Charities work with UK Home Office to deport rough sleepers

Tom Pearce 

At least three homeless charities and a number of local authorities in the UK have colluded with the Home Office in the deportation of people who are sleeping rough and whom they deem to be in the country illegally.

This was first established last year by the Corporate Watch group through freedom of information (FOI) requests to London councils.

Among these is St. Mungo’s, which has one of the largest homeless outreach services in the UK with more than 15 teams across the south of the England. Its web site explains, “We work to prevent homelessness and support people at every step of their recovery from homelessness.”

This seems not to apply if you are deemed to be an “illegal” immigrant.

Last month, the charity admitted cooperating with the Home Office’s compliance and enforcement teams (ICE) when the latter goes searching for rough sleepers deemed to be in the UK illegally.

The latest revelations came to light in a September 2016 Home Office training document obtained by the Guardian last month. The St. Mungo’s logo was featured on the document, which read: “This teamwork which sees both the charity referring eligible people to immigration enforcement [IE] for help with voluntary returns and IE referring people to St. Mungo’s has already proved beneficial for both bodies.”

Questioned about its work with the Home Office, St. Mungo’s said some of its contracts with local authorities specified that it should work with ICE teams. “I get why that can be seen as strange and unpopular for some people,” said Petra Salva, the charity’s director of rough sleeping services. “It’s a difficult climate we’re operating in.”

If this weren’t enough to demonstrate the pernicious role played by the charity, Salva confirmed that Home Office enforcement teams are “go[ing] up to individuals sleeping in sleeping bags and interviewing them [and] end up arresting them.”

Despite Salva’s claim, “We don’t believe our outreach staff have accompanied ICE teams this year,” the Guardian reported, “It continues to work with the Home Office by passing on details of people from other countries who wish to return home.”

In 2017, the rough sleeping rate in London (per 1,000 households) showed an 18 percent rise since 2016, with 59 percent of rough sleepers in the capital being non-UK nationals.

Corporate Watch found that the practice of homeless charities collaborating with the Home Office is rife. Its devastating March 2017 exposure established that “Outreach teams from charities, Thames Reach, and Change, Grow, Live (CGL) conduct regular joint ‘visits’ with Immigration Enforcement officers, as often as fortnightly in central [London] boroughs.”

It found that the charities were persuading non-UK rough sleepers to leave “voluntarily.” However, the figures uncovered showed “that detention and enforced deportation is more common” and that “in any case, so-called ‘voluntary’ departures are carried out under the threat of force.”

Corporate Watch found a routine practice of Outreach teams pass[ing] “on locations of non-UK rough sleepers to ICE, including through the London-wide CHAIN database, and through local co-operation agreements.” This also had the approval of Conservative-run Westminster council, which consistently lobbied for a tougher policy on migrant rough sleepers, with the policy “encouraged by the ‘Mayor’s Rough Sleeping Group,’ which included senior charity managers from St Mungo’s, Thames Reach, and Homeless Link.”

Its research found that the rights of people from the European Economic Area (EEA) have been eroded by loopholes in the law since 2016. People from EEA countries should be allowed to stay for three months without condition as part of exercising their “treaty rights,” which includes being, “employed or self-employed, seeking work, studying” or being “self-sufficient.” However, since 2016, the Home Office has changed the guidance and classified rough sleepers as “abusing their treaty rights,” even if they were working or have been in the country for less than three months.

ICE has the power to deport people immediately. Although the wording has since been changed to include the word “proportionality,” it means that a member of ICE can decide if removing a rough sleeper is correct due to circumstances. This is where the outreach charities pass their information on to ensure the process goes smoothly.

The callous nature of the work being carried out by the charities was revealed in an FOI request from Hammersmith and Fulham council. Corporate Watch noted that the council disclosed a “local protocol” produced by St. Mungo’s for its homeless outreach teams. Its report notes: “According to this document…St. Mungo’s outreach workers should assess the nationality of all rough sleepers they encounter and, if they are European citizens, also assess whether they are ‘exercising their treaty rights’: for example, seeking employment or education. The St. Mungo’s document states in bold type the procedure to be followed if a rough sleeper is judged to ‘not exercise their treaty rights’ over a period of time.”

The document continues: “These individuals’ details will be passed on to the ICE by the outreach team. Following this a joint shift will be agreed with outreach, ICE, Parks Police to target/tackle these individuals.”

Corporate Watch noted the scale of persecution of the homeless in these operations. “Outreach teams from charities St. Mungo’s, Thames Reach, and Change, Grow, Live (CGL) conduct regular joint ‘visits’ with Immigration Enforcement officers, as often as fortnightly in central boroughs. Freedom of Information (FOI) responses show 141 such patrols organised by the GLA and 12 London boroughs last year. This figure does not include Westminster, the biggest concentration of London homelessness, where patrols are likely to be even more frequent.

“Joint visits in just eight of these areas led to 133 rough sleepers being detained, while 127 people were deported in under a year in Westminster alone.”

Collaboration between homeless charities and the state has increased over the past four years with the creation of the London Homelessness Social Impact Bond (SIB), where providers are paid on a payment-by-results basis for their effectiveness in assisting rough sleepers. In February 2017, Labour Party London Mayor Sadiq Khan approved the decision to continue with £4.2 million in SIB funding.

He was forced to suspend ICE patrols in response to the revelations that have emerged. Despite these temporary changes, the scheme continues and there is no indication that the Khan will end the SIB. The main beneficiaries are St. Mungo’s and Thames Reach, which were both contracted with delivering “services to half of a cohort of 831 entrenched rough sleepers.”

In November 2017, the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government released a report: “London homelessness social impact bond evaluation.” It hailed the success of the payment-by-results approach and the profiting from the removing of rough sleepers, saying it “had stimulated providers to develop an innovative and effective delivery model.”

Charities tailoring their work to the requirements of the capitalist state are the result of the drive by successive governments to hand over responsibility for public health and safety provision to the so-called “Third Sector.” This outsourcing of responsibilities to charities and voluntary organisations has been an integral part of the privatisation of vital services.

The revealing of the intimate relationship between St. Mungo’s and the repressive apparatus of the state follows the exposure last year that the Shelter housing charity had trustees that were connected to corporations involved in the Grenfell fire.

One of Shelter’s board, Tony Rice, was forced to resign when it was revealed that he was—and remains—the chairman of Xerxes Equity, a construction industry investment group that is the sole shareholder in Omnis Exteriors. This is the company that sold the flammable cladding to contractors hired by the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation—who managed Grenfell Tower on behalf of Kensington and Chelsea council—for the “refurbishment” of the tower.”

British government admits MI5 enjoys carte blanche to break the law

Simon Whelan

“ This attempted murder using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British town was not just a crime against the Skripals. It was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk. ”

This was one of the many statements by UK Prime Minister Theresa May accusing Russia, without any credible evidence being made available, of committing crimes on British soil with the “attempted assassination” of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

The mendacity of May and the British ruling elite—who have universally backed her claims—knows no bounds. The accusations against Russia were made as it was finally admitted that MI5 (Military Intelligence section five—Britain’s domestic intelligence agency) is permitted to carry out criminal activity.

Earlier this month, after a seven-month legal battle by human rights groups Reprieve and Privacy International, the May government revealed that, under a previously secret order, MI5 is entitled to break the law and to commit crimes in pursuit of its aims.

In a written statement to Parliament on March 1, May said she had instructed Lord Justice Fulford, the investigatory powers commissioner (IPC), to “keep under review the application of the security service guidelines on the use of agents who participate in criminality and the authorisations issued in accordance with them”.

The direction to the IPC is entitled “security service participation in criminality.” The one-page text instructs the IPC to oversee the participation of MI5 officers in criminal activity under a previously secret order known as the “third direction.”

Had the legal case not been mounted by Reprieve and Privacy International, it is likely that the ministerial order would never have seen the light of day—as it has remained secret since it was first written into law in 2014.

After the announcement, a solicitor for Privacy International, Millie Graham Wood, asserted, “Had we not sought to challenge the government over the failure to publish this direction, together with Reprieve, it is questionable whether it would have ever been brought to light. It is wrong in principle for there to be entire areas of intelligence oversight and potentially of intelligence activity, about which the public knows nothing at all.”

The government directive covers the operations of what they call “Covert Human Intelligence Sources [CHIS],” who are trained to provide intelligence on British citizens deemed a threat to national security and worthy of attention by the state.

The government attempted to keep even the few paragraphs released under lock and key, arguing that publication would damage national security. The guidance itself, concerning when British spies can commit crimes, and how far they are able to go, remains confidential.

In 2016, a report published by Intelligence Services Commissioner Sir Mark Waller clearly hinted at the fact that M15 is authorised to commit criminal activity. Headed “Agent Participation in the Commission of an Offence,” it stated, “Agents are one of the most significant information gathering assets we have.”

It continued, “There may be occasions where a CHIS participates in a criminal offence in order to gather the required intelligence, for example, membership of a proscribed organisation or handling stolen goods.”

Reprieve and Privacy International are demanding that the full security service guidelines be published.

After the note was released, Reprieve’s Maya Foa said, “After a seven-month legal battle the prime minister has finally been forced to publish her secret order but we are a long way from having transparency. The public and parliament are still being denied the guidance that says when British spies can commit criminal offences and how far they can go. Authorised criminality is the most intrusive power a state can wield. Theresa May must publish this guidance without delay.”

May will do no such thing. The British state has zero intention of revealing their modus operandi of dirty state operations.

Even the minute amount released reveals that there is one rule book for working people and another for MI5 and the intelligence agencies. While workers and young people are being incarcerated at an accelerated rate for even petty crimes, the forces of the state have carte blanche for their lawless operations.

The acknowledgement of an official sanction for state operatives to behave criminally in pursuit of their nefarious aims received only cursory attention in the media, which merely noted that the document was now in the public domain.

MI5 has been involved in subverting democracy by spying, criminal collusion, conspiracy, infiltration and political provocation. Its main target has been the working class, especially the socialist movement.

Former MI5 operative and dyed-in-the-wool anti-communist Peter Wright detailed some of its activities, but by no means all of them, in his 1987 book Spycatcher. In the book, Wright described how he and his colleagues in MI5 “bugged and burgled” their way across London and the UK.

He detailed “black bag” operations carried out by the agency against the Labour government of Harold Wilson in the 1960s and 1970s. It is now well documented that MI5 had its dirty digits all over a plot during the early 1970s to organise secret fascistic paramilitary forces and private armies to overthrow Wilson and install Lord Mountbatten as the head of an extreme right-wing military dictatorship.

Spycatcher, whose publication the Tory government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher attempted to suppress at the time, revealed that the British state spied upon and infiltrated agents into the forerunners of the Socialist Equality Party in the UK—the Socialist Labour League (SLL) and the Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP).

Wright revealed that MI5 boasted of effectively running the Communist Party of Great Britain—such was the depth of their agents’ penetration into the party. Subsequently, MI5 turned more of their resources to what Wright described as “the far and wide left”—i.e., Trotskyism.

Former MI5 agent David Shayler has subsequently revealed that the British state had a high-level informer within the SLL/WRP in a leading party position in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a period of enormous revolutionary potential in Britain and internationally.

Even the recent authorised official history of MI5 by Christopher Andrew, published in 2009 to mark the 100th anniversary of the foundation of what was initially known as the Secret Service Bureau, acknowledges that the WRP was under surveillance by MI5’s “F Branch,” which was responsible for “counter-subversion.”

There is ample evidence that MI5 was heavily involved in the Thatcher government efforts to defeat the miners during the 1984/1985 strike. Among their anti-democratic strikebreaking activities was the infiltration of agent Roger Windsor into the National Union of Mineworkers leadership.

There is no doubt that, under conditions in which social and political antagonisms are reaching the breaking point, the state security apparatus has accelerated its anti-working class and anti-socialist activities. That is the real reason May’s acknowledgement received virtually no comment in the media.

Hungary on the eve of parliamentary elections

Markus Salzmann

According to current opinion polls, the right-wing Fidesz Party will secure victory in Sunday’s parliamentary elections in Hungary. Prime Minister Viktor Orban will then begin his third term in office. The neo-fascist party Jobbik is expected to emerge in second place.

Orban has been in office since 2010, and he previously headed the government between 1998 and 2002. In the last election four years ago Fidesz finished with 45 percent, well ahead of the Social Democrats (MSZp), with 26 percent, and Jobbik, with 20 percent.

During his eight years in office, Orban has pursued far-right policies and established an authoritarian regime. Important positions in the state apparatus are occupied by political cronies and the independence of the judiciary has all but ceased to exist. The constitution has been amended on several occasions to suit the government. Immediately after his election victory in 2010, Orban effectively abolished press freedom and silenced opposition media outlets.

However, even though the electoral system has been tailored to suit Fidesz, unrest predominates in government circles.

At the end of February, Fidesz suffered a shock election defeat in Hódmezövásárhely, a town of 50,000 that was one of its strongholds. Peter Marki-Zay, the independent candidate, won the mayoral election with 57 percent of the vote, while the Fidesz candidate got just 41 percent. Janos Lazar, Orban’s right-hand man and head of the chancellery, is from Hódmezövásárhely and was mayor of the town for many years. Previously, Fidesz had usually won elections there with 60 percent of the vote.

Marki-Zay, a former Fidesz supporter and chair of the local Roman Catholic priests’ council, received backing from Jobbik, the Greens, and “left” parties, which gave the election national prominence, coming just six weeks ahead of the parliamentary vote.

The Hódmezövásárhely result unleashed a wave of panic in government circles. They fear that Fidesz will lose the two-thirds majority in parliament that enabled it to change the constitution. The result was a symptom of mounting social and political opposition in a country where unemployment and poverty are rampant, in spite of the low official figures.

Orban’s son-in-law is also implicated in a corruption scandal. Hungary is currently 66th on Transparency International’s list of the most corrupt countries, behind Montenegro and Romania.

Alongside declining levels of support, Orban also confronts a growing strike movement. Strikes have taken place this year in the public sector and in retail. Strikes and protests have also occurred recently in other Eastern European states, against low wages, poor working conditions, and the precarious social situation.

The relatively low level of unemployment is linked to the use of so-called work programmes, under which the unemployed perform community services for €180 per month. It is impossible for anyone to live on this sum. Hungary has fallen from 20 to 29 in the European Health Consumer Index, a comparison of healthcare systems across the continent. The education system is at the breaking point. Pupil performance in maths and reading has deteriorated sharply, according to the Program for International Student Assessment, which compares education systems around the globe.

Under these conditions, Orban has waged a despicable campaign for the election, targeting refugees and those who assist them. In his address to mark Hungary’s national day, Orban played the anti-European Union card and stoked the fear of immigration from Islamic countries. The EU intends “to change the face of the European population,” he stated, before predicting, “One day, the West Europeans will wake up in countries no longer their own.”

With the so-called “Stop Soros” law, Orban plans to end the activities of refugee organisations in the country, which will result in a drastic worsening of the already terrible conditions refugees face. For months, the government in Budapest has been waging a campaign against US-based multibillionaire George Soros that contains unmistakable anti-Semitic undertones. The government accuses Soros, a Holocaust survivor who comes originally from Hungary, of deliberately encouraging millions of Muslims to come to Europe so as to rob Europeans of their Christian and national identities.

According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, tens of thousands of placards have been hung since the beginning of the campaign depicting Soros’ enlarged smiling face and the slogan, “Don’t let Soros have the last laugh!” Other placards show Soros as a puppet master making the opposition candidates dance.

Orban has already made life unbearable for refugees in Hungary by building a border fence, establishing camps at the borders, and launching a vicious crackdown on border crossings. In spite of criticism from Brussels, Orban continues to reject refugee resettlement quotas proposed by the EU. Based on anti-immigrant agitation, he has adopted a number of laws with Jobbik’s support.

Although Orban’s support is declining, he can be relatively confident of victory due to the miserable state of the opposition. The parties are fragmented and in some cases bitterly internally divided. The social democratic MSZP, which came second last time around, is set to suffer a major defeat. The Democratic Coalition (DK), a split-off from MSZP led by former Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany, will be represented in parliament but will not play a significant role.

The Green LMP (Politics Can be Different) could also surpass the 5 percent hurdle for parliamentary representation. After a split in 2013, it underwent a sharp shift to the right. Lead candidate Bernadett Szel declared that immigration remains “a national issue.” Orban’s border fence should also stay in place, she said.

The extent of the social democrats’ and Greens’ lurch to the right was made clear at the beginning of the year, when the government decided to accept a few refugees entitled to subsidiary protection after they arrived in the country last year. The opposition on the left and right sharply criticised the government, claiming that refugees were “being accepted through the back door.” With the support of the MsZP and LMP, Jobbik applied for an emergency session of parliament.

Due to wide-ranging political agreement, several joint initiatives between the MSZP, LMP, and far-right Jobbik have occurred during the election campaign.

Sunday’s elections are being watched with mixed feelings in Europe’s capital cities. While criticism has focused on Budapest’s good relations with Moscow, praise has grown recently for Orban’s far-right policies.

In early January, the Austrian government of the conservative Austrian People’s Party and far-right Freedom Party extended a warm welcome to Orban in Vienna. At a press conference, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz noted the commonalities between both governments’ policies. “I am grateful that on protecting Europe’s borders, we are on the same page,” he said. “We must stop illegal immigration in order to guarantee security in the EU.”

Without being challenged, Orban was able to invoke the threat of a “mass migration of peoples” as the greatest danger for Central Europe. Orban subsequently met with investor Heinrich Pecina. In consultation with Orban, the founder of Vienna Capital Partners shut down Népszabadság, a newspaper critical of the government, in October 2016.

The German government also backs Orban. In January, he was the guest of a Christian Social Union party congress in Seeon, Bavaria. Horst Seehofer, who is now German interior minister, fully endorsed Orban’s anti-refugee policies and praised the self-appointed “border protection captain” for shutting down the Balkan route.

Trump reverses himself on Syria pullout order

Patrick Martin

After a reportedly heated meeting of the US National Security Council on Wednesday, the Trump White House announced that there was no change in US policy toward Syria, despite a volley of comments and tweets by President Trump demanding an immediate pullout of the 2,000 US troops now deployed in the country.

The meeting with the National Security Council was essentially a conference between Trump and his generals, since he has no current top-level civilian foreign policy advisers.

Trump fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson last month, and his successor, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, has not yet been confirmed. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, an Army general, is a lame duck, and his replacement, former Bush administration UN Ambassador John Bolton, does not begin work until next week.

As a consequence, the meeting Wednesday involved Trump and Secretary of Defense James Mattis (a retired Marine Corps general); the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunsford; and the head of the Pentagon’s Central Command, General Joseph Votel, to discuss Syria policy.

The White House issued a brief statement after the meeting, declaring, “The military mission to eradicate ISIS in Syria is coming to a rapid end,” but adding that it would continue. At the same time, Washington appealed to “countries in the region and beyond, plus the United Nations, to work toward peace and ensure that ISIS never re-emerges.”

Press reports suggested that Trump had told the military brass that he wanted a complete pullout within six months, an indication that the wrangling over Syria is largely motivated by domestic political considerations. Trump wants to have the option of announcing a supposedly triumphant end to the Syrian intervention on the eve of the November 6 congressional election, now seven months away.

The Republican Party is trailing badly in the polls and has suffered a series of recent reverses in key industrial states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Significantly, Trump made his initial announcement about withdrawing all US troops from Syria at a campaign-style rally in Ohio, another key industrial state in the Midwest. He is acutely aware—and the audience response at the rally demonstrated it—that the American public is deeply hostile to military interventions in the Middle East.

There is an enormous gulf between this popular antiwar sentiment and the demands of the military-intelligence apparatus, the Democratic and Republican parties, and the corporate media, where there has been near-universal denunciation of Trump’s suggestion of a pullout from Syria.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who plays a major role on national security policy in the Republican caucus, warned on Fox News Sunday that a withdrawal from Syria was the worst decision Trump could make.

On Tuesday, there was a revealing split-screen moment, when Trump was declaring his support for withdrawal from Syria at a White House press briefing, at the very time that two top US officials, General Votel of Central Command, and Brett McGurk, the State Department coordinator of the campaign against ISIS, were a few blocks away addressing the US Institute for Peace, a think tank devoted, of course, to imperialist war, about the necessity to stay the course.

“We are in Syria to fight ISIS. That is our mission, and our mission isn’t over,” McGurk told the audience, citing two large pockets of ISIS fighters numbering several thousand men, and including ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. “We have to work through some very difficult issues as we speak,” he said. “We are going to complete that mission.”

General Votel was even more categorical, saying, “The hard part, I think, is in front of us, and that is stabilizing these areas, consolidating our gains, getting people back into their homes.” He added, “There is a military role in this, certainly in the stabilization phase.”

Wednesday’s NSC meeting was only the latest demonstration of the sway that the generals exercise in all Trump administration policy matters. Besides the generals on the other side of the table, briefing Trump, his own chief of staff, John Kelly, is a retired Marine Corps general implacably opposed to any “premature” withdrawal of US forces from Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan.

The NSC meeting coincided with the meeting in the Turkish capital of Ankara between Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss the political situation in Syria in the wake of the destruction of ISIS and the military advances of forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The three presidents agreed on maintaining the territorial integrity of Syria, an implicit rejection of Kurdish aspirations in the region.

At the same time, the Associated Press reported Wednesday that United States troops were building new positions near the front line close to the Syrian-Turkish border, with outposts flying the American flag. According to this report, “The structures look much like the fighting positions once seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, which projected a clear message: ‘We’re here for a while.’”

A top US general Thursday emphasized that Trump had not set a deadline for withdrawing US troops from Syria, despite his statement to that effect at a campaign rally last week, several tweets, and his comments to the press Tuesday during an appearance with visiting leaders of the three Baltic states.

Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the director of the Joint Staff, told a Pentagon press briefing, “One of the things that we haven’t been given is a timeline,” and he went on to praise Trump, saying, “The President has actually been very good in not giving us a specific timeline.”

In a transparent effort to flatter Trump, General McKenzie contrasted the current posture in Syria with timelines like those set by the Obama administration in Afghanistan, where, he said, US forces “operated against a timeline that was known to the enemy.”

The real attitude towards Trump’s vacillations about Syria was spelled out in a scathing editorial published Thursday night by the Washington Post, which has been aligned with the Democratic Party efforts to push Trump towards a more confrontational policy against Russia.

Under the headline, “Trump’s mind-boggling gift to America’s enemies,” the Post took note of Trump’s belated climb-down before the demands of his “national security team,” and then warned of the devastating consequences that a pullout from Syria would have for the interests of US imperialism.

Brushing aside the question of ISIS, which has always been a pretext, calling it “only one of the major US interests at stake,” the Post spelled out the main US war aims: “preventing Iran and Russia from entrenching in the country at the expense of U.S. allies including Israel and Jordan;” as well as “preserving Turkey’s place as a NATO ally” and preventing “destabilizing waves of refugees headed for Europe.”

The editorial continued, making a sinister connection between US policy in Syria and the ongoing anti-Russian campaign by the Democrats and their media mouthpieces like the Post and the New York Times: “That Mr. Trump’s intended retreat is a gift to Vladimir Putin perhaps should not be surprising, given Mr. Trump’s curious eagerness to accommodate the Russian ruler.”

Capitalism and the artificial intelligence revolution

Andre Damon

Last month, over 3,000 Google employees signed a letter taking a stand against Google’s collusion with the United States’ drone assassination program, which has killed and maimed tens of thousands of people throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Google employees demanded that the company end its participation in “Project Maven,” a system of mass drone surveillance integrated with the US drone warfare program, declaring, “We believe that Google should not be in the business of war.” It called for the adoption of a policy stating that “neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.”

Google’s collusion with the drone assassination program highlights the growing integration of the major technology companies with the US military, which, having declared a new era of “great-power competition” with Russia and China, sees pressing Silicon Valley into its war plans as the only way to regain its military power on the world stage.

Just as ominous is Google’s role in mass domestic surveillance and censorship. In April of 2017, Google announced changes in its search algorithms—implemented through the use of “deep learning” and artificial intelligence technologies—to promote “authoritative content” over “alternative viewpoints.” These changes led to a sharp fall in search referrals to left-wing web sites by as much as 75 percent—with the World Socialist Web Site a central target.

More broadly, Google, Facebook and Twitter have hired tens of thousands of professional censors, many with backgrounds in the military, police and intelligence agencies, to train and augment their artificial intelligence systems to censor and police what people say and read online.

Central to both the military’s recruitment of the technology companies and the partnership of these firms with the intelligence agencies is the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology. Using the power of artificial intelligence, Google is helping the US military to mesh together drone footage to identify individuals and objects in a targeted area.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg declared earlier this year that its “goal with AI [artificial intelligence] is to understand the meaning of all the content on Facebook,” as part of manipulations to the social media giant’s News Feed.

The object of the military and intelligence agencies’ use of artificial intelligence is the holy grail of every totalitarian regime: what the National Security Agency called “total information awareness,” or, as its unofficial mission statement put it, “Collect It All, Know It All… Exploit It All.”

This mission statement, which in another context would seem to be an unhinged dictator’s megalomaniacal fantasy, is fast becoming an imminent reality through the power of artificial intelligence.

In his statement to the World Socialist Web Site's January 16 online webinar, "Organizing Resistance to Internet Censorship," Wikileaks founder Julian Assange warned of the immense dangers posed to humanity by the misuse of artificial intelligence.

“The future of humanity is the struggle between humans that control machines and machines that control humans. Between the democratization of communication and usurpation of communication by artificial intelligence,” Assange warned. “Undetectable mass social influence powered by artificial intelligence is an existential threat to humanity. The phenomena differs in traditional attempts to shape cultural and political phenomena by operating at scale, speed and increasingly at a subtlety that eclipses human capacities.”

The use of artificial intelligence for mass surveillance and war-making is only one of the destructive purposes to which this transformative technology is being used under capitalism.

Already, artificial intelligence is being used at Amazon warehouses to track every move employees make. Amazon’s systems count how many times workers go to the bathroom and alert foremen if workers stop to catch their breath in the up to 15 miles they are forced to walk during a single shift. At companies such as Uber and Lyft, artificial intelligence is used to push drivers to work longer and harder, often to the detriment of their health and well-being.

But even more radical changes are on the horizon. As ride-sharing companies and shipping lines rush to implement driverless cars, trucks and boats, tens of thousands of jobs will be eliminated. The integration of AI with robotics will extend the wave of mass automation that has already displaced countless thousands of industrial workers into every single field, from the building trades to food preparation, to custodial work and retail.

According to a 2013 survey by Oxford University, nearly half of US jobs will be destroyed by AI and robotics in the next two decades alone.

Since the industrial revolution, capitalism has managed to transform every development in technology into an instrument of human oppression and butchery. The introduction of the  spinning jenny ushered in the horrendous social misery of 19th century slums of London and Manchester. The cotton gin brought a resurgence of American slavery. The airplane was converted—through the doctrine of “strategic bombing”—into a method for killing civilians by the tens of thousands. And the nearly limitless energy created by nuclear fusion was turned into a means of destroying entire societies, and perhaps humanity itself.

But why should these technologies, which objectively create the conditions for a massive expansion of the standard of living for billions of people, be put to such horrendous uses? As the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky wrote in 1926:

Technique and science have their own logic—the logic of the cognition of nature and the mastering of it in the interests of man. But technique and science develop not in a vacuum but in human society, which consists of classes. The ruling class, the possessing class, controls technique and through it controls nature. Technique in itself cannot be called either militaristic or pacifistic. In a society in which the ruling class is militaristic, technique is in the service of militarism. (“Radio, Science, Technique and Society”)

In the hands of the ruling elites that control society under capitalism, every technological innovation becomes a cudgel: against the working class and against countries they seek to conquer and suppress through military violence.

In different hands, the same technology will produce different results. In a socialist society, the artificial intelligence and robotics revolution will create the circumstances for a massive elevation of not only the economic well-being of the population, but also its cultural life. The replacement of tedious and back-breaking occupations will mean not mass unemployment and destitution, but rather greater leisure and an expansion of workers’ opportunities for education, family life and cultural enrichment.

The automation of the building trades and the expansion of additive manufacturing (3D printing) to construction will vastly reduce the amount of labor required to build homes, schools and hospitals and ensure excellent housing for all. The leveraging of artificial intelligence in gene sequencing, drug development and analysis of medical studies will result in unprecedented breakthroughs in human health for the whole of humanity, not just the few who can pay soaring drug prices.

The roboticization of both farming and transportation will vastly reduce the cost of food, ending malnutrition and ensuring a high-quality diet for all—not the ruin of small farmers by agriculture conglomerates.

In holding out this prospect for humanity, Marxists base themselves on the traditions of the Enlightenment, which drew a connection between human progress in science and society. Just as men like Isaac Newton were unlocking the secrets of nature, so too society could be rationally understood, and, once understood, changed for the better.

This view stands in direct contrast to the middle-class pessimists of the Frankfurt School, who, in rejecting the Enlightenment, claimed that the theory of gravity paved the way to the gas chambers of Auschwitz. What demoralized intellectuals such as Herbert Marcuse and Max Horkheimer—who falsely claimed to be students of Karl Marx and whose theories are still palmed off as Marxism at universities—ignored was precisely Trotsky’s point: that “technique and science develop not in a vacuum but in human society, which consists of classes.”

The question is: Who controls the means of production, and thus society?

Two roads are open to humanity. The capitalist road offers a relentless escalation of war, poverty, mass repression and totalitarian dictatorship. The road of socialism offers not just freedom from all those horrors, but the liberation of all mankind from oppression and want.

Which road humanity takes will be decided through the class struggle. Amid a growing strike wave throughout the United States, Europe and the whole world, the most critical question is the unification of the disparate struggles by workers in different industries and countries into a common political movement for the socialist transformation of society. Only then will the vast technological revolution on the horizon be transformed into a revolution for human liberation, not human enslavement.

Regional Stability and Japan's Irresponsible Political Gambit

Sandip Kumar Mishra 


It is a critical time for the North Korean nuclear and missile issue, and South Korea, the US and other stakeholder states have accorded it their highest priority. Japan, however, is focusing its primary attention on the abduction of its citizens by North Korea, and has asked for the issue to be raised during the South Korea-North Korea and US-North Korea summit meets scheduled for April and May 2018, respectively. On 16 March, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe raised his concerns with over a telephonic conversation with the South Korean President Moon Jae-in. On 17 March, the Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kano raised the issue again with his South Korean counterpart, Kang Kyung-wha. On 2 April, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga reiterated that during the April summit meet between Japan and the US, Japan would request President Donald Trump to explore the possibility of a Japan-North Korea summit. Japan emphasised the abduction issue as the “most important task” in dealing with North Korea.
It is unfortunate that Abe is more concerned about domestic politics and is deliberately trying to deflect focus from the North Korean nuclear issue. Japan’s priority also emanates from a sense of being left out in dealing with North Korea, a trend referred to as ‘Japan passing’. 

According to Japan, 17 of its citizens were abducted by North Korea between 1977 and 1983 (North Korea claims that 13 were abducted). Five of them have already come back to Japan. While the abduction of these individuals is highly condemnable and entirely North Korea's fault, it is not appropriate to continue raising an issue that happened more than 35 years ago, part of which has been already resolved. The deliberate use of it, time and again, to derail efforts aimed at North Korea's denuclearisation is imprudent. In fact, North Korea has abducted more than 3,800 South Koreans, and it is estimated that 485 are still alive in North Korea. However, the South Korean leadership has focused on the larger issues in dealing with North Korea. Seoul's approach - that the future should be not be kept hostage to the past - does not imply a lack of concern for their citizens. Their interest in securing long-term regional stability in fact means quite the opposite. 

The Japanese attempt to raise the abductee issue is irresponsible. It will not contribute in any positive way to international attempts to deal with North Korea's nuclear weapons - in fact, Japan's moves may play spoiler to the positive momentum established in recent months. Shinzo Abe has resorted to playing this card for two important reasons. First, he feels that the current dynamics around the North Korean nuclear issue have moved towards negotiation and engagement, and Japan has no role in it. He sees ‘Japan passing’ as detrimental to Japan's regional standing. Perhaps it is believed that the ends will justify the means if the country is able to find an entry into the process. Japan is also concerned that if relative peace arrives with the amelioration of the nuclear threat and establishment of a US-China modus vivendi in dealing with the issue in a consensual framework, Japan would lose its aggressive posture's raison d'etre. Two, Japan’s behaviour could also be linked with the Liberal Democratic Party’s presidential election in autumn this year. Abe’s approval ratings have dropped after the finance ministry’s document-alteration scandal and he may feel apprehensive about a third straight victory in the presidential election.

Japan appears desperate, and from the very announcement of an important breakthrough during the South Korean envoys' visit to North Korea in early March, Japan has strategically and recurrently expressed its apprehensions. When the potential for summit meets between the US, South Korea and North Korea were announced, Abe hurriedly fixed up a summit meet with the US ahead of both. Japan has not asked for the inclusion of any positive content in these meetings and the deliberations are more likely to sow doubt at a time when the US is on board with South Korea's engagement efforts towards North Korea. 

Japan may be able to persuade Trump against a give-and-take deal with North Korea since there is a history of mistrust when it comes to North Korean peace offers, and there may also be doubt regarding South Korea's capacity to achieve anything substantial. However, Abe must realise that his political gambit will cause significant damage to Japan as a responsible stakeholder, and it is time to re-focus attention away from smaller past issues, to the most pressing threat to East Asian regional stability today. 

New Zealand Government LEARN Postdoctoral Fellowships for Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 30th June 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country): New Zealand.

About the Award: The Livestock Emissions Abatement Research Network or LEARN is an awards scheme sponsored by the New Zealand Government, through the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to build international capability in livestock emissions research.
LEARN is part of New Zealand’s support for the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (or GRA (www.globalresearchalliance.org)). The GRA aims to increase international cooperation and investment in research to help reduce the emissions intensity of agriculture and increase its potential for soil carbon sequestration.

Type: Postdoctoral, Fellowship

Eligibility: To be eligible for the Postdoctoral Fellowship, you must:

• Have gained a PhD in the last 5 years.
• Be a high achieving researcher (supported by academic transcripts, letters of recommendation and publishing record).
• Be employed in an area of research aligned with livestock greenhouse gas mitigation in your home country.
• Have the support of your employer to apply for the Fellowship.
• Have a mentor in a New Zealand research organisation (host).
• Be resident in a developing country as defined by the OECD list of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) recipients: http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/daclist.htm
• Satisfy New Zealand Government requirements for international entry into New Zealand.
• Be able to speak and understand English to a level sufficient to function in a research role.

Selection Criteria: The assessment panel considers:

• The science quality and feasibility of the proposed research project.
• Alignment with known scientific priorities and profile of the applicant’s home organisationand the New Zealand host organisation.
• The extent to which the project will create enduring collaborations between New Zealand and the home country.
• The extent to which the project will contribute to building capability in livestock greenhouse gas research in the home organisation and country.

Taking into account the panel’s recommendations, the Ministry for Primary Industries then assesses the application’s ‘fit’ with the objectives of the GRA and other Ministry for Primary Industries objectives and priorities before making its funding decision.
The contract will be signed by the applicant, New Zealand host organisation, the applicant’s home organisation and the NZAGRC.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Funding is available for:

• Up to NZD$50,000 per year for a maximum of two years to cover living expenses while inNew Zealand (pro rata to be calculated on time spent in New Zealand).
• Up to NZD$5,000 will be provided for return economy class airfares and travel/medicalinsurance.
• Up to NZD$5,000 will be provided to assist with research costs associated with the project.

Duration of Program:  It is for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of two years and must be started within one year of the award being granted.

How to Apply: 

• There is a two-stage application process. The New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre (NZAGRC) administers the LEARN awards on behalf of the Ministry for Primary Industries.
• Applicants must first submit an Expression Of Interest (EOI) to to determine eligibility. Forms can be downloaded from here. If eligibility is confirmed, the applicant will be invited to submit a full application to be considered by an assessment panel and Ministry for Primary Industries.
• An EOI for a Postdoctoral Fellowship can be submitted at any time during the year, however full applications must be submitted by 30 June (New Zealand time).

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: New Zealand Government

Important Notes: All applications must be developed in close collaboration with a New Zealand research institution.

Institute of Culinary Education (ICE) Scholarship Challenge for International Students (Full Scholarship to USA) 2018

Application Deadline: 15th April, 2018
Voting Begins on the 26th of March.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): New York City, USA

About the Award: You will upload a (1) minute video explaining why you deserve to win 1 of 4 full tuition scholarships. You will be randomly assigned to one of four teams, each led by a celebrity chef, and your video will be posted to the contest website when public voting begins. The twenty-five (25) videos on each team with the most public votes will become semifinalists and scored by a panel of judges to determine the top five (5) videos per team, for a total of twenty (20) finalists. Finalists will compete in New York City in two skills challenges that will be shown on ABC’s The Chew, and as a result, there will be four (4) Grand Prize winners, who will each receive a full tuition scholarship to either the Culinary Arts program or Pastry & Baking Arts program at The Institute of Culinary Education in New York, New York or Los Angeles, California.
 After completing the Entry Information, you will be asked to upload a Video up to one (1) minute in length from your phone, computer or other applicable electronic device. You must appear in the Video. Video submissions may depict cooking, baking, or a passion for service in the culinary or hospitality industry. Video submissions can be comical or serious, depict a sense of accomplishment, or overcoming an obstacle/adversity. They can include testimonials from others, with prior written consent from each such individual. The goal is to demonstrate to ICE your passion for food, service, entrepreneurial flair and/or creativity, and convey why you would be a suitable candidate for a full tuition scholarship to ICE’s Culinary Arts program or Pastry & Baking Arts program. The Video should be well thought-out, represent a positive addition to the ICE community and last, and demonstrate that you are eager to learn and will never stop learning.

Type: Training

Eligibility: 

• You don’t have to be an actor or movie director—just be yourself! Show your creativity!
• Film your video horizontally to look best on screen.
• Videos should be no longer than one minute (60 seconds) in length.
• The sooner you upload, the more chances your video has to gain votes.

MAKE SURE YOUR VIDEO

• Is filmed horizontally to look best on screen.
• Is no longer than one minute in length.
• Does not include music.
• Is creative, shows your passion for food and features you.
• Is shared on your social networks to encourage friends and family every day to vote—spread the word!

Selection: The public will vote to determine the top 100 scholarship semifinalists between March 26, 2018 – April 15, 2018. Once public voting is closed, a panel of judges from ICE will review the semifinalists to determine the 20 scholarship finalists, who will be announced May 10, 2018. The finalists will be flown to NYC to compete in a series of challenges on ABC’s The Chew to determine the ultimate winners, who will be announced on air on June 15, 2018.

Number of Awardees: 4

Value of Scholarship: Successful candidates will each receive a full tuition scholarship to either the Culinary Arts program or Pastry & Baking Arts program at The Institute of Culinary Education in New York or Los Angeles, California.

How to Apply: Upload your Video

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Institute of Culinary Education (ICE)

Government of Azerbaijan ADA University International Fellowship 2018

Application Deadlines: 

• Early application deadline for international students: 5th April, 2018
• Late application deadline for international students: 1st August, 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): Azerbaijan

About the Award: The ADA University is committed to grooming world class leaders. Their research focuses on diplomacy, public and international affairs, business, humanities and sciences, information technologies and system engineering. The programme aims to attract bright minds.
ADA University is located in Baku, the capital city of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which is the cultural and commercial centre of the country.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters

Eligibility: 

• Applicants should first be admitted into ADA University.
• Previous work experience in public sector and/or commitment to serve in public sector is valued most.
• Incoming undergraduate fellows are eligible to receive a 100 percent tuition waiver for the first year of their studies.
• Incoming graduate fellows are eligible to receive a 100 percent tuition waiver for the first semester of their studies.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Alimardan Bay Topchubashov Fellowship covers the tuition fee and rent of housing only. Fellowship recipients are expected to cover all other expenses, including books, student fees and utilities.
The following expenses will be from the student’s own account:
Flight ticket
Monthly stipend
Medical insurance
Books

Duration of Program: Not stated

How to Apply: To apply, visit Link below

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: ADA University

Johnson & Johnson One Young World Scholarship Program to attend One Young World Summit 2018

Application Deadline: 8th May 2018

To Be Taken At (Country): The Hague, The Netherlands

About the Award: If you are a young leader (aged 18-30) working within health and/or care-giving, then this scholarship is for you. You may be a social entrepreneur or working for a social enterprise, medical facility and/or an NGO, or you may be a birth attendant, nurse, doctor or an individual dedicated to health and care giving to underserved communities.
As well as attending the upcoming One Young World Summit, scholarship recipients will receive individual coaching from senior Johnson & Johnson leaders to further develop their aspiration, strategy and/or initiatives.

Type: Conferences

Eligibility: 

• Candidates must be aged between 18 and 30 at the time of the 2018 OYW Summit
• You must be working on the front lines of delivering care (i.e. you may be a social entrepreneur or working for a social enterprise, medical facility and/or an NGO, or you may be a birth attendant, nurse, doctor or an individual dedicated to health and care giving to underserved communities)
• If selected, Health Care Professionals classified as Government Officials within their home country will need approval from their employer, and will undergo an additional health care compliance approval process by Johnson & Johnson before their scholarship can be confirmed

Selection Criteria: 

• Passion for global and local health/care issues
• Leadership and innovation on the front lines of care
• Willingness to share and learn from others
• Commitment to invest 10% of their time to the Program

Number of Awards: 12

Value of Award: 

• Access to the One Young World Summit 2018 in The Hague, The Netherlands
  • The cost of travel to and from The Hague, The Netherlands (economy flights only)
  • Hotel accommodation in a single room from 16-20 October inclusive
  • Catering which includes breakfast, lunch and dinner, during these days
  • Transport between the Summit accommodation and the Summit venue
  • Summit hand-outs and support materials​​
• Participation in the 2018 Johnson & Johnson One Young World Program
  • Individual coaching with senior Johnson & Johnson leaders
  • Buddying with 2018 Johnson & Johnson delegates prior, during and post Summit
  • Participation in webinars and conference calls throughout the duration of the Program​

Duration of Program: July 2018 – January 2019.

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Johnson & Johnson

Mastercard Start Path Global Accelerator Program for Innovative Startups 2018

Application Timeline:

• Application deadline: Ongoing
• Global Pitch Day: In Sept (tbc) Virtual
• Immersion Day: Btw Nov – Dec (tbc)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Global

To be taken at (country): Dublin, Ireland

About the Programme: Mastercard works with an ever growing portfolio of later stage startups with unique solutions across fintech and commerce. Start Path Global is based on what has worked best for our portfolio of startups: more flexibility, more customization, and no distractions from your current business.

Offered Since: 2014

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: Start Path Global is designed for later stage startups:
* That have raised investment
* That are looking for support to scale
* That are targeting the fintech and broader commerce space
* That can benefit from partnering with MasterCard and accessing our ecosystem

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Programme: 
* Six month virtual programme tailored to the individual needs of your company
* No need to move from your home location
* No equity taken up front (but an option to participate in your next round)
* Immediate access to 60+ MasterCard experts
* Connections to potential customers – global corporate brands spanning banking, retail, tech and telecoms
* Funds provided so that you have no out of pocket expenses

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: Mastercard Foundation

School Enterprise Challenge for Schools, Teachers & Students ($50,000 in Prize) 2018

Application Timeline: runs from March–October 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: for school around the world

To be taken at (country): where the school is resident

About the Challenge: The School Enterprise Challenge is a global business planning awards programme run by the educational charity ‘Teach A Man To Fish.’ It aims to create globally aware, socially responsible, young entrepreneurs.

This free programme guides and supports teachers and students to plan and set up real school businesses. Students develop essential skills in business and entrepreneurship in a practical, fun and innovative way. The Challenge also helps schools generate extra income for their school, or a social cause of their choice.
Schools have set up an amazing variety of businesses. In 2016, 5265 schools from 106 countries participated in the Challenge and their businesses ranged from fly fishing in Belize, to an inter-schools newspaper in India and a car wash in South Africa.
The programme is FREE and it helps students plan and set up school-based enterprises that:

1. Generate real profits to help support their educational activities.
2. Give students the chance to gain hands-on experience of running a real business.
3. Are sustainable, and will grow and develop every year.

How does it work?
The School Enterprise Challenge awards programme runs from March–October 2017 with $50,000 in prizes on offer!
It is divided into three stages.

• In Stage 1, Students have 4 weeks to develop and submit a business idea for a school enterprise.
• In Stage 2, Students have 6 weeks to develop and submit a business plan for a school enterprise.
• In Stage 3: Students launch a school enterprise, get hands on business experience, and generate income to support either their school or a charitable cause of their choice! This stage lasts up to 4 months.

Students then submit a Final Report.
School businesses can be run in many different ways. Your school can decide which one suit you best, whether as an after-school club, at lunchtime, during lessons or at any other time that works for you. If you would like to incorporate the School Enterprise Challenge into your lessons, our guides and curriculum will help you to do it.

What is a School Enterprise?
A school enterprise is a business that is owned by a school but that is staffed and operated by the students that attend it. Enterprises should be sustainable, selling products or services on a consistent basis (i.e. not just at a one-off event) and at least part of the profits should be reinvested in the school’s educational activities or growing the business further.

What support does the School Enterprise Challenge Team provide?
The School Enterprise Challenge Team provides support to schools throughout the whole programme, from coming up with a business idea, to writing a business plan, all the way through to successfully running a school business!

Why should you participate?
It is FREE to join and this year the program is giving away approximately USD $50,000 worth of prizes, including:

• A top prize of $5,000 for the overall global winner.
• Three prizes of $2,000 for the People, Profit and Planet categories
• Multiple prizes of up to $2,000 for the Regional Winners.
• Business Growth and Primary school prizes up to $2000 each.
• Multiple smaller prizes for the best business idea!
• $2,000 for the ’Inspirational Teacher’ Award, with $1,000 for two runners up.
• A laptop for the ‘Enterprising Student’ Award and cameras for two runners up.
• Fully-funded places to our regional education conference.

Benefits of Participating
Schools

• Win great prizes including places at our international conference and cash prizes worth over $50,000.
• Gain global recognition as an entrepreneurial school.
• Raise extra income for your school.
• Become part of a global community of enterprising schools.

Teachers

• Teach your students 21^st Century skills-take learning out of the classroom and into the real world.
• Access easy to follow lesson plans and educational resources including our enterprise curriculum.
• Get great skills for your CV.
• Win one of our inspirational teacher prizes worth up to $2000.

Students

• Experience running a real business.
• Learn workplace skills like problem-solving, communication and teamwork.
• Win one of our enterprising student prizes including laptops and cameras.
• Get great experience for your CV and university applications.

Deadline: runs from March–October 2018. From the date you register you will have one month to submit a business idea and get started with the programme. Please consider this schedule when you register formally online and register at a time that will best fit with the school calendar in your country.

How to Apply

• Register: Register online here
• Download resources
• Create your business idea
• Launch your business
• Participate in our extra opportunities
• Write your business plan
• Submit your final report
• Finally celebrate your achievements and earn a school enterprise certificate

Register today and be part of this network of enterprising schools across the world!
If you would like to learn more about the School Enterprise Challenge, download this Information Pack

Visit challenge Webpage for details

Scholarship Provider: Teach A Man To Fish educational charity

Important Notes: If you still have questions about the School Enterprise Challenge, please visit the Frequently Asked Questions or email info[at]schoolenterprisechallenge.org.