, 2019.
Information about the process for admission to H-B Woodlawn is available on the Options Schools web page.
Applications The online application will be available on Nov. 5, 2018. Parents should complete an Options School Application online between Nov. 5, 2018 and Jan. 18, 2019, by 4 p.m. Paper applications will also be accepted and must be submitted to the Welcome Center (2110 Washington Blvd., Arlington, VA, 22204) by 4 p.m. on Jan. 18, 2019.
Lottery If the number of applications exceed the available seats for any of the Options Schools, APS will conduct a random double-blind lottery to determine admission. If families apply to more than one school/program, their application will go into all lotteries simultaneously. Lotteries for all Secondary Options schools will be held on January 29, 2019 at the Welcome Center by Department of Teaching and Learning staff.
Notification Families will be notified of their acceptance or placement on the waiting list in writing by the Welcome Center no later than February 5, 2019. Parents must confirm or decline attendance to the school or program by February 22, 2019.
Waiting List Students who applied, but were not selected through the lottery process, will be placed in numerical order on a waiting list. Applications received after the deadline are placed at the bottom of the existing waiting list for the upcoming school year. Waiting lists will be maintained by the Welcome Center until July 1. After July 1, waiting lists for the current school year will be maintained by school staff. As of fall of 2018, all families will need to apply for all programs each year to be included in the lottery. Additional information is found in the Options and Transfers webpage.
slots for the 2019-20 school year.
Number of students accepted to the 9th grade for the 2019-20 school year.


Return Jonathan Meigs, in uniform, holding his Revolutionary War sword.
Among Revolutionary War heroes buried in Tennessee, Return Jonathan Meigs stands out for the many ways he served his country. He was a colonel in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, helped settle the Northwest Territory and was appointed as agent to the Cherokee Territory in 1801.
Meigs was born in Middletown, Conn., on Dec. 17, 1740, to Return and Elizabeth Hamlin Meigs. He began his career in the mercantile business. In 1764 he married Joanna Winborn, with whom he had four children before her death. In 1774 he married Grace Starr and fathered three more children.
By 1774 Meigs was a captain in the local militia. Following the Battle of Lexington on April 19, 1775, he led a company to Boston, where he was appointed a major in the 2nd Connecticut Regiment of the Continental Army. Later that year, as a division commander, he accompanied Col. Benedict Arnold on his 1,100-man expedition through Maine to Canada, a march so strenuous that historian Kenneth Roberts compared it to Hannibal's crossing of the Alps. The British captured Meigs in the assault on Quebec City, but Gen. Guy Carleton paroled Meigs for his decent treatment of Captain Law, Carleton's chief engineer.
Meigs rose from major to lieutenant colonel. In May of 1777, commanding the 6th Connecticut Regiment, he led the Meigs Raid against British forces in Sag Harbor. With 220 men in a fleet of 13 whaleboats, he crossed Long Island Sound from Connecticut to Long Island in a night attack on the British fleet. The raiders burned 12 ships and took 90 prisoners without any losses. Congress gave Meigs a presentation sword, and he was appointed colonel of the 6th Connecticut. In July 1779 he led the 3rd regiment of the Corps of Light Infantry at the Battle of Stony Point on the Hudson River above New York. As acting commander of the 1st Connecticut Brigade, he put down a mutiny and received a letter of thanks from George Washington. Col. Meigs was retired in January 1781.
After the war Meigs was appointed one of the Ohio Company's first surveyors on Nov. 23, 1787. He and a party of New Englanders under Gen. Rufus Putnam traveled down the Ohio to the Muskingum River, where they founded Marietta, Ohio. Meigs drew a code of regulations and posted it on a big oak tree. He subsequently served as a clerk of the Court of Common Pleas and judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions. In 1795 he served in the army under Gen. Anthony Wayne as a commissary of clothing in the western country. From 1799 to 1801 Meigs served in the Ohio territorial legislature. His son, Return Jonathan Meigs Jr., remained in Ohio, where he served as a U. S. senator (1808-1810) and governor (1810-1814).
Meigs was 61 in May of 1801 when President Thomas Jefferson appointed him to serve as agent to the Cherokee nation and military agent for the U.S. War Department at Fort Southwest Point near present day Kingston, Tenn. In 1807 he relocated the agencies farther east to a post named Hiwassee Garrison, at the juncture of the Hiwassee and Tennessee rivers. His interpreter was Charles R. Hicks, who later became a chief of the Cherokee. Meigs' military role ended in 1813 when the Federal soldiers stationed there were withdrawn, but he continued to serve as Cherokee agent on the Hiwassee River until he died.
Meigs is credited with promoting the interests of the Cherokee, protecting their treaty rights, and encouraging them in their efforts to establish a Republican form of government. The Cherokee named him "The White Path" to show their respect. In January 1823, just past his 82nd birthday, Meigs moved into a tent so his quarters could be used by an elderly chief who was visiting. He caught pneumonia and died on Jan. 28, 1823. He was buried beside his wife, Grace, and son, Timothy, in the Old Garrison Cemetery near Calhoun in Rhea County.
Timothy's son, Return J. Meigs IV, married Jennie Ross, daughter of Principal Chief John Ross, and emigrated to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears. The emigration path crossed the river at Blythe's Ferry near the site of the Hiwassee Garrison. The ferry landing is now part of the Cherokee Removal Park.
The state of Tennessee honored Col. Return J. Meigs by the naming of Meigs County, formed in 1836 from part of Rhea County, and Meigs Mountain in the Great Smoky Mountains.


Twice in the Philippian letter Paul encouraged Christians to "Rejoice in the Lord (3:1 and 4:4). This second time he repeats the encouragement twice. "Rejoice…and again I say Rejoice!" and adds the word "Always".
Clearly, the Joy of the Christian is not transient or temporary. Christian rejoicing is not reserved for song service or prayer service or preaching service. Christian Joy is not limited to special times of worship or praise. Christian Joy is to be unbroken and constant. Thus, rejoicing in the Lord is one manifestation of our having the Fruit of the Spirit. "But the Fruit of the Spirit is Love, Joy…"(Galatians 5:22).
The fact that Paul repeats twice in Philippians 4:4 the injunction to rejoice means that conditions in Philippi were such as to make the call to rejoice difficult. So to us it means in spite of circumstances, in spite of troubling times…Rejoice!
Clearly constant spiritual joy is deeper than being happy. Joy is having an attitude or a state of mind that believes that since Jesus is Lord and Saviour we can live the lyrics of a popular song – "Whatever my lot it is well with my soul.
LETS GIVE THE LORD CONSTANT JOY.


She is incredibly beautiful and carries herself with a lot of poise. She is famous for playing Robin Scherbatsky in the hit comedy TV series 'How I Met Your Mother' and she plays Agent Maria Hill in the MCU. She has a supporting role in Marvel movies but she did her part well.


text:
December 19, 2016 News
Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act Signed into Law
(Washington, DC, Dec. 19, 2016)–President Obama has signed H.R. 1150, the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act, the first piece of legislation to specifically mention and include protection for "non-theists," into law.
Upon learning of the Act's passage, American Humanist Association Executive Director Roy Speckhardt said, ""The American Humanist Association is proud to see this historic legislation signed into law and looks forward to working with the US Department of State to ensure religious liberty for non-theists and religious minorities abroad. That non-theists are now recognized as a protected class is a significant step toward full acceptance and inclusion for non-religious individuals, who are still far too often stigmatized and persecuted around the world."
You can read the full text of the Act below or online here.
One Hundred Fourteenth Congress
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen
To amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to improve the ability
of the United States to advance religious freedom globally through enhanced
diplomacy, training, counterterrorism, and foreign assistance efforts, and through
stronger and more flexible political responses to religious freedom violations and
violent extremism worldwide, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ''Frank R.
Wolf International Religious Freedom Act''.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings; policy; sense of Congress.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF STATE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 101. Office on International Religious Freedom; Ambassador at Large for
International Religious Freedom.
Sec. 102. Annual Report on International Religious Freedom.
Sec. 103. Training for Foreign Service officers.
Sec. 104. Prisoner lists and issue briefs on religious freedom concerns.
TITLE II—NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
Sec. 201. Special Adviser for International Religious Freedom.
TITLE III—PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS
Sec. 301. Non-state actor designations.
Sec. 302. Presidential actions in response to particularly severe violations of religious
Sec. 303. Report to Congress.
Sec. 304. Presidential waiver.
Sec. 305. Publication in the Federal Register.
TITLE IV—PROMOTION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Sec. 401. Assistance for promoting religious freedom.
TITLE V—DESIGNATED PERSONS LIST FOR PARTICULARLY SEVERE
VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Sec. 501. Designated Persons List for Particularly Severe Violations of Religious
TITLE VI—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. Miscellaneous provisions.
Sec. 602. Clerical amendments.
(a) FINDINGS.—Section 2(a) of the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401(a)) is amended—
R. 1150—2
(1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ''The freedom of thought,
conscience, and religion is understood to protect theistic and
non-theistic beliefs and the right not to profess or practice
any religion.'' before ''Governments'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by adding at the end the following:
''A policy or practice of routinely denying applications for visas
for religious workers in a country can be indicative of a poor
state of religious freedom in that country.''; and
(3) in paragraph (6)—
(A) by inserting ''and the specific targeting of nontheists,
humanists, and atheists because of their beliefs''
after ''religious persecution''; and
(B) by inserting ''and in regions where non-state actors
exercise significant political power and territorial control''
before the period at the end.
(b) POLICY.—Section 2(b) of the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401(b)) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as subparagraphs
(A) through (E);
(2) by striking the matter preceding subparagraph (A),
as redesignated, and inserting the following:
''(1) IN GENERAL.—The following shall be the policy of the
United States:''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
''(2) EVOLVING POLICIES AND COORDINATED DIPLOMATIC
RESPONSES.—Because the promotion of international religious
freedom protects human rights, advances democracy abroad,
and advances United States interests in stability, security,
and development globally, the promotion of international religious
freedom requires new and evolving policies and diplomatic
responses that—
''(A) are drawn from the expertise of the national security
agencies, the diplomatic services, and other governmental
agencies and nongovernmental organizations; and
''(B) are coordinated across and carried out by the
entire range of Federal agencies.''.
(c) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) a policy or practice by the government of any foreign
country of routinely denying visa applications for religious
workers can be indicative of a poor state of religious freedom
in that country; and
(2) the United States Government should seek to reverse
any such policy by reviewing the entirety of the bilateral relationship
between such country and the United States.
Section 3 of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
(22 U.S.C. 6402) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (16);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (10), (11), and (12) as
paragraphs (12), (13), and (14), respectively;
(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
''(10) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The term
'institution of higher education' has the meaning given that
term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1001).
''(11) NON-STATE ACTOR.—The term 'non-state actor' means
a nonsovereign entity that—
''(A) exercises significant political power and territorial
control;
''(B) is outside the control of a sovereign government;
''(C) often employs violence in pursuit of its objectives.'';
(4) by inserting after paragraph (14), as redesignated, the
''(15) SPECIAL WATCH LIST.—The term 'Special Watch List'
means the Special Watch List described in section
402(b)(1)(A)(iii).''; and
(5) in paragraph (16), as redesignated—
(A) in subparagraph (A)—
(i) by redesignating clauses (iv) and (v) as clauses
(v) and (vi), respectively; and
(ii) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
''(iv) not professing a particular religion, or any
religion;''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)—
(i) by inserting ''conscience, non-theistic views, or''
before ''religious belief or practice''; and
(ii) by inserting ''forcibly compelling non-believers
or non-theists to recant their beliefs or to convert,''
after ''forced religious conversion,''.
SEC. 101. OFFICE ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM; AMBASSADOR
AT LARGE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101 of the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6411) is amended—
(1) in subsection (b), by inserting '', and shall report directly
to the Secretary of State'' before the period at the end;
(2) in subsection (c)—
(A) in paragraph (1)—
(i) by striking ''responsibility'' and inserting
''responsibilities'';
(ii) by striking ''shall be to advance'' and inserting
the following: ''shall be to—
''(A) advance'';
(iii) in subparagraph (A), as redesignated, by
striking the period at the end and inserting ''; and'';
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
''(B) integrate United States international religious
freedom policies and strategies into the foreign policy
efforts of the United States.'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ''the principal adviser
to'' before ''the Secretary of State'';
(C) in paragraph (3)—
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ''and'' at the
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period
at the end and inserting ''; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
''(C) contacts with nongovernmental organizations that
have an impact on the state of religious freedom in their
respective societies or regions, or internationally.'';
(D) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5);
(E) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
''(4) COORDINATION RESPONSIBILITIES.—In order to promote
religious freedom as an interest of United States foreign policy,
the Ambassador at Large—
''(A) shall coordinate international religious freedom
policies across all programs, projects, and activities of the
United States; and
''(B) should participate in any interagency processes
on issues in which the promotion of international religious
freedom policy can advance United States national security
interests, including in democracy promotion, stability, security,
and development globally.''; and
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ''staff for the Office'' and
all that follows and inserting ''appropriate staff for the Office,
including full-time equivalent positions and other temporary
staff positions needed to compile, edit, and manage the Annual
Report under the direct supervision of the Ambassador at
Large, and for the conduct of investigations by the Office and
for necessary travel to carry out this Act. The Secretary of
State should provide the Ambassador at Large with sufficient
funding to carry out the duties described in this section,
including, as necessary, representation funds. On the date on
which the President's annual budget request is submitted to
Congress, the Secretary shall submit an annual report to the
appropriate congressional committees that includes a report
on staffing levels for the International Religious Freedom
Office.''.
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
maintaining an adequate staffing level at the Office, such as was
in place during fiscal year 2016, is necessary for the Office to
carry out its important work.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 102(b)(1) of the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6412(b)(1)) is amended—
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
''September 1'' and inserting ''May 1'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)—
(A) in clause (iii), by striking ''; and'' and inserting
''as well as the routine denial of visa applications for religious
workers;'';
(B) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (vii); and
(C) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
''(iv) particularly severe violations of religious
freedom in that country if such country does not have
a functioning government or the government of such
country does not control its territory;
''(v) the identification of prisoners, to the extent
possible, in that country pursuant to section 108(d);
''(vi) any action taken by the government of that
country to censor religious content, communications,
or worship activities online, including descriptions of
the targeted religious group, the content, communication,
or activities censored, and the means used; and'';
(3) in subparagraph (B), in the matter preceding clause
(A) by inserting ''persecution of lawyers, politicians,
or other human rights advocates seeking to defend the
rights of members of religious groups or highlight religious
freedom violations, prohibitions on ritual animal slaughter
or male infant circumcision,'' after ''entire religions,''; and
(B) by inserting ''policies that ban or restrict the public
manifestation of religious belief and the peaceful involvement
of religious groups or their members in the political
life of each such foreign country,'' after ''such groups,'';
(4) in subparagraph (C), by striking ''A description of
United States actions and'' and inserting ''A detailed description
of United States actions, diplomatic and political coordination
efforts, and other''; and
(5) in subparagraph (F)(i)—
(A) by striking ''section 402(b)(1)'' and inserting ''section
402(b)(1)(A)(ii)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ''Any country
in which a non-state actor designated as an entity of particular
concern for religious freedom under section 301
of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act
is located shall be included in this section of the report.''.
(1) the original intent of the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401 et seq.) was to require
annual reports from both the Department of State and the
Commission on International Religious Freedom to be delivered
each year, during the same calendar year, and with at least
5 months separating these reports, in order to provide updated
information for policymakers, Members of Congress, and nongovernmental
organizations; and
(2) given that the annual Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices no longer contain updated information on religious
freedom conditions globally, it is important that the
Department of State coordinate with the Commission to fulfill
the original intent of the International Religious Freedom Act
of 1998.
(a) AMENDMENTS TO FOREIGN SERVICE ACT OF 1980.—Section
708 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4028) is
(1) in subsection (a)—
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;
(B) by striking ''(a) The Secretary of State'' and
''(a) HUMAN RIGHTS, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING
''(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of State''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
''(2) RELIGIOUS FREEDOM TRAINING.—
''(A) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the training required
under paragraph (1)(B), the Director of the George P.
Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center shall, not
later than the one year after the date of the enactment
of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act,
conduct training on religious freedom for all Foreign Service
officers, including all entry level officers, all officers prior
to departure for posting outside the United States, and
all outgoing deputy chiefs of mission and ambassadors.
Such training shall be included in—
''(i) the A–100 course attended by all Foreign
Service officers;
''(ii) the courses required of every Foreign Service
officer prior to a posting outside the United States,
with segments tailored to the particular religious
demography, religious freedom conditions, and United
States strategies for advancing religious freedom, in
each receiving country; and
''(iii) the courses required of all outgoing deputy
chiefs of mission and ambassadors.
''(B) DEVELOPMENT OF CURRICULUM.—In carrying out
the training required under paragraph (1)(B), the Ambassador
at Large for International Religious Freedom, in
coordination with the Director of the George P. Shultz
National Foreign Affairs Training Center and other Federal
officials, as appropriate, and in consultation with the
United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom established under section 201(a) of the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6431(a)),
shall make recommendations to the Secretary of State
regarding a curriculum for the training of United States
Foreign Service officers under paragraph (1)(B) on the scope
and strategic value of international religious freedom, how
violations of international religious freedom harm fundamental
United States interests, how the advancement of
international religious freedom can advance such interests,
how United States international religious freedom policy
should be carried out in practice by United States diplomats
and other Foreign Service officers, and the relevance and
relationship of international religious freedom to United
States defense, diplomacy, development, and public affairs
efforts. The Secretary of State should ensure the availability
of sufficient resources to develop and implement
such curriculum.
''(C) INFORMATION SHARING.—The curriculum and
training materials developed under this paragraph shall
be shared with the United States Armed Forces and other
Federal departments and agencies with personnel who are
stationed overseas, as appropriate, to provide training on—
''(i) United States religious freedom policies;
''(ii) religious traditions;
''(iii) religious engagement strategies;
''(iv) religious and cultural issues; and
''(v) efforts to counter violent religious extremism.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ''The Secretary of State''
and inserting ''REFUGEES.—The Secretary of State''; and
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ''The Secretary of State''
and inserting ''CHILD SOLDIERS.—The Secretary of State''.
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, with the assistance
of the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom,
and the Director of the Foreign Service Institute, located at the
George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center, shall
submit a report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate that contains a plan for undertaking training for Foreign
Service officers under section 708 of the Foreign Services Act of
1980, as amended by subsection (a).
Section 108 of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ''faith,'' and inserting
''activities, religious freedom advocacy, or efforts to protect and
advance the universally recognized right to the freedom of
religion,'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking '', as appropriate, provide''
and insert ''make available''; and
''(d) VICTIMS LIST MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION
ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.—
''(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall make publicly
available, to the extent practicable, online and in official
publications, lists of persons it determines are imprisoned or
detained, have disappeared, been placed under house arrest,
been tortured, or subjected to forced renunciations of faith
for their religious activity or religious freedom advocacy by
the government of a foreign country that the Commission recommends
for designation as a country of particular concern
for religious freedom under section 402(b)(1)(A)(ii) or by a nonstate
actor that the Commission recommends for designation
as an entity of particular concern for religious freedom under
section 301 of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious
Freedom Act and include as much publicly available information
as practicable on the conditions and circumstances of such
persons.
''(2) DISCRETION.—In compiling lists under paragraph (1),
the Commission shall exercise all appropriate discretion,
including consideration of the safety and security of, and benefit
to, the persons who may be included on the lists and the
families of such persons.''.
The position described in section 101(k) of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021(k)) should assist the Ambassador at
Large for International Religious Freedom to coordinate international
religious freedom policies and strategies throughout the
executive branch and within any interagency policy committee of
which the Ambassador at Large is a member.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The President, concurrent with the annual
foreign country review required under section 402(b)(1)(A) of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C.
6442(b)(1)(A)), shall—
(1) review and identify any non-state actors operating in
any such reviewed country or surrounding region that have
engaged in particularly severe violations of religious freedom;
(2) designate, in a manner consistent with such Act, each
such non-state actor as an entity of particular concern for
religious freedom.
(b) REPORT.—Whenever the President designates a non-state
actor under subsection (a) as an entity of particular concern for
religious freedom, the President, as soon as practicable after the
designation is made, shall submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees that describes the reasons for such designation.
(c) ACTIONS.—The President should take specific actions, when
practicable, to address severe violations of religious freedom of
non-state actors that are designated under subsection (a)(2).
(d) DEPARTMENT OF STATE ANNUAL REPORT.—The Secretary
of State should include information detailing the reasons the President
designated a non-state actor as an entity of particular concern
for religious freedom under subsection (a) in the Annual Report
required under section 102(b)(1) of the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6412(b)(1)).
(e) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the Secretary of State should work with Congress and
the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom—
(A) to create new political, financial, and diplomatic
tools to address severe violations of religious freedom by
non-state actors; and
(B) to update the actions the President can take under
section 405 of the International Religious Freedom Act
of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6445);
(2) governments must ultimately be held accountable for
the abuses that occur in their territories; and
(3) any actions the President takes after designating a
non-state actor as an entity of particular concern should also
involve high-level diplomacy with the government of the country
in which the non-state actor is operating.
(f) DETERMINATIONS OF RESPONSIBLE PARTIES.—In order to
appropriately target Presidential actions under the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401 et seq.), the President,
with respect to each non-state actor designated as an entity
of particular concern for religious freedom under subsection (a),
shall seek to determine, to the extent practicable, the specific officials
or members that are responsible for the particularly severe
violations of religious freedom engaged in or tolerated by such
non-state actor.
(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ''appropriate
congressional committees'', ''non-state actor'', and ''particularly
severe violations of religious freedom'' have the meanings given
such terms in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402), as amended by section 3 of this
SEC. 302. PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO PARTICULARLY
SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
(1) in subsection (b)—
(i) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
''(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the
date on which each Annual Report is submitted under
section 102(b), the President shall—
''(i) review the status of religious freedom in each
foreign country to determine whether the government
of that country has engaged in or tolerated particularly
severe violations of religious freedom in each such
country during the preceding 12 months or longer;
''(ii) designate each country the government of
which has engaged in or tolerated violations described
in clause (i) as a country of particular concern for
religious freedom; and
''(iii) designate each country that engaged in or
tolerated severe violations of religious freedom during
the previous year, but does not meet, in the opinion
of the President at the time of publication of the
Annual Report, all of the criteria described in section
3(15) for designation under clause (ii) as being placed
on a 'Special Watch List'.''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ''prior to September
1 of the respective year'' and inserting ''before
the date on which each Annual Report is submitted
under section 102(b)'';
(B) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
''(3) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.—
''(A) IN GENERAL.—Whenever the President designates
a country as a country of particular concern for religious
freedom under paragraph (1)(A)(ii), the President, not later
than 90 days after such designation, shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees—
''(i) the designation of the country, signed by the
President;
''(ii) the identification, if any, of responsible parties
determined under paragraph (2); and
''(iii) a description of the actions taken under subsection
(c), the purposes of the actions taken, and the
effectiveness of the actions taken.
''(B) REMOVAL OF DESIGNATION.—A country that is designated
as a country of particular concern for religious
freedom under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall retain such designation
until the President determines and reports to the
R. 1150—10
appropriate congressional committees that the country
should no longer be so designated.''; and
''(4) EFFECT ON DESIGNATION AS COUNTRY OF PARTICULAR
CONCERN.—The presence or absence of a country from the Special
Watch List in any given year shall not preclude the designation
of such country as a country of particular concern for
religious freedom under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) in any such year.'';
(2) in subsection (c)(5), by striking ''the President must
designate the specific sanction or sanctions which he determines
satisfy the requirements of this subsection.'' and inserting ''the
President shall designate the specific sanction or sanctions
that the President determines satisfy the requirements under
this subsection and include a description of the impact of such
sanction or sanctions on each country.''.
Section 404(a)(4)(A) of the International Religious Freedom Act
of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6444(a)(4)(A)) is amended—
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ''and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (iii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ''; and''; and
''(iv) the impact on the advancement of United
States interests in democracy, human rights, and security,
and a description of policy tools being applied
in the country, including programs that target democratic
stability, economic growth, and counterterrorism.''.
(A) by striking ''subsection (b)'' and inserting ''subsection
(c)'';
(B) by inserting '', for a single, 180-day period,'' after
''may waive'';
(C) by striking paragraph (1); and
(D) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(1) and (2), respectively;
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
''(b) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.—Subject to subsection (c), the
President may waive, for any additional specified period of time
after the 180-day period described in subsection (a), the application
of any of the actions described in paragraphs (9) through (15)
of section 405(a) (or a commensurate substitute action) with respect
to a country, if the President determines and reports to the appropriate
congressional committees that—
''(1) the respective foreign government has ceased the violations
giving rise to the Presidential action; or
''(2) the important national interest of the United States
requires the exercise of such waiver authority.'';
(4) in subsection (c), as redesignated, by inserting ''or (b)''
after ''subsection (a)''; and
''(d) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
''(1) ongoing and persistent waivers of the application of
any of the actions described in paragraphs (9) through (15)
of section 405(a) (or commensurate substitute action) with
respect to a country do not fulfill the purposes of this Act;
''(2) because the promotion of religious freedom is an important
interest of United States foreign policy, the President,
the Secretary of State, and other executive branch officials,
in consultation with Congress, should seek to find ways to
address existing violations, on a case-by-case basis, through
the actions described in section 405 or other commensurate
substitute action.''.
Section 408(a)(1) of the International Religious Freedom Act
of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6448(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end
the following: ''Any designation of a non-state actor as an entity
of particular concern for religious freedom under section 301 of
the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act and, if
applicable and to the extent practicable, the identities of individuals
determined to be responsible for violations described in subsection
(f) of such section.''.
(a) AVAILABILITY OF ASSISTANCE.—It is the sense of Congress
that for each fiscal year that begins on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President should request sufficient appropriations
from Congress to support—
(1) the vigorous promotion of international religious
freedom and for projects to advance United States interests
in the protection and advancement of international religious
freedom, in particular, through grants to groups that—
(A) are capable of developing legal protections or promoting
cultural and societal understanding of international
norms of religious freedom;
(B) seek to address and mitigate religiously motivated
and sectarian violence and combat violent extremism; or
(C) seek to strengthen investigations, reporting, and
monitoring of religious freedom violations, including genocide
perpetrated against religious minorities; and
(2) the establishment of an effective Religious Freedom
Defense Fund, to be administered by the Ambassador at Large
for International Religious Freedom, to provide grants for—
(A) victims of religious freedom abuses and their families
to cover legal and other expenses that may arise from
detention, imprisonment, torture, fines, and other restrictions;
(B) projects to help create and support training of
a new generation of defenders of religious freedom,
including legal and political advocates, and civil society
projects which seek to create advocacy networks,
strengthen legal representation, train and educate new
religious freedom defenders, and build the capacity of religious
communities and rights defenders to protect against
religious freedom violations, mitigate societal or sectarian
violence, or minimize legal or other restrictions of the right
to freedom of religion.
(b) PREFERENCE.—It is the sense of Congress that, in providing
grants under subsection (a), the Ambassador at Large for International
Religious Freedom should, as appropriate, give preference
to projects targeting religious freedom violations in countries—
(1) designated as countries of particular concern for religious
freedom under section 402(b)(1) of the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6442(b)(1)); or
(2) included on the Special Watch List described in section
402(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the International Religious Freedom Act of
1998, as added by section 302(1)(A)(i) of this Act.
(c) ADMINISTRATION AND CONSULTATIONS.—
(1) ADMINISTRATION.—Amounts made available under subsection
(a) shall be administered by the Ambassador at Large
for International Religious Freedom.
(2) CONSULTATIONS.—In developing priorities and policies
for providing grants authorized under subsection (a), including
programming and policy, the Ambassador at Large for International
Religious Freedom should consult with other Federal
agencies, including the United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom and, as appropriate, nongovernmental
organizations.
TITLE V—DESIGNATED PERSONS LIST FOR PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
SEC. 501. DESIGNATED PERSONS LIST FOR PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
Title VI of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
(22 U.S.C. 6471 et seq.) is amended—
(1) by redesignating section 605 as section 606; and
(2) by inserting after section 604 the following:
''SEC. 605. DESIGNATED PERSONS LIST FOR PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
''(a) LIST.—
''(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of State, in coordination
with the Ambassador at Large and in consultation with relevant
government and nongovernment experts, shall establish and
maintain a list of foreign individuals to whom a consular post
has denied a visa on the grounds of particularly severe violations
of religious freedom under section 212(a)(2)(G) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)), or
who are subject to financial sanctions or other measures for
particularly severe violations of freedom religion.
''(2) REFERENCE.—The list required under paragraph (1)
shall be known as the 'Designated Persons List for Particularly
''(b) REPORT.—
''(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of State shall submit a
report to the appropriate congressional committees that contains
the list required under subsection (a), including, with
respect to each foreign individual on the list—
''(A) the name of the individual and a description of
the particularly severe violation of religious freedom committed
by the individual;
''(B) the name of the country or other location in which
such violation took place; and
''(C) a description of the actions taken pursuant to
this Act or any other Act or Executive order in response
to such violation.
''(2) SUBMISSION AND UPDATES.—The Secretary of State
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees—
''(A) the initial report required under paragraph (1)
not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment
of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act;
''(B) updates to the report every 180 days thereafter
and as new information becomes available.
''(3) FORM.—The report required under paragraph (1)
should be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a
classified annex.
''(4) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 'appropriate
congressional committees' means—
''(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
''(B) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
''(C) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate;
''(D) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House
of Representatives;
''(E) the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives; and
''(F) the Committee on Financial Services of the House
of Representatives.''.
Title VII of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
(22 U.S.C. 6481 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
''SEC. 702. VOLUNTARY CODES OF CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
''(a) FINDING.—Congress recognizes the enduring importance
of United States institutions of higher education worldwide—
''(1) for their potential for shaping positive leadership and
new educational models in host countries; and
''(2) for their emphasis on teaching universally recognized
rights of free inquiry and academic freedom.
''(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that
United States institutions of higher education operating campuses
outside the United States or establishing any educational entities
with foreign governments, particularly with or in countries the
governments of which engage in or tolerate severe violations of
religious freedom as identified in the Annual Report, should seek
to adopt a voluntary code of conduct for operating in such countries
that should—
''(1) uphold the right of freedom of religion of their
employees and students, including the right to manifest that
religion peacefully as protected in international law;
''(2) ensure that the religious views and peaceful practice
of religion in no way affect, or be allowed to affect, the status
of a worker's or faculty member's employment or a student's
enrollment; and
''(3) make every effort in all negotiations, contracts, or
memoranda of understanding engaged in or constructed with
a foreign government to protect academic freedom and the
rights enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human
Rights.
''SEC. 703. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING NATIONAL SECURITY
STRATEGY TO PROMOTE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM THROUGH
UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY.
''It is the sense of Congress that the annual national security
strategy report of the President required under section 108 of
the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3043)—
''(1) should promote international religious freedom as a
foreign policy and national security priority; and
''(2) should articulate that promotion of the right to freedom
of religion is a strategy that—
''(A) protects other, related human rights, and advances
democracy outside the United States; and
''(B) makes clear its importance to United States foreign
policy goals of stability, security, development, and
diplomacy;
''(3) should be a guide for the strategies and activities
of relevant Federal agencies; and
''(4) should inform the Department of Defense quadrennial
defense review under section 118 of title 10, United States
Code, and the Department of State Quadrennial Diplomacy
and Development Review.''.
The table of contents of the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401 note) is amended—
(1) by striking the item relating to section 605 and inserting
the following:
''Sec. 606. Studies on the effect of expedited removal provisions on asylum claims.'';
(2) by inserting after the item relating to section 604 the
''Sec. 605. Designated Persons List for Particularly Severe Violations of Religious
Freedom.'';
''Sec. 702. Voluntary codes of conduct for United States institutions of higher education
operating outside the United States.
''Sec. 703. Sense of Congress regarding national security strategy to promote religious
freedom through United States foreign policy.''.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.
An Examination of Policy Views by Race & Religion
Walter W. Hill


text:
S & SE
Pan Pacific Agency
The whole Pacifica is on your palm. 18+
Big Asia
South & Southeast
Australia & Islands
Cross-Pacific
[Analytics] Thailand needs normal politics
Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha. Photo: World Travel & Tourism Council / CC BY. Sketched by the Pan Pacific Agency.
Thailand is Southeast Asia's second-largest economy and a human development success story. At the geographic heart of the region, its security interests are myriad, from maritime security to environmental governance and peace along its long land borders, EAF Editorial Board wroted.
It has been intertwined culturally and economically with China for centuries, yet was a core member of Southeast Asia's anti-communist bloc during the Cold War and maintains strong defence and diplomatic ties with the United States. Japan has a large economic footprint in the country, including in the form of Southeast Asia's biggest car industry.
The missing ingredient is a functioning democracy. If it could get its politics right, Thailand would be an example for the rest of the region: as a democratic and tolerant nation, integrated into the global economy, supportive of the multilateral path to free trade and the free trade path to industrialisation. It is also invested in the ASEAN leadership with a solidarity that is the best hope of Southeast Asia's maintaining its strategic autonomy in the face of an assertive China and an unreliable United States.
After a period of hope that followed political transition to democracy in the 1990s, Thailand's politics went wrong. The populist billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra dominated at the ballot box in the 2000s and royalist oligarchs, fearing he would supplant them as the key arbiters of the political order, engineered a coup that received support from middle-class liberals appalled by Thaksin's strongman tendencies. The military, the monarchy and conservative civil society undermined democratic rule to try 'de-Thaksinise' the polity for years.
The relevance of Thaksin and his politics has since abated, but the frustrated popular demands for social and political reform are again rocking the political status quo. In this week's lead article, Kevin Hewison looks back at how, in 2020, young Thais and their values came to the fore in a mass movement that has 'challenged Thailand's 20th century royalism and authoritarianism, targeting former army chief Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha's government and the military–monarchy political regime'.
During and after the 2019 general election, the reformist billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit emerged as a magnet for the support of younger, educated voters looking for a leader who would fight for real democracy, but who didn't carry the baggage of the Thaksinist parties. When Thanathorn's Future Forward Party was banned by a politicised judiciary in 2019, it triggered a student-led protest movement that gained momentum even as Thailand fell into occasional pandemic-related lockdowns throughout 2020.
It's difficult for conservatives to credibly dismiss the young Thais on the streets as rabble manipulated by a populist demagogue, as was their line through the Thaksin years. The calls for change today are led by Thailand's future urban professional classes who see militarism and royalism as hopelessly anachronistic.
What is more remarkable is the breadth of the issues that the protest movement — effectively leaderless and rooted in online spaces — is embracing. 'The barriers to discussing the monarchy in the media are beginning to fall, with royal wealth, power, and republicanism' now all up for discussion, says Hewison.
The internet has been key to giving this political movement organisational and intellectual sustenance in the face of a backlash from authorities, writes James Ockey in our second article lead this week. 'The longer unrest continues', he says, 'the more government leaders will face increasing pressure to resolve the crisis through either concession or suppression'.
Having tried repression throughout 2020 — to little effect — one would hope the Thai government is forced towards concession in 2021. It can have peace on the streets, and the corresponding economic benefits, if it wants it. But that will mean taking steps towards building the 21st century political system Thailand needs: a proper constitutional monarchy, in which the military stays out of politics, and in which the press, civil society and an independent judiciary — not kings or generals — discipline politicians.
As always, stability and progress will only come with reform. Thailand needs normal politics, not least because Southeast Asia needs a strong Thailand.
Tags: Thailand
Exclusive: Beyond the Covid-19 world's coverage
Shopping after the pandemic: To buy safer than now Consumers' behavior is changing globally due to the coronavirus Would the post-Covid humanity become more disjointed? Sharp thorn of the New post-virus World
You may also interested in
Malaysia files WTO lawsuit against EU on palm-biofuel curbs
Laos to enhance cooperation with development partners
[Analytics] With Trump gone, Kim Jong Un will realize that he bet on the wrong horse
Subcribe for free
Pacifica's Events
Latest Pacifica's News
Japan aims to vaccinate most of country before Olympics
Indian and Australian PMs exchange courtesies on the cricket team's test series
Mexico presses US to reform immigration policies
Trump leaves America at its most divided since the Civil War
Indian sailors stranded for months on Chinese coast reach Japan
Earthquake on Indonesia's Sulawesi Island leaves thousands homeless as recovery begins
Singapore urges national airline to be first to vaccinate all staff
Japan urges South Korea to drop wartime compensation demands
Chinese city reports coronavirus found on ice cream
Pacifica's Markets
Pan Pacific Agency is a News & Analytical Agency on the domestic and cross-border policy, economy and interstate relations of the largest Pacific countries from West America to South-East Asia and Oceania, including Indo-Pacific Region.
Find all latest news and analytics from Asia Pacific on Pan Pacific Agency's pages. "The whole Pacifica is on your palm" is our motto.
Please, contact us for more information.
Russian Edition
Contacts & Structure
© 2018-2021, 'Expert Advice Center' Management Team LLC, Moscow (Russia). All rights reserved. Website maintained by Pan Pacific Agency LLC, Vladivostok (Russia). The certificate of mass media registration by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) ЭЛ № ФС 77-75623. For users over 18 y.o. only (18+)


Air New Zealand's bug-eyed bush-baby spokescharacter, Rico, really has to go. As some observers have pointed out, bush babies aren't native to New Zealand—that would account for his lack of Kiwi accent. Plus, the character is just offensive. A little history: Earlier ads had him leering at women passengers and making lewd comments about them. Ha ha? This time he's laying down some "dope" rhymes, surrounded by hot babes in Snoop Dogg's crib. Even the likable, laid-back stoner rapper can't save this video. Snoop, what were you thinking? He's not the only Hollywood star to get caught up in a travel-ad controversy lately. Kobe Bryant sidled up to Turkish Airways, and in the process, ticked off Los Angeles's massive Armenian American community (which also happens to be packed full of Laker fans). Guys, do some research next time. Maybe during your next African vacation?


So you're back at Swarthmore for the spring semester, but something is clearly very wrong. You've been seeing ghostly figures appear and disappear in between bookshelves in McCabe, or in the corner of your room at night. Street lights flicker or burn out when you walk underneath them. You might be feeling like the Calder outside the Science Center looks more and more like a face every day, and its eyes are following you everywhere. Maybe some mornings you wake up to find that geometric shapes have been drawn all over your arms in ash, and when you try to wipe them off, your head hurts so much that you have to lie back down.
You get an email that a package just arrived for you at the post office. What is it?
A. The package itself is a massive cardboard box. Even though it's so big you can barely fit it through the door of your room, it's so light it feels almost empty. The only thing inside the box is a single playing card, the seven of spades. Puzzled, you leave it on your desk. Eventually, your roommate comes back. When they see the card, all the color drains from their face and they look like they're about to cry. They leave the room and you don't see them again for the rest of the semester.
B. It's a thick yellow envelope that smells like a musty old book. Inside the envelope are twenty-six index cards; each one has a letter of the alphabet written on it in beautiful calligraphy. You take it back to your room, but the next morning, the letters that make up your name are missing.
C. It's a CD-R in a plastic jewel case. It looks like something was written on the back of the case itself, but it's been scratched out. Your name is written on the disc itself, surrounded by little geometric shapes. You put it into the CD drive on your computer to find that there's music on it. The songs are so quiet you can barely hear them, even with the volume turned all the way up. At first, it sounds like static, but as your ears adjust you start to hear birds and people's voices. It's very peaceful, and you feel good after listening to it.
D. There's no package, and there's not even a post office. There's never been a post office at Swarthmore. What were you thinking?
It's Friday night! It's been a stressful week, and you're ready to unwind. What are your plans?
A. You decide to check out what's happening at the Barn. As you walk toward the porch, you see your roommate from freshman year hiding behind one of the trash cans. You ask if anything's wrong, and they point to what looks like an empty parking space. You see that their hand is shaking, so you hold it. Your head starts to hurt again, and you notice a shape drawn on their hand in what looks like charcoal. You see that you smudged part of it when you touched them, so you apologize, but they don't notice.
B. You decide to check out what's happening at Paces. The room is filled with fog, and the sounds of chirping crickets are playing over the speakers so loudly you can't bear to be in there for more than a few minutes. It's actually not a bad party.
C. Your favorite Sharples bar is tonight, so that's your first stop by default. Even though it's 6 p.m., it's completely empty. It sounds like there's a band playing somewhere far away. You settle in the quiet room and look at the colorful painting while you eat. Something in the back of your mind is telling you not to look away. The music gets louder and louder, and your head starts to hurt again. You snap out of it to find that Sharples is actually full of other Swatties. The only thing on your plate is a six-sided die.
D. Nothing interesting is happening, so you decide to go to Cornell. You get a lot of work done and you hand in your problem set several days before it's due. Very proactive of you!
You're out on the town, and you feel an unfamiliar wind. What's it like?
A. The wind is coming from the north. It's freezing cold and it sends a chill up your spine. You remember how once during recess, when you were in third or fourth grade, another kid pushed you and you fell into some mud. You ran back inside, even though it wasn't allowed, and you took your clothes off in a single-stall bathroom and scrubbed them with soap and water. When you got back to class long after recess ended, your teacher didn't believe you when you told her what happened. You remember sitting in class, wishing you had come back covered in mud, just to show her.
B. There's a light wind blowing from the east. You remember how one day when you were maybe seven or eight, your parents had to go somewhere, but they couldn't take you, so you spent the day at your Grandma's house. The two of you sat in her living room watching TV all afternoon. You got hungry, but you were too shy to ask for food, so when she left to use the bathroom, you ran into her kitchen. You started rummaging around in her cabinets for something to eat, but nothing looked good. You were still searching when you heard the toilet flush. You panicked, and without thinking, you grabbed a box of uncooked spaghetti. You shoved it under your shirt and went back into the living room, hunching forwards to hide the shape it made and to keep it from falling out. You walked past Grandma and into the bathroom, where you sat on the toilet and ate about half the box. It was crunchy, but it softened up a little in your mouth. You remember how it tasted like burnt wood.
C. The wind is coming from the south. You remember a game you used to play with your little sister, when your Mom dragged you along on trips to the grocery store. You knew where they kept the scented candles. and you would close your eyes. Your sister would find a candle and hold it close to your face, and you'd guess what the candle was called based on its smell. If you got it right, you'd switch roles, and the game continued. Working together, you could make your way through all the candles in a store. You remember and you feel proud.
If you didn't get any As: your crush is DANIEL. Tall, sweet, breakable. Nervous and sensitive. Catalog reader. Doesn't trust good luck charms or fortune tellers. No favorite foods, not yet.
If you want to tell Daniel how you feel, go into the woods and find the tallest tree you can. Stand so close to it that your nose is touching the bark, then look up and whisper your name.
If you didn't get any Bs: your crush is LOUIE. A singer, a songwriter, a teller of tall tales. A kid with a lot to prove, especially to you, so break a leg!
If you want to tell Louie how you feel, find an object made of metal or glass that has some sentimental value. Take it outside and make a circle around it with salt, then leave it there until rain washes the salt away.
If you didn't get any Cs: your crush is MINESS: Freak, bleak, unwashable. Bends but doesn't break. He has long fingers, and he drinks lots of soda.
If you want to tell Miness how you feel, write your name as neatly as you can on a piece of paper, then fold it in half once as neatly as possible. Take your time with this and do not rush, it will pay off.
If you didn't get any Ds: your crush is VITTORIO: Old-fashioned, gentlemanly. Tough as nails, but sweeter than a cherry pie. Don't worry about his mean streak, it's offset by a sweet spiral.
If you want to tell Vittorio how you feel, turn off the lights in your room and lie down in bed. Close your eyes tight and think about the last four digits of your social security number. When you forget what you were thinking about, open your eyes and turn the lights on again.


York County 4-H will host an open house Wednesday, Feb. 1, at the center, 771 Stoverstown Road.
York County 4-H will host an open house, 7 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 1, at the center, 771 Stoverstown Road.
The event is for new 4-H members and their families.
For more detailed information of directions please contact Linda or Pam at 717-840-7408.


Software counterfeiters in China have long been a thorn in the side of Microsoft bean counters (who never actually saw a lot of beans coming from China). Years ago, one could argue that few Chinese could pay for legit copies of Windows and Office anyway, so what's the harm? But now that the balance of trade with the U.S. is tilted so far in China's favor, you could argue the Chinese can better afford these prices than debt-ridden Americans.
This all serves as a bit of context for the news that Chinese authorities have sentenced 11 software pirates to up to six-and-a-half years in prison, an event that Microsoft celebrated with a congratulatory press release.
I felt a bit nauseous thinking of six years in a Chinese hoosegow and initially thought it bad taste for Microsoft to gloat over these sentences. On the other hand, there's a massive economic impact from all this copying: Microsoft claims that up to $2 billion in potential revenue was lost.
What do think? Sentences too harsh? Too soft? Your judgments welcome at dbarney@redmondmag.com.