activistpost--2019-12-27--Germans Rush to Buy Gold as Draft Bill Threatens to Restrict Purchases

Reports have emerged depicting long lines in front of a physical gold sales location in Germany, in view of pending legislation which would once again lower the anonymous purchase limit, this time from €10,000 to €2,000. The last drop happened in 2017 when the limit was set at €15,000. A draft bill from the German finance ministry is being pointed to as the reason for the change, which is scheduled to take effect from Jan. 10, 2020.  In a tweet posted Wednesday, precious metals consultant and analyst Dan Popescu shared a picture of a long line of people waiting in front of “Degussa store to buy gold in Köln.” Popescu described, “From Jan. 1, 2020, the limit to buy gold anonymously drops from €10,000 down to €2,000. Only two years ago the limit was €15,000.” One user posted his own photo and replied “This is me line at Degussa in 23rd. The employees said they haven’t seen anything like it before.” To give an idea of the relatively small amount of gold €2,000 (~$2,224) can buy, even a 50g gold bar is currently too expensive.  After the new legislation takes effect, reports from German media state that purchases of the precious metal over €2,000 will now require customer identification for buyers, including criminal background checks for businesses. The news outlet details:  If given final approval, the German draft bill designed to implement EU guidelines as laid out in the anti-money laundering directive AMLD5, will take effect on Jan. 10. This is the stated deadline for member states to implement legislation accommodative of the directive.  Residents of the country appear to be very concerned about the impending limitation, as the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to draw fire for its controversial economic polices such as negative interest rates. Also for newly installed ECB President Christine Lagarde’s recent criticism of perceived German conservatism. Skeptical reactions were voiced on Reddit as well, with one user stating:  The Far Reaching Arm of AMLD5  As news.Bitcoin.com previously reported, the 5th EU anti-money laundering directive has big implications for holders of crypto and crypto businesses. Its impending policies have already squeezed some out of the industry, at least temporarily, but crypto is far from the only area that will be affected.  Per the legislation, non-transparent assets, accounts, and even private safety deposit boxes will now be subject to state information gathering by law. Gold is a bastion for private value storage, so the stricter limits come as no surprise. AMLD5 focuses on combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) and preventing money laundering (AML), but given the state of economic affairs in the EU, skeptics maintain the new laws are part of a larger bid to establish financial control and force users to remain stuck in a faltering system.  The fact that the ECB is now also in development of its own digital currency system amplifies these concerns, as one of the last remaining escapes from bank-imposed negative interest rates is to hold paper cash privately. With central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), negative rates can be applied directly to the asset, effectively closing this escape route.  Gold is thus seen as one of the final hedges against irresponsible government policy, and the proposed new limits on the precious metal will leave residents of Germany with even fewer options. The encroaching ECB and German policies have many on social media suggesting permissionless cryptocurrencies, which can be traded privately, as a means to hedge against the growing surveillance state.  What are your thoughts on the draft bill’s limitations for anonymous gold purchases in Germany? Let us know in the comments section below.  Want to create your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Check our tools section. You can also enjoy the easiest way to buy Bitcoin online with us. Download your free Bitcoin wallet and head to our Purchase Bitcoin page where you can buy BCH and BTC securely.  This article was sourced from Bitcoin.com  Graham Smith is an American expat living in Japan, and the founder of Voluntary Japan—an initiative dedicated to spreading the philosophies of unschooling, individual self-ownership, and economic freedom in the land of the rising sun.  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


adobochronicles--2019-05-20--Malls Shopping Centers Resorts Hail Shorter Work Week Approved By Philippine Senate

Malls, Shopping Centers, Resorts Hail Shorter Work Week Approved By Philippine Senate

MANILA, Philippines (The Adobo Chronicles, Manila Bureau) – Imagine working ten hours a day, but just four days a week. Imagine having a three-day weekend year-round, not including an extra day during holiday weekends!  Voting 17-0, the Philippine Senate approved on Monday a bill filed by Sen. Joel Villanueva that would allow Filipino workers to enjoy more flexible work schedules.  Under the proposed law, employees can opt out of rendering eight hours of work for five days a week. Instead, they can craft a “mutually agreed voluntary work arrangement” with their employer.  Workers may choose to serve longer hours for a fewer number of days as long as they can meet the prescribed workweek time frame, which is usually 40 hours.  Upon hearing the news, malls and shopping centers praised the Senate for the legislation.  A spokesperson for SM Malls told The Adobo Chronicles that if signed by the President,  the new law would mean bigger profit since consumers will have an extra day to shop or eat out at restaurants in the malls. A similar sentiment was expressed by the management of Ayala Malls.  Operators of beach and other recreation resorts said they couldn’t be more happy about the proposed law.  For the first time in Philippine history, a bill passed by the Senate has received overwhelming, if not unanimous support from the Filipinos.  Anything that brings in more money or more time for the Filipinos’ favorite pass time — hanging out in airconditioned malls!


adobochronicles--2019-08-20--Preempting SOGIE Baguio City Council Passes SOGO

Preempting SOGIE: Baguio City Council Passes SOGO

BAGUIO CITY, Philippines (The Adobo Chronicles, Baguip Bureau) – The Summer Capital of the Philippines has become infamous because of controversial ordinances passed by its City Councilors and signed into law by the Mayor.  The ordinances include ‘no cussing’ and ‘no use of electronic gadgets while walking the streets of Baguio. At some point the local officials were also considering a Barangay proposal to ban the public hanging of underwear to dry.  Now,  Baguio City Hall, in a move to preempt the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Expression (SOGIE) Bill now being deliberated on in the Philippine Senate, has passed its own local ordinance in support of the LGBT community.  The new law is called SOGO — Sexual Orientation and Gender Ordinance — which outlines comprehensive measures to prevent and outlaw discriminatory practices directed at LGBTs.  While LGBT advocates praised the new ordinance, a popular budget hotel chain is suing the city government for trademark infringement. The hotel chain, of course, is SOGO.


ageofautism--2019-01-11--Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Used Forced Vaccination Laws to Justify Forced Steriliza

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Used Forced Vaccination Laws to Justify Forced Sterilization Laws

The venerated Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision upholding the Virginia law that ended a woman's right to be a mother, by saying it was no different than vaccination:  But even those who know about poor Carrie Buck may not know that the mandatory vaccine laws were the justification for this decision.  They used our old friend Jacobson, the Massachusetts minister who refused to pay a five dollar fee imposed by the state on those rejecting the smallpox vaccine during a deadly outbreak in 1905, and took it all the way to the Supreme Court.  "The concept of eugenics had been put forward in 1883 by Francis Galton, who also coined the name. The trend first became popular in the United States, and found proponents in Europe by the start of the 20th century; 42 of the 58 research papers presented at the First International Congress of Eugenics held in London in 1912, were from American scientists. Indiana passed the first eugenic sterilization statute (1907), but it was legally flawed. To remedy this situation, Harry Laughlin of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, designed a model eugenic law that was reviewed by legal experts. In 1924 the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted a statute authorizing the compulsory sterilization of the intellectually disabled for the purpose of eugenics. This 1924 statute was closely based on Laughlin's model. Looking to determine if the new law would pass a legal challenge, on September 10, 1924 Dr. Albert Sidney Priddy, superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, filed a petition to his Board of Directors to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old patient at his institution who he claimed had a mental age of 9. Priddy maintained that Buck represented a genetic threat to society ."  Again with the Wikipedia (yes I know I being lazy by quoting the Wiki but I have to get back to my kids homework):  The case of Buck v. Bell was the atrocious matter in which Dr. Albert Sidney Pridd (and his successor, Dr. John Hendren Bell) Superintendent of The Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded , decided that one of his patients, an 18 year old rape-victim with a sixth grade education, should not be able to give birth again. Her mother was also "feebleminded" you see, and the good doctors believed society should be rid of their kind.  This, many of us have heard of, as it is our children that the states would be targeting if this policy of Nazi eugenics was being carried out today as it was in the 20th century, both in Nazy Germany and the US during the "Progressive Era," which was embracing the idea of creating a superior society.  Wikipedia : "Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927),is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell ."  "The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,' and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."  Thus we can see that Jacobson v. Massachusetts is used to justify all manner of horrors in the name of "societal good." Poor Carrie Buck was not even given the option of paying a five dollar fine to prevent her forced sterilization, as Jacobson was to get out of taking the smallpox vaccine.  And we see in both cases, as we are living through now, these unwanted procedures that cause permanent and detrimental changes to the human body, are simply declared "safe," and "for our own good," just as this human rights atrocity inflicted on an innocent young woman was when it was declared to be, "without detriment to her general health" and that, "her welfare... will be promoted by her sterilization."  Almost a hundred years later and some evil arguments never die.  NYU legal scholar and member of the Supreme Court Bar, Professor Mary Holland, in her article "Compulsory Vaccination, the Constitution, and the Hepatitis B Mandate for Infants and Young Children," in Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, follows up on Buck in her discussion of the history of vaccine mandates:  So if SCOTUS views forced vaccination and forced sterilization as the same, then either Holmes right, and BOTH are justified by a "compelling state interest," or NEITHER is justified by a "compelling state interest."    Buck v. Bell is both a Constitutional violation, and morally evil.  So is Jacobson.    All medical procedures require free, prior and informed consent.  So we can be clear that there are still some at the top of the medical profession that hold, and act on, this "Nazi Philosophy", I will leave you with Stanley Plotkin's testimony from just a year ago today, admitting to his own human rights abuses by experimenting on developmentally disabled children in creating the (now liability-free) rubella vaccine that we are being mandated into taking today:


ageofautism--2019-08-07--States Sue Over Opioid Tobacco Harm Yet Deny Justice To Vaccines Victims

States Sue Over Opioid & Tobacco Harm, Yet Deny Justice To Vaccines’ Victims

Moore earned recognition after his successful 1994-1998 case against Big Tobacco, taking on their 68 lawyers to win $250 billion for state governments. (Back then he’d also been interviewed by 60 Minutes, for a segment to feature tobacco company whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand – but CBS corporate lawyers shut down its broadcast initially.)  As with vaccine adverse reactions, the epidemic means little until it affects one personally. In 2010, Moore’s nephew overdosed on generic fentanyl. “We have 72,000 people dying every year; let’s figure out a way to resolve this thing,” Moore said. “You guys [manufacturers] made billions of dollars off this thing. Take some of that money and apply it to the problem that you helped cause.”  Meanwhile, autism is affecting up to 1 in 36 American children and the epidemic could cost the U.S. up to $1 trillion by 2025 . As for global costs of autism, WHO’s counting – not working to slow growth, but conceivably helping increase autism rates .  “Ohio is losing $4 [billion] to $5 billion a year from the opioid epidemic, and they’re losing 5,000 or 6,000 people a year from overdose deaths,” said Florida attorney Mike Moore to CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes. A jury award, he said, could reach $100 billion or beyond.  U.S. government law firms’ legal actions against opioid manufacturers have been embraced by news networks like CBS , ABC and more, as over 40 states, 1,500 counties and cities seek to recoup costs of drug abuse.  “Opioid epidemic” versus “autism epidemic” – why does the first phrase garner a far more proactive ethical response from media and the public?  Decades ago the Minnesota firm of Robins, Miller, Kaplan and Ciresi won $6.5 billion to cover state healthcare costs and fund anti-smoking initiatives. RKMC provided more than 30 million pages of tobacco industry documents: “The industry did know everything we were saying they knew, and they knew it back in the 50s and 60s," attorney Mike Ciresi said.  Contrast the Big Tobacco trials and the opioid suits with the mishandling of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding and the failed Vaccine Court. Regarding vaccine-induced autism, justice is not blind – and public perception is skewed. Replace the word “opioids” with “cigarettes” or “vaccines” and consider the cognitive dissonances.  All three consumer products can cause health damage and/or create toxic body burdens of non-nutritive substances.  - OxyContin has never been studied in animals for carcinogenic potential, and it has mutagenic properties; some users become addicted, but not all.  - Cigarettes cause cancer and cardiovascular disease in some smokers, but (arguably) not all. Cigarettes contain up to 600 ingredients, including tar.  - Vaccines cause serious adverse reactions in some people, but (arguably) not all. Vaccines may contain teratogens and mutagens such as mercury and aluminum, and autoimmune-inducing peptides and nucleoproteins.  Consumers’ personal choice whether to consume these products varies:  - Individuals choose to ingest opioids such as Percoset or OxyContin. However the alternative to opioid consumption is feeling pain, severe enough to warrant a prescription.  - Individuals choose to inhale nicotine from cigarettes or vaping, except for second-hand smoke from family members and acquaintances.  - Individuals might choose to be injected with vaccines, or are coerced via social pressure and government mandates.    Cigarettes, opioids and vaccines are all profit-focused products for internal use, but vaccines are psychologically entwined with government public health PR about social responsibility, and industry advertising that manipulates’ individuals’ fear of disease. Currently consumers are hesitant to believe that the same government agencies and pharmaceutical companies who mismanaged safety monitoring of drugs like the devascularizing Vioxx could also be mismanaging vaccine safety.  Proving that vaccines cause autism amounts to asking the U.S. government to prosecute itself. Which is problematic and not particularly promising, because:  - The Department of Justice is likely guilty of obstruction of justice regarding vaccine/autism science.  - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and committee members benefit financially from vaccine sales.  - CDC management committed vaccine data fraud, more than once.  - U.S. government agencies share revolving doors with many industries.  Autism’s myriad costs to families and society were negligible until the 1980s, when autism rates began to rise sharply. Taxpayers in every state found themselves burdened with skyrocketing budgets for autism services. In Minnesota, its Department of Human Services reported autism expenses tripled in 1995-2005, from $37,883,928 to $115,432,039.  Add to that special education budgets. Educating a child with a disability costs at least twice that of a neurotypical child; Applied Behavioral Analysis can cost $60,000 a year. Overall, lifetime care for one person with autism could cost $10 million to $17 million, according to New York attorney and autism parent Robert Krakow who testified before a Senate committee hearing.  At the turn of the millennium, scientific evidence began linking the mercury-based vaccine preservative Thimerosal to the budding autism epidemic.  - 1999: U.S. Food and Drug Administration staff tally vaccine mercury injected into infants and children, and discover the total far exceeds guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Said Dr. Neal Halsey, “My honest belief is that if the labels had had the mercury content in micrograms, this would have been uncovered years ago. But the fact is, no one did the calculation.”  - June 7, 2000: Vaccine policymakers talked at the infamous Simpsonwood meeting about Thimerosal: “[T]he number of dose related relationships [between mercury and autism] are linear and statistically significant,” said Dr. William Weil of the American Academy of Pediatrics.  - July 18, 2000: U.S. Rep. Dan Burton holds a hearing at the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, entitled “Mercury in Medicine – Are We Taking Unnecessary Risks?”.  During 2003-2004 parents from about a dozen states asked their Attorneys General to sue vaccine manufacturers, to recoup the costs of autism. The emphasis then was Thimerosal. Investigative journalist David Kirby described a few state A.G. lawsuit initiatives in his 2005 book Evidence of Harm. Progress in North Carolina and New York looked promising; so did Minnesota with its temperamental Attorney General, Mike Hatch. Kirby wrote, “In June of 2004, Hatch began interviewing law firms to represent the state for possible action against Eli Lilly and the vaccine manufacturers.”  [Author’s note: In 2004 Kirby interviewed me about my efforts to convince Hatch to file a lawsuit against Thimerosal manufacturers.]  Law builds on precedent – and so does trust in results. Some parents in the A.G. lawsuit group actively sought out attorneys who’d worked on the Big Tobacco settlement. A large, wealthy law firm would have the financial resources necessary to hire experts to testify, hire laboratories for testing, wait out the FOIA process to access government files, or possibly find a way to get unredacted copies. And, hopefully, obtain incriminating documents from industry.  Ethical questions abounded. Not all beneficiaries of the tobacco verdict were happy with it. Some objected to the financial motivation of so-called “trial lawyers”; the Cato Institute stated that attorneys on the Big Tobacco case had earned $7,716 an hour.  Some autism advocates affiliated otherwise with the ad hoc A.G. group spoke against big state lawsuits, worried that windfall settlements from pharmaceutical companies might come at the expense of people whose life depended on a steady supply of a particular medication. But ultimately money speaks a language business and government understand.  In New York, connecting with Attorney General Eliot Spitzer was key. Minnesota’s Mike Hatch said he would move forward with the Thimerosal lawsuit if New York partnered with him. Psychologist and autism parent Sarah Bridges, Ph.D. detailed those and other A.G. initiatives in her SEED magazine article “Rise Against Mercury.”  In North Carolina, autism parents were meeting with their governor and then-Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards, a trial lawyer, who told advocates this:  “As long as I am in public life, I will work to make sure that every American has a fair day in court.”  Sadly for future victims of adverse reactions, the state vaccine lawsuits did not go forward. As for these would-be white knights:  - Mike Hatch left public office and until recently worked at a law firm that defended large companies against toxic torts (e.g. Thimerosal lawsuits).  - In 2014 RKMC was “one step closer to shining a light on Merck's deceptive business” regarding the mumps vaccine whistleblower case. Since then Mike Ciresi left to form a new law firm.  - Eliot Spitzer lost his governorship over his involvement with prostitutes (he was “Client Nine”).  - John Edwards lost his Presidential bid; while his wife slowly died of cancer, he produced a child with another woman.  Thus is the pathology of power. Due to government obfuscation and inaction, autism rates increased drastically: from 1 in 166 to 1 in 36, and show no sign of stopping. Worse, half of all U.S. children now suffer some kind of chronic illness.  Perversely the CDC is using opioids as yet another taxpayer-funded diversion from its own history of data fraud and malfeasance in collusion with similarly corrupt agencies internationally. A January 2019 study “found that mothers who were prescribed opioids just before becoming pregnant were more likely to have a child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or a child with other developmental disabilities (DDs) and some autism symptoms.” (No mention whether the pain meds were to treat autoimmune disorders that would preclude vaccination.)  Mass death gets people’s attention. Each day in the U.S. 130 people die of an opioid overdose (including heroin and fentanyl), according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The organization estimates economic burden at $78.5 billion a year for “costs of healthcare, lost productivity, addiction treatment, and criminal justice involvement.” As with autism, though, the intangible costs to addicts, family and community are harder to calculate or compensate.  What’s important to both autism and addition? Treatment – medical and psychological – which can prove quite expensive and elusive. Said Moore: “Success for me would be that we would find funding to provide treatment for all the 2.5 million opioid-dependent people in this country.”  Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia are among among states that have already settled with OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma. A 2001 personal email from former Purdue CEO Richard Sackler referred to opioid abusers as "victimizers" and "criminals," and expressed prescient but passive concern that blame would be directed at manufacturers. New York’s Attorney General has also filed fraud charges against Purdue and its owners, saying, "As the Sackler Family and the other defendants grew richer, New Yorkers' health grew poorer and our state was left to foot the bill."  Meanwhile in a parallel black hat narrative, parents entrust their children’s health daily to vaccine policymakers willing to use babies and toddlers as human shields to avoid honestly researching excipient toxicities:  “[T]he issue is that it is impossible, unethical to leave kids unimmunized, so you will never, ever resolve that issue [regarding the impact of mercury],” stated Dr. Robert Chen, CDC Chief of Vaccine Safety and Development.  Some states are not just suing opiod manufacturers; they’re also going after companies with “deeper pockets” such as $208 billion medical giant McKesson. Attorney Moore argues that McKesson and other distributors failed to obey the Controlled Substance Act, a 1970 law requiring “manufacturers and distributors to report their controlled substances transactions to the Attorney General” via the Drug Enforcement Administration and its Arcos database.  Conversely with vaccines, product tracking has deliberately been obfuscated (after the “Tennessee cluster”). The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is either a “wonder” (pun intended) or a washout, depending on the user’s intentions for the data gathered there. The CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink is proprietary to government, except in instances when Congress ordered access be given to three independent researchers… to which staff complied, with strict limitations.  Rescinding the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 could make pharmaceutical companies financially liable again for vaccine injuries, instead of relying on vaccine taxes to fund the small percentage of claimants who make it through Vaccine Court after five to ten years. Proponents of NCVIA say without it, companies would have no financial incentives to make vaccines – that giving victims real trials before judge and jury, with discovery, would bankrupt manufacturers. (And that inadvertent admission of vaccines’ fallibility supports causality assertions by injury claimants.)  Has Pharma become too big to fail? Globally last year pharmaceuticals did $1.2 trillion in sales, says the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. Half was in North America, which buys two-thirds of all new medicines. Sales of drugs and biologics are forecasted to continue growing, as health care consumers maintain their reliance on them.  Can taxpayers be sure that opioid settlement money will be used for its intended purpose – to help victims? No, if past history is a guide. Of Minnesota’s $6.5 billion, $469 million went to an insurance company. “Gov. [Tim] Pawlenty raided it for about a billion dollars when we had the deficit," said attorney Ciresi. "And then Gov. Dayton raided it to float the bonds.”  Unexpected benefits evolved from the cigarette suit, depending on your viewpoint: tobacco company donations to politicians are down. And the tortuous legal process catalyzed further product safety research. Attorney Ciresi claimed RKMC’s win against Big Tobacco “led to over 400 peer-reviewed medical articles.”  Excess has been the American way for years, to the detriment of our health. Too much food and alcohol. Too many cigarettes and pills. Yes, too many vaccines. Too much manipulation from media, shifting too much money into corporations without consciences.  History has repeatedly shown that people in power will lie to protect professional and financial interests, at the expense of the public. When corporations and agencies sidestep regulatory checks and balances with evasion and fabrication, the perpetrators must be brought to justice.  The challenge for participants in a democratic society is recognizing public health problems long before they reach a tipping point toward the irreparable, and inspiring enough people to speak out. The alternative is watching the nation’s health continue to decline, in inverse proportion to pharmaceutical companies’ wealth.


aljazeera--2019-01-02--Chinas first e-commerce law offers consumers more protection

China's first e-commerce law offers consumers more protection

China has introduced a new law to regulate its vast e-commerce sector. The legislation aims to protect online consumers and intellectual property and clean up the country's reputation as a major source of fake goods.  Companies or individuals who break the law could be fined up to $30m.  Al Jazeera's Divya Gopalan reports from Hong Kong as part of our series looking into new laws for 2019.


aljazeera--2019-01-05--China passes law to make Islam compatible with socialism

China passes law to make Islam 'compatible with socialism'

China has passed a new law that seeks to "Sinicize" Islam within the next five years, the latest move by Beijing to rewrite how the religion is practised.  China's main English newspaper, Global Times, reported on Saturday that after a meeting with representatives from eight Islamic associations, government officials "agreed to guide Islam to be compatible with socialism and implement measures to Sinicize the religion."  The newspaper did not provide further details or the names of the associations that agreed to the decree.  China has embarked on an aggressive "Sinification" campaign in recent years with faith groups that were largely tolerated in the past seeing their freedoms shrink under Chinese President Xi Jinping, China's most powerful leader since Mao Zedong.  Practising Islam has been made forbidden in parts of China, with individuals caught praying, fasting, growing a beard or wearing a hijab, a headscarf worn by many Muslim women who feel it is part of their religion, facing the threat of arrest.  According to the UN, more than one million Uighur Muslims are estimated to be held in internment camps where they are forced to denounce the religion and pledge allegiance to the officially atheist ruling Communist Party.  Rights groups have accused China of engaging in a campaign of ethnic cleansing. In August, a Washington Post editorial said the world "can't ignore" the campaign against Muslims.  Islamic crescents and domes have been stripped from mosques, and according to the Associated Press news agency, religious schools and Arabic classes have been banned and children barred from participating in Muslim activities.  China has rejected the criticism, saying it protects the religion and culture of its minorities.  However, in the past week alone, authorities in China's Yunnan province, which borders Mynamar, have closed three mosques established by the marginalised Hui Muslim ethnic minority, the South China Morning Post has reported.


aljazeera--2019-01-20--Philippines Muslim region to vote on new autonomy law

Philippines' Muslim region to vote on new autonomy law

Manila, Philippines - Nearly three million Filipinos from the country's Muslim-majority southern region are set to decide on a new law which would place them under a substantially more autonomous regional government.  Monday's plebiscite on the Bangsamoro Organic Law could make or break the decades-old peace process between the national government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (the Front), which started out as a secessionist armed movement in the southern island of Mindanao in the late 1970s.  If the "yes" vote wins, the Bangsamoro, which means Moro nation, will replace the existing Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), which has been criticised as merely nominal, and failed to end the violent conflict that has left at least 120,000 people dead over the last five decades.  On paper, the proposed new Bangsamoro is a more powerful and possibly larger political unit than the ARMM. It will have its own parliament, some exclusive powers previously held by the government in Manila, and a significantly larger share of local revenues.  Above all, it will mean the end of the Front's armed struggle, with the decommissioning of its 35,000 troops and its leaders taking positions in the new civilian government.  The proposed law also has the backing of President Rodrigo Duterte with his spokesperson confirming it as "a historic piece of legislation in our quest for lasting peace in Mindanao as this would correct the historical injustices committed against the Moro people".  Numbering roughly six million, the Moro people are considered a minority among the Philippines' population of more than 100 million.  They consist of about a dozen ethnolinguistic groups native to the southwestern Mindanao region, bound together by their practice of Islam in the predominantly Christian archipelago.  A history of prejudice and neglect by the mainstream government has reduced the Moro homeland into one of the country's poorest regions. More than half of their population live below the poverty line, according to government data.  The current Moro rebellion began in 1969 with the establishment of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). Led by the charismatic university lecturer Nur Misuari, the group fought the government for an independent state.  The fighting caused heavy losses and massive devastation in Moro communities, with the MNLF citing atrocities by government forces under the Philippine dictator, Ferdinand Marcos.  When the MNLF and the government agreed on autonomy in 1976, a faction of the group broke away to form the Moro Islamic Liberation Front the following year and continued fighting for secession.  In 1989, the government under President Corazon Aquino established the ARMM.  However, only a fraction of the Moro territory, four provinces out of more than a dozen, voted for inclusion in the autonomous region.  Dissatisfaction with the ARMM's limited authority became fodder for several other armed groups to continue the rebellion and in some cases, to engage in violent banditry.  With the MNLF focused on administering the ARMM, the Front grew to become the largest rebel group in the country and became the frontrunners of the Moro cause. Misuari, the Muslim rebel leader, himself became the regional governor in 1996.  Fighting between the Front and the government went on throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, when President Joseph Estrada declared "all-out war" against the group.  On-and-off negotiations came to a head in 2012 with a basic agreement to establish a stronger autonomous region, which both sides firmed up with more detail in 2014.  The Front hoped it would embody their people's long struggle for self-determination and outdo the ARMM, which then-President Benigno Aquino called a "failed experiment".  A bungled 2015 police operation to arrest a Jemaah Islamiyah-linked fighter in a Front-held area of Maguindanao province dampened public confidence in the group, and the law to create the Bangsamoro sat out several legislative cycles under Aquino's successor, Rodrigo Duterte.  The process picked up again in 2017, after the five-month siege of Marawi City by ISIL-linked fighters highlighted the need for a final peace deal.  After gruelling negotiations between legislators and a Front-led Bangsamoro transition panel, Duterte signed the Bangsamoro Organic Law in July 2018.  The Bangsamoro will have a parliamentary government, a justice system based on Islamic law, a 75 percent share of local revenues and a yearly grant from the national government equivalent to five percent of the entire country's revenues.  In Monday's plebiscite, people from several areas excluded from the ARMM will have an option to vote for inclusion in the Bangsamoro, which could expand its territory.  Around 20,000 police and military personnel will guard polling areas, even as the region remains under martial law, to fend off threats from other armed groups - secessionists that would pounce on the chance at supremacy should the Bangsamoro and the Front fail.  But the Front and the government are confident they have struck a much better deal than their predecessors, and that it will have the people's support.  When the law passed in July, the Front panel chairman Ghazali Jaafar said, "We are satisfied. It is not a perfect law, but it is good to start with."


aljazeera--2019-01-27--Palestinian man shot dead during settler violence in West Bank

A Palestinian man has been shot dead, and dozens others have been wounded in the occupied West Bank during a confrontation with Israeli soldiers and settlers in the village of al-Mugheir, northeast of Ramallah.  The 38-year-old, identified as Hamdi Naasan, was shot in the back and succumbed to his wounds shortly after at a hospital in Ramallah, the health ministry said on Saturday.  He is survived by his wife and four children.  Amin Abu Alya, head of the Mugheir village council, said settlers opened fire before the Israeli army moved in.  "At the beginning, it was settlers shooting, then the army came and fired tear gas," he told AFP news agency by phone.  An Israeli military official confirmed to Haaretz newspaper that settlers used live fire during the confrontation.  At least 30 others were also wounded during confrontations, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent. It said its medics were working to evacuate several people injured from the village.  At least six Palestinians were wounded by live ammunition.  According to local media, confrontations broke out when Jewish settlers attempted to raid the village with the protection of Israeli soldiers.  A statement by the office of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the settler attack.  "This [attack] reaffirms that the Israeli government is continuing its policy of escalation," the statement, carried by Wafa News Agency, said.  "This will lead to serious consequences, further tension and the creation of a dangerous and uncontrollable atmosphere."  Between 600,000 to 750,000 Israelis live in the occupied Palestinian territories of occupied East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza. They live in hundreds of illegal Jewish-only settlements built on Palestinian land.  The presence of the settlers within and around Palestinian towns and villages causes near-daily friction between the communities.  Israel has continued to expand settlements in the occupied territories, angering Palestinian leadership, who view this as a theft of their land and a major obstacle in peace efforts.  International law views West Bank and East Jerusalem as occupied territories and considers all Jewish settlements on the land to be illegal.  Meanwhile, a Palestinian teenager who was shot dead by the Israeli army on Friday was buried in his village of Silwad, near the city of Ramallah.  Ayman Hamed, 18, was shot in the chest with live ammunition by Israeli soldiers stationed at a watchtower near the village, the Palestinian health ministry said.  Hamed's mother Inas accused the Israeli army of executing her son in cold blood, leaving him bleeding until he died and preventing ambulances from immediately reaching him.  Thousands of people attended Hamed's funeral procession on Saturday, which began from the Ramallah Government Hospital. The body was taken to his high school, where fellow students paid tribute to him, before Hamed was buried in the village cemetery.


aljazeera--2019-02-01--Mongolia speaker expelled amid ongoing battle against corruption

The Mongolian parliament this week voted to expel House Speaker Miyegombyn Enkhbold in an unprecedented move capping a tumultuous two months in the country's politics involving multiple corruption scandals, protests and party infighting.  At the heart of the ongoing turmoil is what has become known locally as the "SME scandal".  Fourteen parliamentarians, two cabinet members and other high-ranking officials were accused in November of embezzling more than $1m in government funds, diverting resources intended to support small and medium enterprise (SME) development to their family and friends.  Amid an ongoing investigation by the country's anti-corruption agency, the scandal divided the Mongolian People's Party (MPP), which holds an 85 percent majority in the 76-member parliament.  Enkhbold, who was dismissed on Tuesday on the back of allegations over a separate 2016 corruption scandal, was among the MPP members who initiated a vote-of-no-confidence against their own party's Prime Minister Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh, demanding accountability for the SME case.  Khurelsukh narrowly survived the vote in late November, with 40 MPs backing him and 33 going against him.  During the debate in parliament, the prime minister urged those implicated in the SME scandal to return the funds and ask for the public's forgiveness.  His pleas led to a backlash on social media, where a hashtag translating to "we will not forgive SME" started making the rounds amid long-standing public frustration in a country ranked 93rd out of 180 on Transparency International's (TI) global Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).  Luvsanvandan Bold, an MP who broke with the opposition Democratic Party (DP) in December after voting in favour of Khurelsukh, said there are about 30 funds similar to the SME one.  "A very large embezzlement network has been established to milk these funds over the last 10 years," he told Al Jazeera, calling for "a full and comprehensive investigation" to "punish the culprits".  On December 18, fewer than three weeks after the vote-of-no-confidence, Mongolian news agency Ikon reported that Khurelsukh's brother had received 1.3 billion Mongolian tugriks ($520,000) from the state's SME fund. The prime minister has denied any link to the reported case, while so far there hasn't been any action against his brother.  Mogi Badral Bontoi, the chief executive of the Cover Mongolia newswire, told Al Jazeera that after his own near dismissal amid mounting corruption claims, Khurelsukh and his faction engaged in "sheer political mastery, cleverly turn[ing] the table around on their main political rival".  In a public offensive, the prime minister accused Enkhbold of leading what he calls Mongolia's "30 families", an elite group of wealthy members of both the MPP and rival DP that he alleges is attempting to topple the government because it is interfering with their business interests.  Khurelsukh and his circle began demanding Enkhbold's resignation, citing an unresolved scandal from Mongolia's 2016 parliamentary elections. Known as the "60 billion tugrik scandal", the case refers to allegations that ahead of that vote, Enkhbold sold cabinet positions in the MPP's future administration in exchange for campaign funds.  Julian Dierkes, a Mongolia expert and professor at the University of British Columbia, said the fallout from the SME scandal, coupled with widespread public anger over high-level corruption, created a long-awaited opening for Khurelsukh to push Enkhbold out.  "The allegations against former speaker Enkhbold have been mounting since the 2016 parliamentary election, so in some ways, it was the time for him to go," Dierkes told Al Jazeera.  "He shouldn't have been there in the first place. He never, really, denied the '60 billion tugrik' allegations," added Dierkes, suggesting Enkhbold's denials were not able to successfully refute the claims against him. "So, just on corruption grounds, it was long coming."  In recent weeks, as Enkhbold was trying to keep the SME scandal in the public eye, Khurelsukh's supporters organised two protests in Ulaanbaatar to back the calls for the speaker's resignation.  Accounts over the size of the demonstrations on December 27 and January 10 in the capital's Sukhbaatar Square became, however, a subject of controversy - international news outlets published what appeared to be inflated turnout numbers provided by the protests' organisers, leading to criticism on social media and refutation in the Mongolian press. Aerial photography of the events and official accounts suggest that the turnout for each protest was under 5,000 people, rather than the reported 20,000 to 30,000.  Enkhbold's dismissal came after the passing of new legislation on January 18 which requires a simple majority for MPs to remove the speaker - a post granted extensive powers by the Mongolian constitution.  While the new law might have been politically expedient, some observers have warned it sets a dangerous precedent for future parliamentary stability. Under it, "the speaker will no longer have the sole discretion of setting the legislative agenda, putting the parliamentary role of checks and balances on the executive branch in question".  Still, the turmoil of the past two months does not necessarily indicate a crisis for Mongolia's democracy, according to Mark Koenig, the Asia Foundation's country representative in Mongolia.  He said his organisation's research shows that Mongolians are increasingly aware of large-scale corruption and its negative impacts on the country's citizens and economy.  "The Mongolian public has increased its understanding and awareness of corruption and is showing signs of decreased tolerance," Koenig told Al Jazeera.  In a 2017 poll conducted by the International Republican Institute, 67 percent of respondents said corruption is a major problem for Mongolia, naming it as one of the top three issues facing their country, alongside unemployment and poverty. Seventy-five percent of those surveyed said parliament does a bad job of combatting corruption.  "Mongolia needs to improve its fight against corruption, otherwise it will drop to an authoritarian regime," Batbayar Orchirbat, executive director of TI's Mongolia branch, told Al Jazeera.  "The prime minister, government, parliament members - they're all involved in corruption cases. Instead of fighting corruption, they're fighting Mongolia's anti-corruption agency and Mongolia's media and Mongolian NGOs who fight corruption."


aljazeera--2019-02-08--Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion clinic regulations

A divided Supreme Court stopped Louisiana from enforcing new regulations on abortion clinics in a test of the conservative court's views on abortion rights.  The justices said in a 5-4 decision late Thursday that they will not allow the state to put into effect a law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.  Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberals in putting a hold on the law, pending a full review of the case.  President Donald Trump's two Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were among the four conservative members of the court who would have allowed the law to take effect.  Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion in which he said the court's action was premature because the state had made clear it would allow abortion providers an additional 45 days to obtain admitting privileges before it started enforcing the law.  If the doctors succeed, they can continue performing abortions, he said. If they fail, they could return to court, Kavanaugh said.  The law is very similar to a Texas measure the justices struck down three years ago. Roberts dissented in that case.  But the composition of the court has changed since then, with Kavanaugh replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted to strike down the Texas law.  Louisiana abortion providers and a district judge who initially heard the case said one or maybe two of the state's three abortion clinics would have to close under the new law. There would be at most two doctors who could meet its requirements, they said.  But the federal appeals court in New Orleans rejected those claims, doubting that any clinics would have to close and said the doctors had not tried hard enough to establish relationships with local hospitals.  In January, the full appeals court voted 9-6 not to get involved in the case, setting up the Supreme Court appeal.  The law had been scheduled to take effect Monday, but Justice Samuel Alito delayed the effective date at least through Thursday to give the justices more time.  The justices could decide this spring whether to add the case, June Medical Services v Gee, to their calendar for the term that begins in October.  Trump had pledged during the campaign to appoint "pro-life" justices - judges who are opposed to abortion rights - and abortion opponents are hoping the more conservative bench will be more open to upholding abortion restrictions.  In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump called for legislation to limit what he and anti-abortion rights activists describe as "late-term abortion".  While such legislation at the federal level is unlikely, research at the Guttmacher Institute shows that about 20 states already have laws in place that restricts abortion after about 20 weeks post-fertilisation.  Since Trump came to power, a number of states have also introduced measures that seek to restrict abortion access.  Other states, including New York, have passed laws to ensure that abortion access would still be protected if the Supreme Court were to overturn parts or all of Roe v Wade, a 1973 decision that blocks states from prohibiting abortion.


aljazeera--2019-02-14--US Senate confirms William Barr as attorney general

The US Senate on Thursday confirmed William Barr as the country's next attorney general, putting the veteran Republican lawyer in charge of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of any ties between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia.  The Republican-controlled Senate voted 54 to 45, largely along party lines. He could be sworn in before the end of the week.  Previously attorney general from 1991 to 1993 under President George HW Bush, Barr has won praise from politicians in both parties for his expertise and grasp of the workings of the Justice Department, which will head.  He will be the third man in barely two years to occupy the attorney general post, replacing acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who replaced Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump removed Sessions last November after criticising him repeatedly.  Mueller is investigating meddling by Russia in the 2016 US presidential election and whether Moscow colluded with Trump's campaign to try to tilt the election in Trump's direction, as well as possible obstruction of justice. Trump has denied any collusion and has repeatedly called the investigation a "witch-hunt". and The Kremlin has also denied any meddling.  Before being nominated, Barr wrote a 19-page legal memo, which he shared with Trump's legal team and Justice Department officials. It called Mueller's probe "fatally flawed".  Barr has said he will not let himself be bullied by Trump and will protect the integrity of Mueller's investigation and make public as many of its findings as he can.  Barr has not promised to release Mueller's report in its entirety. He has warned he may not be allowed to reveal the identities of people who escape prosecution. That stance troubles many Democrats, who say Barr's expansive views of executive power might lead him to suppress parts of the report.  Despite Democrats' opposition, many were still anxious to have Barr installed quickly so that he can replace Whitaker, whose tenure has been fraught with controversy since Trump installed him in November.  Critics have alleged Whitaker's appointment was unlawful. Democrats fear Trump installed Whitaker to undermine Mueller's probe because Whitaker had criticized it when he was a conservative pundit.  Barr is widely expected to back many of Trump's tough immigration policies. He will also be under the microscope for how he implements a new law that eases prison sentences for non-violent criminals, after he advocated for the opposite, tough-on-crime approach for decades.


aljazeera--2019-02-17--India withdraws security for Kashmiri separatists stoking fears

India withdraws security for Kashmiri separatists, stoking fears

Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir - Analysts and pro-Indian political leaders have warned of an escalation in tensions after a decision to withdraw the security detail for top Kashmiri separatist leaders.  The move by India's home ministry came days after a suicide attack on Indian paramilitary forces that killed 42 Indian troops in the restive region and raised fears of a confrontation with Pakistan.  On Sunday, a formal order was issued to remove government protection given to the region's four separatist leaders because of the attack.  "In view of the recent terror attack on a Central Reserve Police Force convoy in Lethpora village in Pulwama, the government of India has emphasised the need to immediately review the wastage of police resources in providing unnecessary security to a large number of non-government persons, particularly relevant in the context of security provided to separatists and their sympathisers," the order said.  The announcement could lead to further crises in the region, which has been engulfed in violence for years, analysts said. Last year was the deadliest in nearly a decade, with the highest number of casualties of rebels, security personnel and civilians.  In the past, several Kashmiri separatist leaders have been assassinated under mysterious circumstances.  While India has blamed Pakistan's intelligence agency ISI for its role in eliminating leaders for their alleged willingness to compromise on the disputed region, pro-separatist leaders in Jammu and Kashmir state have also been a thorn in the side of Indian security agencies.  Ajai Sahni, a defence and security analyst based in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera: "The entire orientation of this [BJP] government as far as Jammu and Kashmir is concerned has been directed towards their own electoral interest."  "They [BJP] use polarisation as a principal weapon for whatever they have been doing in the region, and this step will feed more polarisation. This is essentially going to appeal to the constituency who have been demanding these things for a long time. It is not a considered move by the state apparatus. It is a political move. If these people are under threat, the state cannot simply remove their security," he said.  Sahni said there has been a political destabilisation in Kashmir for the past five years. "That's why we are in a condition that we are in now," he said.  With separatist leaders enjoying overwhelming public support in the Muslim-majority state, any attack on them carries the potential to trigger a new law-and-order crisis in the restive state.  "If something happens, anyone is attacked, it will impact the local situation. It will put pressure on local police and the governor," another security analyst, Rahul Bedi, told Al Jazeera.  Police officials in the region expressed the same fear of attacks on the Kashmiri leadership.  "Some of these leaders have been attacked several times. It's worrying. If anything happens it will be difficult to handle," a senior police official told Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity.  The latest attack has also escalated tension between India and Pakistan, with New Delhi warning Islamabad of reprisals. The Indian government has also accused the separatist leaders of "receiving money from Pakistan and its intelligence agencies".  Separatist leaders in Kashmir demand an independent state or a merger with Pakistan.  Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, one of the four separatist leaders whose security was withdrawn, accused the Indian government of "diverting the attention from the Kashmir dispute".  "The government provided me security. I did not ask for it. And now they have withdrawn it. Let them. They just want to divert the attention of people from the real issue, which is Kashmir's struggle for the right to self-determination," he told Al Jazeera.  Umar, whose father Moulvi Mohammad Farooq was assassinated by unidentified gunmen in 1990, said he would continue to "fight against the Indian oppression in Kashmir".  "This won't affect us; our struggle will continue. We won't change our stand," Farooq said.  Another separatist leader, Abdul Gani Bhat - leader of the Muslim Conference - said "it is a non-issue" for them.  "The government kept these guards in our offices and homes. It was their decision. We never told them to give us any security. I even requested them once to withdraw it. Even our security and the recent attack has no connection. They are deliberately connecting the two things," Bhat told Al Jazeera.  "Without anybody guarding me with a gun, I will move freely."  Adviser to the state governor, Vijay Kumar, told Al Jazeera the decision was made by the federal home affairs ministry and "they are looking into some more nuances of it".  Mehbooba Mufti, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir and a senior pro-India politician, called the step as "knee-jerk reaction".  "Why was the security granted to them? It was because of the threat perception. And who assessed that threat perception? It was the government. Many leaders were killed and that was the basis why security was granted. That's what a country has to do for its citizens," Mufti said.  The killing of dozens of Indian security forces by a 20-year-old Kashmiri suicide bomber has triggered xenophobic attacks against Kashmiris in several parts of India by right-wing groups.  On Sunday, the Himalayan region observed a complete shutdown to protest the reprisal attacks.


aljazeera--2019-02-18--Australias offshore refugee policy has failed

Australia's offshore refugee policy has failed

Conducting Amnesty International's investigation on Nauru, one of the island nations where Australia sends its unwanted refugees, I felt furious and desperate.  I was furious to see hundreds of women, men and children subjected to physical and psychological harm that could only be characterised as torture: They were attacked, held in inhumane conditions, deprived of vital medical help and driven to insanity, self-harm and suicide. On Manus Island, in Papua New Guinea, my colleagues witnessed a similarly shocking situation.  I felt desperate because, despite overwhelming evidence of the abuse, for years Australian authorities continued to claim - with no evidence - that the policy of sending asylum seekers to remote offshore locations is the only way to save lives by deterring people from trying to reach Australia's shores. They did not seem prepared to move an inch.  Yet the work of a formidable alliance of people detained on Manus and Nauru, international and Australian civil society organisations, investigative journalists, as well as Australian human rights lawyers, might finally be bearing fruit.  Last week, Prime Minister Scott Morrison's government suffered an unprecedented defeat, as Parliament passed a law making it easier for refugees from offshore locations to receive medical treatment in Australia. This may not sound like a ground-breaking development, particularly since the government now intends to reopen a detention centre on the Australian territory of Christmas Island.  But the law's significance is clear when you consider that for years, Australia's ministry of immigration refused to transfer even critically ill patients from Manus and Nauru to Australia - saying it would be easier for them to get legal assistance and stay in the country.  On Nauru, in 2016, I spoke to an elderly man who was briefly evacuated to Australia after suffering a heart attack. He was promptly sent back to the island against the doctor's advice - and subsequently suffered another heart attack, as the doctors had feared.  I interviewed other refugees suffering from cancer, diabetes, untreated fractures, gynaecological problems and many other conditions, none of which could be treated on the island - and all of them were refused a transfer for treatment. That is not to mention those, including children, who suffered from such serious mental health issues that they were repeatedly trying to kill themselves or ended up locked up in an improvised mental hospital - but again, not allowed treatment in Australia.  On Manus Island, an Iranian asylum-seeker, Hamid Khazaei, died because Australian officials ignored the pleas of his doctors for his immediate transfer to receive medical care on the mainland.  The new law will literally save lives. And it is another sign that Australia's long-standing "offshore detention" policy is slowly being whittled away as it is exposed, time and again, for what it is: a vicious attack on people for the simple act of having sought sanctuary.  Only a few weeks ago, the government of Australia confirmed that all children would be leaving Nauru. Several hundred refugees have already settled in the United States under a deal signed between the two countries. One after the other, companies that the Australian government relied on to run its offshore detention system withdrew, and finding new ones proved to be hard as businesses worried about the reputational damage from complicity in such blatant abuse.  Perhaps equally significant is the international recognition of the very people that the Australian government tried to make invisible, delegitimise, silence, and deprive of agency and hope.  One is Kurdish Iranian writer Behrouz Boochani, a refugee on Manus, who earlier this month won the $25,000 non-fiction prize at the Victorian premier's literary award, as well as the $100,000 Victorian prize for literature. No Friend but the Mountains was his first book, which he wrote by text messages from the detention centre on the island.  The other is Behrouz's fellow detainee from Manus Island, Sudanese human rights defender Abdul Aziz Muhamat, who last week won the prestigious Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights. Aziz has worked continuously to advocate for humane living conditions and adequate medical care on Manus, including through mass peaceful protests.  All of these developments indicate that the Australian government's "offshore detention" policy has utterly failed. The only way to avoid further suffering for the refugees and shame for the country is to put a decisive end to it, accept responsibility, and do everything possible to rebuild hundreds of lives affected by years of abuse.  There is also an important lesson here for other countries who might be looking at Australia's policy as an example of how to stoke fear about - and among - people seeking safety. Such policies may seem like a quick win with some domestic constituencies, but they are not wins in the long run. Ultimately they are inhumane, unlawful, unsustainable, costly, and damaging to a country's reputation.  The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


aljazeera--2019-02-26--Drug offence executions more than halve in 2018 after Iran reform

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - Human rights experts have hailed a sharp drop in executions for drug offences in 2018, even as they expressed worries over a large number of people worldwide still facing the death penalty for non-violent drug crimes.  In a new report on Tuesday, Harm Reduction International (HRI) said it documented 91 executions for drug crimes last year, compared with 288 in 2017 - a 68 percent drop largely driven by fewer deaths in Iran following drug law reforms.  It is the first time the number of executions - which excludes China and Vietnam - has fallen below 100 since the London-based NGO started compiling figures in 2007.  But the annual report warned that at least 7,000 people across the world are on death row for drug offences and that populist governments advocating the use of capital punishment as a key plank of drug control policy could undermine global progress towards abolition.  "The fall in executions is undeniably positive but far too many people are still sentenced to death row for low-level drug offences where they suffer serious human rights violations," said Giada Girelli, the report's author and HRI's human rights analyst.  "There is simply no evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrent and this inhumane practice must be abolished immediately."  The annual report said four countries carried out the death penalty for drug offences last year - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Singapore and China.  HRI said Saudi Arabia was responsible for the highest number of such executions, sending at least 59 people to their deaths. Iran followed with 23 people, followed by Singapore, where nine people were executed.  China continued to use capital punishment in relation to drug crimes, and HRI was able to confirm a number of specific occasions when people had been executed for drug offences.  The report did not provide a specific figure because the number of confirmed executions is likely to be an underestimate in a country where death penalty statistics are a state secret. China is also not included in the headline figure for global executions for the same reason. Nor is Vietnam where executions are also shrouded in secrecy.  Executions in Iran dropped by 50 percent last year following amendments to drug legislation that increased the minimum amounts of drugs for death penalty offences. The change meant executions were put on hold while cases were reviewed.  Asma Jahangir, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, said in March 2018 that 5,300 people were on death row or serving a life term in Iranian prisons for drug offences and could see their sentence commuted as a result of the new law.  However, she noted that a mandatory death sentence remained in force for a number of drug-related crimes.  In Malaysia, the government announced last year a moratorium on executions and said it would abolish the death penalty for all crimes, after earlier amending legislation that put those caught with even the smallest amounts of illicit substances facing the mandatory death penalty.  Ministers acknowledged that capital punishment had not succeeded in reducing drug use or trafficking, while the punitive policy meant more than 50 percent of inmates in the country's prisons were being held for drug offences.  Professor Adeeba Kamarulzaman, dean of medicine at the University of Malaya in Malaysia, said the world had reached a "tipping point" on the use of the death penalty in relation to drugs amid growing recognition that capital punishment was an ineffective deterrent.  Nevertheless, Malaysia's announcement triggered upset among those who support capital punishment and the necessary legislation has still to be introduced in parliament.  Adeeba said policymakers needed to better articulate their case.  They "have to try and change the narrative", she told Al Jazeera. "There is a combination of health and social issues that put people at risk. Getting people to understand that is important. In some ways, those of us in the medical world have abrogated our responsibilities to the justice system."  Despite evidence that capital punishment is no deterrent to drugs, HRI noted that last year some countries appeared to be looking to the death penalty as a key component of drug policy.  All the executions carried out in 2018 in Singapore were for drug offences, while Bangladesh expanded the application of the death penalty to more substances and Sri Lanka said it would end a 43-year moratorium on the death penalty by executing those convicted of drug trafficking.  Meanwhile, legislation backed by the Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte to impose the death penalty for drug crimes as part of his continuing "war" on drugs has been passed by the lower house, but has not secured Senate approval.  HRI's Girelli said continued progress to eliminate the death penalty, which remains a punishment for drugs in 35 countries and territories around the world, would depend on political will and public education.  "When it comes to public opinion, there's a lack of information around the death penalty for drugs and the death penalty in general," she told Al Jazeera.  "If people were to learn about all the due process violations associated with the death penalty and if they knew the situation of people convicted to death for drugs then they would not believe in it."


aljazeera--2019-02-27--Cubans approve a new Constitution What does the vote mean

Cubans approve a new Constitution: What does the vote mean?

Cuban voters ratified a new Constitution on Sunday that legalises the free market in a vote that saw a growing portion of the population express dissent compared with the island's last constitutional referendum in 1976.  In Sunday's ballot, 86.85 percent voted in favour of the new Constitution while nine percent voted against it. Spoiled or blank ballots made up 4.15 percent of ballots cast.  Voter turnout was recorded at 84.4 percent, down from 98 percent who turned out in 1976 when 97.7 percent of voters ratified the Constitution.  "There's no longer political unanimity around government proposals," Raudiel Pena Barrios, adjunct professor of law at the University of Havana, told Al Jazeera. "We should see this as an important minority of Cubans who hope for something more in the management of the state."  The new Constitution legalises private property and promotes foreign investment. The change brings the charter in line with economic reforms the Cuban government has implemented to encourage entrepreneurship and investment over the past several years.  Arturo Lopez-Levy, visiting professor at Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota who served as a political analyst for the Cuban government from 1992 to 1994, said such changes resolve a "legal limbo" around moves to liberalise the economy. This opens the door for further reform aimed at building a "comprehensive mixed economy", he said.  The updated charter also creates the position of prime minister to administer day-to-day state affairs and imposes age and term limits for the president.  Lopez-Levy calls these "important instrumental changes within the one-party system". For Pena Barrios, the new Constitution signals "political continuity marked by novel aspects such as notable economic pragmatism".  After casting his referendum ballot, President Miguel Diaz-Canel described the new Constitution as a bearer of "continuity and unity" in Cuba.  Critics argue the reforms are cosmetic. The power of the Communist Party within a one-party system remains untouched and citizens still do not have the ability to directly vote for a president, an issue thousands of voters raised in a three-month public consultation process.  But Lopez-Levy argued that any demands for deep political restructuring were pipe dreams from the outset.  "The process never had the intention of a transition to a liberal democracy," he said. "The opposition and the groups that are pushing for this type of agenda have proven to be very isolated and with very limited political mobilisation capability."  He cautioned that "No" votes, abstentions, or null ballots should not be equated with support for the Cuban opposition.  Pena Barrios doubts the dissident vote will work in the opposition's favour.  "The opposition in Cuba doesn't have sufficient political capital to identify with those who didn't support the text," he said.  But many are optimistic the reforms and the process of drafting the new charter will help make room for continued debate among other sectors.  "The result points the way towards new political dialogue, or at least the need for it," Miguel Alejandro Hayes, editor of the blog La Trinchera and a contributor to other Cuban alternative media outlets, told Al Jazeera.  He believes it is unlikely such dialogue would include the traditional opposition. Instead, the government could engage with more moderate critics, though political will could still be lacking.  "There's an opposition that doesn't want dialogue, that approves of the blockade on Cuba, and that doesn't care about the cost of toppling the government," he said. "These actors - the majority live outside of Cuba - don't have any credibility, and they are out of the scene," he added.  Pena Barrios argued the official response to polarisation over marriage equality in the run-up to the referendum has demonstrated the government's openness to dialogue.  While an earlier draft of the Constitution legalised marriage equality, the final version left marriage to be defined in a separate referendum.  "Now comes the big challenge," Pena Barrios added, "which is to fulfill the Constitution".  The Cuban government is expected to implement various measures to complement the charter.  Hayes stressed the need for these new laws to "be inclusive" and ensure that "political ideology is not cause for discrimination."  "Everything proposed in the Constitution that is not explicit, everything that goes against the orthodox mentality, deserves attention, because it is what runs the most risk of being forgotten or excluded," he said.  Beyond the island, the Constitution is unlikely to smooth over relations with the United States.  Bilateral ties have deteriorated under President Donald Trump after the historic normalisation of frozen US-Cuba ties under Presidents Barack Obama and Raul Castro with the opening of embassies in Washington and Havana in 2015.  Trump has suggested deepening the more than half century-old trade embargo on Cuba.  Lopez-Levy argued the time for fruitful debate on Cuba was before the referendum, and the US missed the opportunity. "Trump doesn't have a policy towards Cuba, he has a policy towards the next election in Florida," he said.  Florida is home to two thirds of the 1.2 million Cuban-American voters in the US. Although Cuban-Americans have increasingly turned towards the Democratic Party for more than a decade, according to the Pew Research Center, Cubans in Florida were twice as likely to vote for Trump compared with other Latinos.  In a statement on Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo dismissed the vote as a "so-called referendum" and claimed the charter blocks potential for economic reform by enshrining socialism.  "No one should be fooled by this exercise, which achieves little beyond perpetuating the pretext for the regime's one-party dictatorship," Pompeo said. "The entire process has been marked by carefully managed political theater and repression of public debate."  The new Constitution declares the socialist system "irrevocable" and states the state's central goal of "the construction of socialism and advance towards a communist society."


abcnews--2019-11-13--Bishop who investigated sex abuse accused of sex abuse

A Roman Catholic bishop named by Pope Francis to investigate the church’s response to clergy sexual abuse in Buffalo, New York, has himself been accused of sexual abuse of a child, an attorney for the alleged victim notified the church this week.  The attorney informed Catholic officials in New Jersey that he is preparing a lawsuit on behalf of a client who says he was molested by Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio in the mid-1970s, when DiMarzio was a parish priest in Jersey City.  DiMarzio said there is no truth to the accusation.  “I am just learning about this allegation,” he said in a statement Tuesday to The Associated Press. “In my nearly 50-year ministry as a priest, I have never engaged in unlawful or inappropriate behavior and I emphatically deny this allegation. I am confident I will be fully vindicated.”  In a letter sent Monday to the church’s Newark, New Jersey, archdiocese, Boston attorney Mitchell Garabedian said 56-year-old Mark Matzek alleges he was repeatedly abused by DiMarzio and a second priest, the late Rev. Albert Mark, when he was an altar boy at St. Nicholas Church and a student at St. Nicholas School.  Last month, Pope Francis tapped DiMarzio to investigate the church’s Buffalo Diocese, where Bishop Richard Malone has come under fire for his handling of a burgeoning clergy abuse scandal that has roiled the diocese and prompted calls for his resignation.  “The investigation of the diocese of Buffalo by Bishop DiMarzio is tainted because of these allegations,” Garabedian said in an interview with the AP. “There needs to be a truly neutral investigator to determine whether Bishop Malone should resign,” adding that the investigation should be led by a law enforcement agency.  Adriana Rodriguez, press secretary for the Brooklyn Diocese, said DiMarzio has completed his report on the Buffalo Diocese and has submitted it to the Vatican. DiMarzio and Malone are in Rome this week for a previously scheduled visit of New York bishops to the Holy See.  Garabedian said the notice he sent to the Newark Archdiocese briefly describes Matzek’s allegations and the damage he has allegedly suffered, while demanding $20 million in compensation.  Maria Margiotta, the spokeswoman for the Newark Archdiocese, said it has received Garabedian’s letter and reported Matzek’s allegations to law enforcement.  Garabedian told the AP he plans to file the lawsuit on Matzek’s behalf next month, after New Jersey opens a two-year “look back” period in which sex abuse victims will be permitted to file lawsuits without regard to the statute of limitations, which typically limits the amount of time in which an alleged victim may file suit.  DiMarzio completed his review of the Buffalo Diocese, known as an “apostolic visitation,” last month. He said he made three trips to the diocese over seven days and interviewed nearly 80 clergymen and parishioners.  This story has been corrected to reflect that the first name of the bishop of Buffalo is Richard, not Joseph.


bbc--2019-02-01--France puts up food and drink prices under new law

Nutella, Président Camembert, Ricard Pastis and Carte Noire coffee are among the brands set to cost more in France as a law on food prices takes effect.  It means big food and drink brands can no longer be sold at cost price. Shops' profit margin must be at least 10%.  But many shops' own-brand products are expected to get a bit cheaper. Such goods often come from smaller firms.  The government aims to help smaller producers but France has continuing yellow-vest protests over prices.  There are doubts about whether the new law will actually work as hoped.  The 10% margin threshold means a food or drink brand previously sold for €1 (£0.88; $1.1) now has to be priced at €1.1 minimum.  But there will not be uniform price increases, French media report. The law affects supermarkets and hypermarkets more than small local shops.  That is because the big outlets offer some popular brands at or near cost price, slashing their margins on those products, in order to lure customers, in a fierce price war. Their profits depend on big volume and high turnover.  Small shops, however, cannot match the supermarkets' low margins.  Supermarket chain Carrefour is adapting to the law by increasing discounts for loyalty card customers.  Carrefour expects to raise prices by 35 euro cents on average, which is 5%. It says 1,000 food and drink brands are affected, out of 25,000 on sale.  A big retailer which has already raised prices gave the daily Le Parisien a list of brands affected, while requesting anonymity. Among the price rises are:  Hypermarket chain E Leclerc said it was raising prices by 3% on 1,000 brands.  Agriculture Minister Didier Guillaume said "the aim is to sell agricultural goods for what they're worth". He stressed that meat and fish prices would be unaffected.  He said that in supermarkets, in general, prices would go up on 500 out of 13,000 products, and in hypermarkets on 800 out of 20,000 on sale.  The government hopes that by making shops pay more to their suppliers - the wholesalers - the latter will pay more to French food and drink producers. That is because the wholesalers' income should increase as consumers pay higher prices for certain brands.  But millions of French consumers are angry about the cost of living, so there is a risk for the government. It is already struggling to contain often violent "gilets jaunes" (yellow vest) protests.  The protests were sparked by a fuel price hike last year - later cancelled by President Emmanuel Macron - but soon the "gilets jaunes" movement morphed into a wider protest against economic hardship.  For months there have been big weekend protests by the yellow vests across France. Another one is planned for Saturday.  Mr Macron has tried to reach out to the protesters. He told journalists on Thursday: "If to be a yellow vest means you want work to pay more and parliament to work better - well then I'm a yellow vest."  The French consumer rights group UFC Que Choisir voiced scepticism about the new law.  One of its researchers, Mathieu Escot, said smaller shops like the Monoprix chain in Paris would not put up prices, because their margins were already above 10%.  But he noted that "gilets jaunes" protesters were frequent shoppers at the big supermarkets and out-of-town stores, where prices would go up.  "So it's French people on more modest incomes, with weak purchasing power, who will pay," he argued.  The law "does not oblige" food and drink wholesalers to pay more to French rural producers, he said.  A big agricultural union, Confédération paysanne, told the daily Libération "there is no clear incentive to ensure a return to producers and boost their income".


bbc--2019-02-11--Hungary tries for baby boom with tax breaks and loan forgiveness

Hungarian women with four children or more will be exempted for life from paying income tax, the prime minister has said, unveiling plans designed to boost the number of babies being born.  It was a way of defending Hungary's future without depending on immigration, Viktor Orban said.  The right-wing nationalist particularly opposes immigration by Muslims.  Hungary's population is falling by 32,000 a year. Women there have fewer children than the EU average.  As part of the measures, young couples will be offered interest-free loans of 10m forint (£27,400; $36,000), to be cancelled once they have three children.  Mr Orban said that "for the West", the answer to falling birth rates in Europe was immigration: "For every missing child, there should be one coming in and then the numbers will be fine.  "Hungarian people think differently," he said. "We do not need numbers. We need Hungarian children."  While Mr Orban was delivering his state of the nation address, the latest demonstrations were being held in Budapest against his government's policies.  About 2,000 people gathered in front of his office, while others blocked one of the main bridges across the Danube river.  Correspondents say the biggest applause during Mr Orban's speech was for his announcement of a seven-point plan to increase the birth rate.  Other points in the government's plan include:  Mr Orban finished his speech with: "Long live Hungary and long live the Hungarians!"  The average number of children a Hungarian woman will have in her lifetime (fertility rate) is 1.45. This puts the country below the EU average of 1.58.  In 2016, France had the highest fertility rate in the EU - 1.92 children per woman - and Spain and Italy had the lowest at 1.34, the EU statistics agency Eurostat reports.  Niger, in West Africa, has the highest fertility rate in the world, with 7.24 children per woman.  Critics of the government say its package and pro-family policy so far target well-off families and ignore the Hungarian poor, including an estimated 750,000 Roma (Gypsies). Tax relief does little to help families who pay little tax anyway.  Housing subsidies of €35,000 (£30,666) were offered to families able to invest a similar sum of their own - but few Roma have such savings.  The nationalist Fidesz government has cut welfare payments and reduced the number of months those made unemployed can claim for.  The population has been falling steadily, from a peak of 10.7 million in 1980, to below 9.7 million today.  About 600,000 Hungarians have moved to western Europe in the past decade - it is impossible to calculate how many will return.  "Increasing the number of births is very difficult, because we have less and less women of child-bearing age," State Secretary for Families Katalin Novak told the BBC. That number is set to fall by 20% in the next decade. "So less and less women need to have more and more babies."  The government's new package, she emphasised, is based on the number of babies couples would actually like to have, and then to encourage them with financial help. The aim is to increase the fertility rate to 2.1 by 2030.  Many other countries with relatively low birth rates have introduced extra payments and other benefits for mothers.  Russia's birth rate has been declining for decades: the population fell from 149m in 1991 to 140m in 2018, and the median age has risen from 33 to 39.  So, to help the poorest families, in March 2018 the government announced monthly payments of 10-11,000 roubles (£118-£130; $152-$167) until their first child reached 18 months old. A poor family also gets a one-off payment of 300,000 roubles for each additional child born.  Serbia, one of Hungary's neighbours, has one of the world's fastest-shrinking populations. It has seven million people and a median age of 43.  Last March it announced that new mothers would get a one-off payment worth £740 ($956) for their first child, monthly payments of £74 ($96) for the second child for two years, and further payments for three or more children.  The birth rate in Italy is among Europe's lowest, along with Cyprus and Spain. Italy gives mothers an allowance of €80 per month (£70; $90) for each child born. The poorest families get a monthly allowance of €160 per child.  In Germany more babies were born in 2016 than in any year since 1996. But Germany has also put more incentives in place for couples to have children. Parents have a legal right to a nursery place once their child is one year old.  Germany has a new law, the "Good KiTa Act", granting lower childcare fees for parents who cannot afford the full price, and a fee exemption for parents who receive a child allowance and housing benefits.  Low birth rates are also worrying governments in East Asia.  The marriage rate in South Korea is at its lowest since records began - 5.5 per 1,000 people, compared with 9.2 in 1970 - and very few children are born outside marriage.  According to World Bank data for 2016, just a few countries, including Singapore and Moldova, have a fertility rate as low as South Korea's - 1.2 per woman. The replacement rate - the number needed for a population to remain level - is 2.1.  Fertility rates are also low in China (1.6) and Japan (1.4).


bbc--2019-02-21--Macron announces crackdown on anti-Semitism in France

French President Emmanuel Macron has announced new measures to tackle anti-Semitism, following a spate of attacks.  He told Jewish leaders that France would recognise anti-Zionism - the denial of Israel's right to exist - as a form of anti-Semitism.  He also said parliament would vote on a new law to tackle hatred on the internet.  On Tuesday Mr Macron visited a Jewish cemetery near Strasbourg where graves were desecrated with Nazi symbols.  On the same day, thousands of people joined rallies across France in support of the Jewish community.  Addressing an annual meeting of Jewish organisations on Wednesday, Mr Macron said anti-Semitism in France and other Western countries had reached its worst levels since World War Two.  Among a series of new measures, he said the government would act to dissolve three extreme-right groups - Bastion Social, Blood and Honour Hexagone and Combat 18 - which he said fuelled hatred and promoted discrimination.  Mr Macron added: "Anti-Zionism is one of the modern forms of anti-Semitism. This is why I'm confirming that France will put forward the definition of anti-Semitism as drawn by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance."  In recent months, France has witnessed a series of high-profile anti-Semitic attacks.  In the past week vandals defaced portraits of the late Holocaust survivor and French minister Simone Veil, scrawled the German word for "Jews" on a Parisian bakery and cut down a tree planted in memory of a Jewish youth tortured to death by an anti-Semitic gang.  A prominent French philosopher, Alain Finkielkraut, was also verbally attacked for being Jewish as he walked past a recent "gilets jaunes" (yellow-vest) protest in Paris.  During his visit to the Jewish cemetery in eastern France where nearly 100 graves were desecrated, President Macron said: "Whoever did this is not worthy of the French republic and will be punished."  The number of anti-Semitic crimes reported in France, which is home to the largest Jewish population in Europe, increased by more than 70% - from 311 in 2017 to 541 last year.  The tally is not the worst France has seen in the past two decades, and follows a two-year dip in attacks, BBC Paris correspondent Lucy Williamson reports.  However, anti-Semitic violence is believed to be spreading from the old prejudices of the far-right, to radical Islamists and far-left groups, our correspondent adds.


bbc--2019-03-12--Italy bans unvaccinated children from school

Italian children have been told not to turn up to school unless they can prove they have been properly vaccinated.  The deadline follows months of national debate over compulsory vaccination.  Parents risk being fined up to €500 (£425; $560) if they send their unvaccinated children to school. Children under six can be turned away.  The new law came amid a surge in measles cases - but Italian officials say vaccination rates have improved since it was introduced.  Under Italy's so-called Lorenzin law - named after the former health minister who introduced it - children must receive a range of mandatory immunisations before attending school. They include vaccinations for chickenpox, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella.  Children up to the age of six years will be excluded from nursery and kindergarten without proof of vaccination under the new rules.  Those aged between six and 16 cannot be banned from attending school, but their parents face fines if they do not complete the mandatory course of immunisations.  The deadline for certification was due to be 10 March after a previous delay - but as it fell on a weekend, it was extended to Monday.  "Now everyone has had time to catch up," Health Minister Giulia Grillo told La Repubblica newspaper.  She had reportedly resisted political pressure from deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini to extend the deadline even further.  Ms Grillo said the rules were now simple: "No vaccine, no school".  Italian media report that regional authorities are handling the situation in a number of different ways.  In Bologna, the local authority has sent letters of suspension to the parents of some 300 children, and a total of 5,000 children do not have their vaccine documentation up to date.  In other areas there have been no reported cases, while still others have been given a grace period of a few days beyond the deadline.  The new law was passed to raise Italy's plummeting vaccination rates from below 80% to the World Health Organisation's 95% target.  On Monday - the last day for parents to provide documentation proving their children had been properly vaccinated - the Italian health authority released figures claiming a national immunisation rate at or very close to 95% for children born in 2015, depending on which vaccine was being discussed.  The 95% threshold is the point at which "herd immunity" kicks in - when enough of the population is vaccinated for the spread of the disease to become unlikely, thereby protecting those who cannot be vaccinated.  That includes babies too young to be vaccinated themselves, or those with medical conditions such as a compromised immune system.  Last month, an eight-year-old recovering from cancer was unable to attend school in Rome due to his weak immune system.  The child had spent months receiving treatment for leukaemia, but was at risk of infection because a proportion of pupils in the school had not been vaccinated - including several in the same class.  The Lorenzin law, drafted by the previous government, had a tumultuous birth. When the current coalition came to power, it said it would drop mandatory immunisations although it later reversed its position.  The two populist parties in power had faced accusations that they were pursuing anti-vaccination policies.  Writing in a Facebook post on Monday, Ms Grillo admitted it "is a law that, at the time of approval, we criticised for several reasons" - and said that the law would be changed to include only those vaccinations that were necessary based on scientific data.  The anti-vaccination movement has been growing globally in recent years, sparking alarm from the World Health Organization.  A long-discredited paper by Andrew Wakefield was behind much of the scare, but rumours around immunisation have continued to spread, leading to public health risks as not enough people are immune to such diseases.  Mr Wakefield was struck off the UK medical register after fraudulently claiming there was a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) and autism and bowel disease in children.  He made the claim based on the experiences of just 12 children, and no other study since has been able to replicate his results.


bbc--2019-03-14--China foreign investment How doing business will change

China foreign investment: How doing business will change

China is rushing through a foreign investment law in an apparent attempt to placate Washington as negotiators try to dig the world's two largest economic powers out of an ongoing trade war. But will it work?  The 3,000 or so delegates to China's annual National People's Congress (NPC) will endorse the new law on Friday. They don't oppose legislation. That's not how it is done here.  When a vote is taken there are normally only a handful who vote against. Some of them potentially for show, because 100% "yes" votes one after another would look ridiculous.  If there is pushback against a draft bill and amendments made, this happens well before the NPC sits, at a series of standing committee meetings behind closed doors. The process can take years.  This time it took three months.  The Chinese government appears to have rushed through the investment law as an olive branch to the US amid trade war negotiations.  However, many in the business community here in China see this law as a kind of sweeping set of intentions rather than a specific, enforceable set of rules. They fear it could be open to different and changing forms of interpretation.  The big-ticket items it is said to address, in terms of the concerns of foreign companies, include intellectual property theft, the requirement for international firms to partner up with a local entity, and unfair subsidies to Chinese companies.  It will also address the preferential treatment in awarding contracts to Chinese companies, and forcing foreign firms to hand over their technological secrets as the price of entry to the massive Chinese market.  But this law isn't going to help everyone.  There is a "black list" of 48 sectors that will not be open to foreign investment or, in some cases, not open without conditions or special permission.  For example, there is a complete ban on investing in fishing, gene research, religious education, news media, and television broadcasting.  Partial investment is allowed in oil and gas exploitation, nuclear power, airlines, airport operation, and public health, amongst others sectors.  Non-renewable energy automobile production will require partnerships for a few years but then be phased out.  For industries not on the list, the principle is that foreign companies will receive the same treatment as their Chinese counterparts.  But should foreign companies also be wary?  One of the provisions will include a requirement for the local subsidiaries of international firms to report various details of their operation to Chinese officials.  This could include performance indicators relating to labour relations, overall staffing numbers, pollution records and the like.  That sounds fine except that foreign companies have asked for - and not received - legal guarantees that this data will not be passed on to their Chinese competitors.  Then there is the promised complaints procedure should you seek redress following any perceived violations of the new law.  If this system is run through the normal Chinese courts, which routinely guarantee results favourable to the Communist Party, then to many this would not seem like a satisfactory enforcement mechanism.  One part of the law specifies that there is to be a ban on "illegal government interference" in the activities of foreign business.  The further you go up the government ladder the more implausible it would be to win in such a dispute.  Over the years we have reported on many cases of foreign businesspeople, especially ethnic Chinese, who have been sent to prison on highly questionable charges following a commercial dispute with a local business person who enjoys the backing of low-level Communist Party cadres.  Those here with long memories know this and are approaching the new law with an understandable level of caution.