22 Sept 2018

EU summit marked by Brexit threats and ultimatums

Chris Marsden

UK Prime Minister Theresa May suffered political humiliation in Salzburg, when European Union (EU) leaders rebuffed her appeal to give at least conditional support to her Chequers’ proposal for a “soft Brexit.”
May was only to be given 10 minutes to address EU heads of state Wednesday, after dinner at the informal summit, during which she appealed to her audience, “You are participants in our debate, not just observers.”
She had counted on at least supportive noises for her “serious and workable” plan, given that she was seeking to head off a potential challenge from the “hard-Brexit”/Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party; warned that the UK could be torn apart—with respect to Northern Ireland and Scotland, as well as by social tensions; that if her government fell then Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party could win a general election and also cited the potential damage to the EU itself of lost trade, investment and military support from the UK.
Instead, her address was met with silence and her implied threats were stonewalled, as the main players within the EU combined the next day to declare her proposals to be “unworkable.”
Prior to her dinner address, European Council President Donald Tusk had rejected May’s proposal for an EU-UK free trade area covering goods and agriculture, but not services, which she claimed would eliminate the need for tariffs and border controls, especially between Northern Ireland and the Republic in the south, an EU member state. The “suggested framework for economic co-operation will not work, not least because it risks undermining the single market,” Tusk said.
May was said variously to be “staggered,” “shocked”, “humiliated” or “angry.”
Tusk laid down an ultimatum by stating that without decisive progress on the Irish border, there would be a “moment of truth” by the planned EU summit on October 18 when the Brexit negotiations are due to be finalised. If not, he would not call the planned EU summit in Brussels November 17-18 to “finalise and formalise” a deal. “I can’t rule out the possibility of a no deal. We are not ready to compromise on our four freedoms, on our single market as well as on the Irish borders,” he said.
French President Emmanuel Macron, said to be the main author of Tusk’s hardline stance, declared at the summit’s close, “We must defend the single market and its coherence. The Chequers plan cannot be a take it or leave it plan… Brexit shows us one thing: it’s not that easy to exit the European Union. It’s not without cost. It’s not without consequences.”
The Leave victory in Britain’s 2016 EU referendum was “pushed by those who predicted easy solutions”, he added. “Those people are liars.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “substantial progress” was needed on the UK’s withdrawal agreement by October and that the 27 remaining EU members were “united that, in the matter of the single market, there can be no compromises.”
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said that the EU executive has prepared “in detail” for a “no deal” Brexit, “so be happy, don’t worry”.
With unattributed statements prior to the summit that the UK would be forced to retreat from Brexit during its “darkest hour,” Czech Republic President Andrej Babis and his Maltese counterpart, Joseph Muscat, openly suggested that May was no longer even considered a viable negotiating partner.
They calculate that her downfall and the likelihood of the UK parliament voting down any “hard Brexit” proposal would possibly create the conditions for a second referendum that would go in favour of Remain. Babis declared that “most of us would welcome a situation where there is the possibility of the British people putting things into perspective, seeing what has been negotiated, seeing the options and then deciding once and for all.”
May was offered no room for manoeuvre by her Brexiteer opponents, with Jacob Rees-Mogg gloating that May’s proposals went “pop” and Democratic Unionist Party deputy leader Nigel Dodds insisting that preserving the “political, constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom” was the “absolute priority for us.”
May relies on the 10 DUP MPs for her majority.
With nowhere to go May reiterated, “There will be no second referendum… I think others have started to recognise rather more this is going to happen. We are going to leave the European Union.”
The Financial Times concluded, “May will be fighting to keep her plan, and possibly her premiership, alive” at the Tory Party Conference in just over a week’s time. But they too hoped that “a flurry of diplomatic activity” would follow, as “a smooth Brexit—to protect trade and diplomatic relations—remains in the interest of all parties.”
The FT also factored in the broader difficulties and tensions besetting the EU, declaring, “The Irish problem speaks to a wider challenge. Throughout the Brexit debate, too much attention has been paid to British politics—particularly the wants and whims of the Tories. But other European countries face great political challenges, too. Populist forces are on the rise from Italy to Sweden and further east to Poland. The common thread is a revolt against Brussels.”
These tensions took explosive forms at the summit, with Macron denouncing rightist governments in Italy, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia, who “don’t want to stick to humanitarian law and international maritime law and refuse to let boats dock on its ports” for the “crisis and tensions surrounding migration.”
“Countries that are showing no solidarity will eventually have to leave Schengen and they will no longer benefit from (EU) financial aid,” he threatened.
Even so, the FT editorialised that the best that can be hoped for in the short term is a fudge in which “Vital questions about the nation’s future would be pushed into the transition period: in essence it is moving a potential cliff edge from March 2019 to December 2020.”
In the UK, the deadlock in the Tory Party is spurring on combined efforts to commit Labour to a second referendum and to remove Corbyn as party leader—whose potential premiership is anathema to the ruling elite no matter what position he takes on Brexit because he is popularly associated with demands to end austerity and militarism.
Polls were released this week stating that Labour could win more than 1.5 million extra voters if it backed a second referendum by the campaign group, People’s Vote. Led jointly by Blairite Chuka Umunna and Tory Anna Soubry, People’s Vote is holding a march in Liverpool Sunday to coincide with the start of Labour’s conference.
The conference will consider motions from more than 100 local constituency parties supporting a referendum on any final Brexit deal. The pro-Corbyn Momentum group has said it will not block such a debate.
No matter how these conflicts play out, Britain and the whole of Europe face a worsening crisis that threatens to tear the EU apart. The growth of both inter-imperialist and social antagonisms found dramatic form in Brexit, which the dominant sections of the City of London, big business, all the major parties and Britain’s allies in the US and Europe all opposed. Yet two years later, May is fighting a desperate struggle against her anti-EU “hard-Brexit” faction, the US is led by a president who has declared his support for the breakup of the EU and numerous far right governments have taken power in part by exploiting popular hostility to EU-dictated austerity.
Capitalism, as it descends ever deeper into trade and military war, has proved incapable of carrying out the progressive unification of the European continent. That task now falls to the European working class through a struggle against all factions of the ruling class—Leave and Remain—and for socialism.

Sharp rise in far-right attacks in Germany

Marianne Arens & Ulrich Rippert 

Only a few weeks have passed since right-wing extremist thugs and neo-fascists organised a witch-hunt against foreigners in the German city of Chemnitz on 26 and 27 August. Ever since, leading politicians, led by Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (Christian Social Union, CSU) and ex-president of the domestic secret service Hans-Georg Maaßen, have sought to downplay the events.
Maaßen denied that a racist witch-hunt had ever taken place. Seehofer declared immigration to be “the mother of all problems” and later added that if he were an ordinary citizen, he would have been on the streets in Chemnitz. When the Interior Minister made these comments it was already known that a dozen neo-Nazis had attacked the Jewish Schalom restaurant in Chemnitz with stones, glass bottles, and steel pipes, and insulted the owner with anti-Semitic slurs.
No disciplinary measures were taken against Maaßen for his denial and he was not held to account. Instead, in negotiations involving all government parties, he was promoted. He will now advocate his right-wing AfD policies in the Interior Ministry, where he will serve as state secretary for domestic security.
These developments have strengthened and encouraged the AfD and far-right groups, who are a small despised minority in Germany. The Nazi thugs feel protected from criminal prosecution and emboldened to intervene ever more aggressively.
Victim support groups report that racist, anti-Semitic, and far-right attacks are rising at an alarming rate. Neo-Nazi attacks and acts of violence occur on almost a daily basis.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung published extracts from a chronology on Thursday noting that “a wave” of right-wing violence is developing.
The newspaper reported the following attacks, among others:
  • August 29, Wismar (Mecklenburg Pomerania): Three attackers broke a 20-year-old refugee's nose and beat his upper body with an iron chain.
  • August 29, Sonderhausen (Thuringia): Four men, who belong to the right-wing scene according to police, severely injured a 33-year-old Eritrean.
  • September 1, Essen (North Rhein-Westphalia:Two men beat a member of the local integration council and his companion, a refugee from Afghanistan while insulting them with racist abuse.
  • September 3, Rostock (Mecklenburg-Pomerania): A man attacked three students from Azerbaijan with a baton at a tram station.
  • September 12, Chemnitz (Saxony): Several men beat a 41-year-old Tunisian.
  • September 14, Munich (Bavaria): “I will kill all foreigners!” a 54-year-old shouted, as they sprayed a Nigerian immigrant with mace in the face.
One of the starkest examples of these attacks is the anti-Semitic death threats against Berlin-based blogger Schlecky Silberstein and his co-workers. The team of satirists has been the target of death threats on right-wing extremist websites after they filmed a parody of the far-right for public broadcaster SWR.
Silberstein, alias Christian M. Brandes, was originally an advertising writer and now works as an author, moderator, and blogger. His production company filmed the satirical clip in Berlin-Lichtenberg on September 7 for the online comedy show Bohemian Browser Ballet.
The satirical video “People's festival in Saxony” highlights in a pointed manner some of the characteristics of the far-right rampage in Chemnitz. The video shows Nazi goons seizing on the news of the murder of a German citizen to initiate a right-wing rampage, “Here we go again.” A man wearing a black, red, and gold hat, the colours of the German national flag, and shouting “We are the people,” turns out to be a police officer. This is an obvious parody of the employee from Saxony's state criminal bureau, who was fired after participating in a right-wing demonstration. Participants in a so-called “funeral march” attack journalists and blacks. A neo-Nazi sells photos of his Nazi salute to the media for €10 apiece. And finally, swipes are taken at dishonest headlines in the Bild newspaper, pseudo-democrats, and anti-Nazi “We are more” events sponsored by Coca-Cola and Flixbus.
In the clip, an information table for a political party that resembles the AfD is also featured. With the declaration, “Anyone can be a member here!”, a party official speaks to a bullnecked skinhead in khaki trousers. The AfD official wears the unmistakable white rose in his buttonhole, which the leaders of the AfD and Pegida wore during their so-called “silent marches” in Chemnitz.
With their video, Silberstein and his crew sought to take aim at the fascist threat, and for this they immediately found themselves in the crosshairs of the far-right.
The AfD Berlin-Lichtenberg responded quickly with its own film. In the video, they sought to portray the parody as a deliberate falsification, without acknowledging the obvious fact that it was a satire. As if they have never come across neo-Nazi marches, attacks on minorities, and Nazi salutes, the AfD sought to portray all of this as the invention of evil left-wing journalists so as to pin the blame for this “fake news” on the AfD.
The AfD clip with the title “New fake video exposed” shows clips of the Silberstein film set, after which AfD official Karsten Woldeit, a member of the Berlin state parliament, declares that it is unbelievable what methods are being resorted to discredit the AfD. The video ends with Woldeit's demand, “The task now is to find out who made this video?”
A Facebook comment below the video stated, “Those guys can surely be identified, they're clearly visible in the video.”
Shortly after the AfD posted this video, a video appeared showing AfD parliamentary deputy Frank-Christian Hansel and a cameraman standing in front of Silberstein's partner's front door and filming his address sign. After nobody opens up, Hansel declares, “We'll be back.” This clip, in which the full name, street address, and house number can be clearly seen, was then spread by the AfD Berlin via its Facebook page.
A few hours later, the death threats began to arrive for Silberstein's partner. One states, “And it's Jews like you that are once again causing this agitation. You Jews are a conspiracy. You must be murdered!! ... One day, we will murder you.” On the AfD's video channel, one person called for the filmmaker's private offices to be stormed.
“A whiff of 1933,” commented Silberstein on these events in his latest blog. “When politicians turn up at artists' homes to say 'We know where you live', then that's where we are again, dear friends.”

21 Sept 2018

NCDC Scholarships for Lassa Fever International Conference 2019 – Abuja, Nigeria

Application Deadline: 30th of September 2018.

Eligible Countries: Nigeria

To be taken at (country): Nigeria

About the Award: 2019 will make it is 50 years since we found the first case of the disease.
50 years since the detection of Lassa fever in Nigeria, outbreaks have been recorded yearly in parts of the country.
In 2018, Nigeria experienced the largest reported outbreak of Lassa Fever with 21 of 36 States in the country affected.
The 50th year of discovery of the Lassa fever is an opportunity for the scientific community to reflect on what is known, describe gaps that exist and prioritise the research agenda for the future.

Type: Conference

Eligibility: To be eligible for the travel scholarship you must:
  • Currently reside in Nigeria
  • Must have a degree or be currently enrolled in a University
  • Submit an abstract based on one of the conference sub-themes
  • Must be able to speak English
  • All applicants must commit to be available from the 16th – 17th of January 2019
Number of Awards: up to 30

Value of Award: 
  • Materials
  • Travel
  • Accomodation
Duration of Programme: 16th – 17th of January 2019

How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

UK Research and Innovation Future Leaders Fellowships (FLF) for Early Career Researchers and Innovators 2019

Application Deadline: 10th October 2018 by 16:00.

Eligible Countries: UK & International

To be taken at (country): UK

About the Award: The objectives of the scheme are:
  • to develop, retain, attract and sustain research and innovation talent in the UK
  • to foster new research and innovation career paths including those at the academic/business and interdisciplinary boundaries, and facilitate movement of people between sectors
  • to provide sustained funding and resources for the best early career researchers and innovators
  • to provide long-term, flexible funding to tackle difficult and novel challenges, and support adventurous, ambitious programmes.
Type: Fellowship, Research, Entrepreneurship

Eligibility:
  • This cross-UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) scheme will support early career researchers and innovators with outstanding potential in universities, UK registered businesses, and other research and user environments including research councils’ institutes and laboratories.
  • The FLF scheme welcomes applications from both UK and international applicants and individuals should use the person specification to assess and justify their suitability for the scheme. The support of the institution will be a critical component of all fellowships which will enable the fellow to transition to or establish their research/innovation independence in any area supported by UKRI.
  • These Fellowships support applicants from diverse career paths, including those returning from a career break or following time in other roles. We also encourage applications from those wishing to work part-time in order to combine the fellowship with personal responsibilities. Review panels will take into account time spent outside an active research or innovation environment, whether through career breaks, flexible working or as a consequence of working in other roles.
Number of Awards: There will be six calls for these fellowships; two calls per year between 2018-19 and 2020-21 (financial years), typically awarding at least 100 fellowships per call across UKRI’s remit (with the initial round being smaller, aiming to award ~50 fellowships).

Value and Duration of Award: 
  • The support offered will be long-term and flexible and will provide comprehensive package of support, including the fellow’s salary and justified research, staff and training costs, with seven years of support available on a 4+3 model, with a review in year four. The case for support should make clear the long-term aims of the programme, and why they matter – while providing more specific plans and costings for the first four years.
  • For business applicants, those in the user community or other applicants, four years’ support may be sufficient and there is no need to apply for a further three years of funding if this is not required. Successful applicants will have the intellectual and financial freedom to develop and change direction over this period.
How to Apply: Interested candidates should apply for the second round (this Call).
Candidates should submit:
  • Outline Proposals (Expressions of Interest)
  • Full applications
Full details are available in the ‘Overview of the scheme’ and ‘Completing the application form’ documents in the Programme Webpage (see Link below).

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Wiki Indaba Conference 2019 for African Wikimedians (Funded to Abuja, Nigeria)

Application Deadline: 2nd October 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Abuja, FCT, Nigeria

About the Award: Wiki Indaba Conference is the regional conference for Africans both within and in the diaspora. The first edition was held in Johannesburg, South Africa in 2014 by Wikimedia ZA, while the latest edition was held in Tunis, Tunisia in 2018 by Wikimedia TN Usergroup. The 2019 edition of the conference will be hosted in Abuja, FCT, Nigeria by the Wikimedia UG Nigeria.

Type: Conference

Eligibility:
  • African Wikimedians both within the continent and in the diaspora
  • As a way of collaborating after Indaba each scholarship seeking participant will be required to host an event to share their experience and new things they learnt at the Conference upon their return.
Number of Awards: 60

Value of Award: Scholarship for Conference participation + accommodation + support for travel expenses.

Duration of Programme: 18, 19 and 20 January 2019

How to Apply: Apply here
For more information on scholarships, please contact the scholarship committee at wikiindaba2019scholarship@gmail.com

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

CLIFF-GRADS Research and Training Scholarships 2019 for PhD Students from Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 30th September, 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

About the Award:  CLIFF-GRADS is a joint initiative of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change (CCAFS) Low Emissions Development Flagship and the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (GRA).
CLIFF-GRADS aims to build the capability of early career agriculture students in developing countries to conduct applied research on climate change mitigation in agriculture.
CLIFF-GRADS integrates the GRA’s new Development Scholarship and the CCAFS Climate Food and Farming Research Network with the common goal of providing grants to graduate students to expand their knowledge and experience in quantification of agricultural greenhouse gases.
Research projects are hosted by CCAFS and GRA members and partners. Funding for CLIFF-GRADS is provided by the Government of New Zealand and by the CGIAR Trust Fund and bilateral agreements in support of CCAFS.

Type: Training, Research, PhD

Eligibility: Applicants should have a background in agriculture and climate change research and be pursuing graduate research related to agricultural greenhouse gas quantification.

  • Applicants must be currently enrolled PhD students in a field related to quantification of greenhouse gas emissions or carbon sequestration in agricultural systems
  • Applicants must be students from a developing country
Selection Criteria: Applicants will be selected based on three criteria: (1) overall level of research experience, (2) relevance of thesis topic or other research experience to the research opportunity to which the student is applying, and (3) clear description of how the CLIFF-GRADS experience will improve the student’s scientific training

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • Selected students will be sponsored in the amount of 10,00012,000 USD for short-term (4–6 month) scientific training and research stays to collaborate with projects associated with CCAFS and GRA.
  • The grants will be used to support travel to and living and research costs at the host institution. Grants may not be used for tuition or unrelated personal expenses.
Duration of Programme: 4-6 months

How to Apply: The application must include the following documents merged into one pdf file:
  • 1-2 page motivation letter (described below)
  • 1-page curriculum vitae that includes your contact details
  • Letter of support from your university supervisor
  • All applications must be in English
  • Please submit your application by email to Julianna White, Program Manager for CCAFS Low Emissions Development at julianna.m.white@uvm.edu
  • Please also contact Julianna with questions
Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?

Arshad M. Khan

There is an image engraved in our minds of a stoic, reserved, elegant Aung San Suu Kyi unbending in her struggle against Burma’s generals for democracy, and we assumed for human rights.  Last year, when the refugees streamed out of her country in the wake of atrocities, it blocked all UN agencies from delivering food, water and medicine to affected civilians; her office accused aid workers of helping terrorists.
Her iconic stature long gone, she made a public appearance the day after the International Fact-Finding Mission released its initial 20-page overview to the UN Human Rights Council on August 27, 2018.  The damning evidence of murder, rape, torture, persecution, burned villages, landmines along escape routes reported on by NGOs and news media over the past year had been confirmed.  Elegant and patrician as usual, Aung San Suu Kyi discoursed on poetry and literature.  No mention of the genocide or the UN report.  No longer an icon, there have been calls to relieve her of the Nobel Peace Prize.
The UN group criticized her for her continued refusal to condemn the genocide.  The full report detailing unspeakable horrors in its 440-page account has now been released(September 18, 2018).  What might surprise people is a simple shocking fact:  This is not the first UN report on Rohingya massacres.
On February 3, 2017, the UN issued a detailed account of the military’s operations in north Maungddaw with “the very likely commission of crimes against humanity.”  It recounted the murders, rapes and tortures that have now become the trademark of military operations against the Rohingya.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein is quoted as saying ” … what kind of hatred could make a man stab a baby crying out for his mother’s milk.  And for the mother to witness this murder while she is being gang-raped by the very security forces that should be protecting her.”
There were no major consequences for Myanmar then and what happened the following summer was the same magnified over Rakhine state.  As a result we have 700,000 refugees, and they are still coming — “11,342 new arrivals as of mid-June this year,” Mr. Zeid has noted.
Will this time be different?  Following the UN Commission’s summary report, 160 British parliamentarians across party lines signed a petition to Prime Minister Theresa May to refer the Myanmar military to the International Criminal Court (ICC).  The UN report accuses the military of genocide, and identifies six generals, singling them out for investigation and prosecution.  They are, the senior general who heads the military, the commander of the army, and four operational commanders.
ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has now been authorized to begin a preliminary investigation to gather evidence before launching a full investigation.  Myanmar is not a signatory to the Rome Statute establishing the ICC but Bangladesh hosting the refugees is, thus giving the court jurisdiction.
Marzuki Darusman providing details of massacres and unmentionable atrocities said in reporting to the Human Rights Council, “I have never been confronted by crimes as horrendous and on such a scale as these.”
If the UN Security Council is to be stymied by veto — China preventing any action against Myanmar — will the ICC effort also fizzle out in practice if not in theory?  Justice remains tenuous for the weak and powerless in our world.

The Myth of an Intolerant Islam

Moin Qazi

Islam is a massive faith with 1.6 billion followers spread across the Islamic world that stretches over 15,000 kilometers. A considerable section of the community lives as a minority community in many countries, battling issues of stereotyping, discrimination and identity.
With the powerful influence of Islamophobic brigades, there has been a massive surge of hatred against Islam and its adherents. Muslims continue to be demonized and projected as uniformly fundamentalist, violent and anti-secular.This powerfully flawed narrative and negative stereotyping continue to fuel Islam’s distorted perceptions. This perception is not based on rigorous evidence but springs from intermittent reporting and speculation in the media. In a climate where Muslims are already feeling alienated and marginalized, it is unfair to mock and ridicule their religion and identity.
Islam, actually, is a religion of peace: That is its aim and goal. The Quran’s powerful commandment should leave one in no doubt: “Whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as though he had killed all of mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind” (Q5:32).
The Quran, in its essence, promotes justice, peace and freedom. Compassion and kindness underpin its core message. To understand this, one has to read the entire Quran and not isolated verses. No verse in the Quran is a standalone commandment. Each not only has a bearing on the other but amplifies it too.
The voice of the text is the fruit of a dialogue. For some, the peace of God is through his sword; for others, it is found in his unbounded mercy. The entire paradigm is built around human interpretation. The pacifists and the terrorists read the same text but present fundamentally different interpretations. It is important to consider the reader and interpreter of the Quran. The voice of the Quran heard by Islamic fundamentalists is not the same as the voice heard by progressive Muslims. It is essential that the entire verses of the Quran are read and understood in conjunction with each other. Reading and interpreting verses in isolation is a very incorrect way of engaging with the Quran. It would yield a meaning that conforms to your own worldview.
For example, the current modern definition of jihad is contrary to the linguistic meaning of the word, and also contrary to the beliefs of most Muslims who equate it with religious extremism. The word jihad stems from the Arabic root word J-H-D, which means “strive.” Other words derived from this root include “effort,” “labor” and “fatigue.” Essentially, jihad is a struggle to stand by one’s religion in the face of oppression and persecution. The effort may come in the form of fighting the evil in your own heart or standing up to a dictator. The first time the word is used in the Quran, it signifies a “resistance to oppression” (Q25:26) that is spiritual and intellectual rather than militant. The moralist approach espouses jihad through conscience (jihad bin nafs) while a more radical wing advocates jihad through the sword (jihad bin saif). In mainstream Muslim tradition also, the greatest jihad was not warfare but reform of oneself and one’s society. Prophet Muhammad explained that true jihad was an inner struggle against egotism.There is a lot of misunderstanding on account of this verse: “slay them wherever you catch them” (Q2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are “they” that this verse discusses? The “them” are those terrorists who persecuted and killed innocent people for their faith. Some verses are very often “snipped” out of context by mischief makers for inflaming emotions, fostering misunderstandings and perpetuating violence on all sides. Quran 3:8 preemptively calls out people who cherry-pick verses as “perverse” people, declaring, “…those in whose hearts is perversity seek discord and wrong interpretation of [the Quran].”
Islam does permit fighting but only in self-defense – in defense of religion, or on the part of those who have been expelled forcibly from their homes. The permission given in Q22:40-41 to fight was only given to “those against whom war is waged.” At the same time, it also lays down strict rules which include prohibitions against harming civilians and against destroying crops, trees, and livestock. It is critical that we understand this critical dimension of Islam.
First, Muslims cannot preemptively initiate a war. They are only allowed to act in defense. War can be waged if there is a situation where defenseless people are under attack. A war is considered just when one party does not cease aggression in spite of a proposed truce. If the enemy inclines toward peace, Muslims have to follow suit: “But if they stop, God is most forgiving, most merciful” (Q2:192). Also read: “Now if they incline toward peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing” (Q8:61). Second, Muslims are not allowed to transgress divine injunctions: “fight for the cause of God, those who fight you, but do not transgress, for God does not love the transgressors.” (Q2:190). Third, Muslims have to treat prisoners of war with honor. Prisoners have to be released after the war, either in exchange for Muslims captives or only as a favor.
Historian Sir William Muir records how the Prophet Muhammad instructed his companions to treat prisoners of war. The refugees had houses of their own, received the prisoners with kindness and consideration. “Blessings on the men of Medina!” said one of them in later days: “they made us ride, while they themselves walked afoot; they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates.”
Contrary to what some historians have portrayed, Islam did not impose itself by the sword. This has been emphatically made clear in the Quran: “There must be no coercion in matters of faith!” (Q2:256). In words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, “O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another” (Q49:13). Moreover, Islamic wars weren’t just to defend Muslims against persecution – but to defend Christians, Jews, and people of all faiths. All verses addressing fighting are preconditioned with rules of self-defense. The Quran says that “persecution is worse than slaughter” and “let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression” (Q2:190-193).
On his victorious rerun to Mecca after 20 years, the Prophet Muhammad bore no animosity for the locals who had persecuted him and his band, forcing them to emigrate to Medina. He offered blanket forgiveness, the only condition being that Meccans accept universal freedom of conscience.
In keeping with this spirit of tolerance that Prophet Muhammad demonstrated during his lifetime, today’s Muslim thinkers feel there exists no imperative to distance themselves from this tradition of mutual respect and peaceful coexistence. They are plumbing it to find resources to help them adapt to the modern world and to shape it on those lines. Muslim religious scholars are exhuming and popularizing principles and practices that allowed Muslims in the past to coexist with others, in peace and on equal terms, regardless of creed and faith. They keep reminding themselves that the seventh-century Medina accepted Jews as equal members of the community (umma) under the Constitution of Medina drawn up by Prophet Muhammad in 622 A.D.
Muslim reformers are returning to the foundational text, the Quran and its commentaries and other early sources of religion – authentic sayings of Prophet Muhammad, early historical chronicles – for seeking solutions in these troubled times. They are combing their literature for shedding better light on moral guidelines and ethical prescriptions.
There is no better testament to Prophet Muhammad’s credo of tolerance and forgiveness than the attestation of non-Muslim historian Stanley Lane-Poole: “The day of Muhammad’s greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the Quraysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn in which they had afflicted him and gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mecca.”

Bangalore has it’s own variant of air pollution

Marianne Furtado e Nazareth

A lot of residents who make Bangalore their home from another country or state tend to suffer from acute breathing allergies from September to April, which is the high allergy season in Bangalore. Infact over the years, long time residents also begin to suffer from respiratory issues. During this time, many residents suffer from constant runny nose and difficulty in breathing. “ We met with several doctors, but they simply prescribed antibiotics for the infections,” said Sulakshana V who has made Bangalore her home since coming back to India from the US. “ No one was able to really diagnose the underlying problem. Next allergy season, I started showing the same symptoms once again.”
How many of us realise how bad the air quality in Bangalore really is. Check Aqicn.org which publishes real time air quality map for several parts of the world, including 70+ locations in India. As per this map, air pollution levels in Bangalore are actually better than most other major Indian cities. Infact today when I checked the report was ‘Good’ which is a relief for people who suffer from respiratory ailments, and yet there are seasons when they do.
Aqicn.org
Most of us do not realise that we need to know the air quality in and around our homes under different living conditions. In a media workshop on air quality that I attended in Bangkok, Daniel Kass of Vital Strategies and who has worked for 30 years in environmental health in NYC explained that air pollution is a complex mixture of gases and aerosols which are suspended solid and liquid particles. How many of us, the common man know this?
Kass explained that, particle pollution ( PM) is the most measured and an important pollutant that we need to be concerned about. This is dust, soot, smog or smoke. The chemical components of the PM vary according to the source of the pollution. Sources of PM include household fuel consumption, especially from solid fuels, tobacco smoke,power generation from coal or burning of waste, including agricultural and forests. Motor vehicles which include the worst offenders being diesel engines. PM is emitted directly from fuel combustion and formed from reactions with the atmosphere.
Naturally, the health risks from PM depends on the particle size. There are two types of particles:
PM 2.5: These are small particles measuring 2.5 micrometers or less. These small particles consist of things like vehicle exhaust, soot and ash from burning of garbage and small metal particles etc. Prolonged exposure of these is extremely harmful.
PM 10: These are larger particles measuring between 2.5 to 10 micrometers. Examples of these are pollen, dust and particles generated from building activity. These particles are relatively less harmful and usually only cause upper respiratory tract issues like allergic rhinitis and asthma. These particles are the reason many residents of Bangalore suffer from asthma.
Particles below 2.5 microns ( PM 2.5) are most harmful as they penetrate deep into the small airways and air sacs of the lungs; the smallest particles according to Kass can even pass into your bloodstream.
Larger particles between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter are deposited in the larger airways. The WHO has air quality guidelines for both PM 2.5 and PM 10 with an annual mean of 10ug/m3 and 20 ug/m3 respectively.
There are other air pollutants that we should be aware of:
Nitrogen Dioxide ( NO2) This is formed by fuel combustion used for heating, power generation and engines in vehicles and ships.
Sulfur Dioxide ( SO2): This is formed by the combustion of sulfur containing fossil fuels for domestic heating, power generation, ships and motor vehicles.
Ground level Ozone (O2) How many of us are aware of this pollutant? This is formed by photochemical reactions in the sunlight between emission from vehicles and industrial factories.
Outdoor Air Pollution or ambient air pollution is the air pollution outside homes and buildings. According to research, in 2016 outdoor air pollution caused 4.2 million deaths worldwide and 91% of the population are living in conditions with air pollution above the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.
The sources of outdoor pollution include traffic related air pollution which is a mixture of tail-pipe emissions and from the combustion engines of motor vehicles with diesel being the most polluting. Particles from brakes, tyres, road dust also contribute to pollution on roads.
Household air pollution is mainly in the 3 billion poor who rely on poor quality fuels like biomass ( wood and dung) kerosene, coal for cooking and lighting their homes. These polluting fuels combined with poor ventilation is the cause of air pollution in these homes being 100 times higher than acceptable levels.
So, how does one deal with breathing problems and air pollution?
Moving to a different location within the city is unlikely to help
Moving to a higher story apartment is also unlikely to help
Air purifiers in the house do work, and we could use them
Knowing that PM 10 is what causes our troubles, we should do whatever we can to minimize our exposure to these particles.
We could look at measures to help ourselves:
In India, Jal neti: Jal neti is a process in which you pour water through one nostril and allow it to flow out through the other nostril. In the process, the water cleans up your sinus. Frequent cleaning of sinuses helps reduce your lungs’ exposure to allergens. This has really worked for me,every allergy season.
Breathing exercises: Breathing exercises and yoga could help accelerate body’s resistance to these allergies. Asthma and rhinitis are reactions of your lung to the entry of foreign particles. They react by generating excessive mucus and by constricting which helps trigger coughing reaction. Basically, your lungs try to expel the unwanted foreign particles in any possible way. However, in the process, they are making breathing more difficult for you. This is where yoga and breathing exercises come into picture. These exercises will make your lungs stronger and increase their capacity.

UK government attempt to gag teachers as cuts deepen

Tania Kent 

The broad-based opposition to massive austerity in education has provoked a threatening directive from the UK Conservative government to school staff to stay silent on the terrible impact the cuts are having on education.
An update issued by the government’s Department for Education (DfE) to all schools as they returned from the summer break—billed as departmental advice for school leaders, governing bodies and local authorities—contained a new paragraph with a blunt statement in a staff management section.
In the document titled, “Staffing and employment advice for schools,” the section reads: “All staff have a responsibility to ensure that they act appropriately in terms of their behaviour, the views they express (political views) and the use of school resources at all times, and should not use school resources for party political purposes.”
A DfE spokesman added, “This update simply brings … guidance in line with the law, which makes clear that headteachers and local authorities must not promote partisan political views in school.”
The warning, first reported by the Schools Week newspaper, comes after campaigns by school leaders over budget cuts since 2016, which included lobbies of parliament by head teachers and letters sent to parents across the UK informing them of the impact of cuts, and calling on them to lobby MPs.
The government reaction, to what is a very limited opposition organised by the trade unions, must be seen as a warning, that not only will school cuts continue unabated, but that the government will move forcefully against any attempts to block their agenda.
Austerity has had a devastating impact on sectors in education across all regions.
Research has found that more than one in three schools in England ran an operating deficit last year, with hundreds of schools having dipped into their reserves for three or four years in a row.
The education unions updated their campaigning website, School Cuts, to include the new national formula and found that nearly nine out of 10 schools would see cuts in real terms by 2020.
According to the unions’ calculations, a typical primary school will be worse off annually by £52,546, and a typical secondary school will have lost £178,000 each year since 2015.
There have been cuts of £2.8 billion since 2015, with a £45.4k average cut to primary schools and £185.2k average cut to secondary schools. Per pupil funding has been cut by almost 8 percent since 2010, and compared to last year, schools have 5,400 fewer teachers, 2,800 fewer teaching assistants and 2,600 fewer support staff.
According to the Association of School and College Leaders, schools require a further £2 billion a year between now and 2020 if they are to be able to deal with previous budget cuts. Since 2015 alone, schools have suffered a real-term cut in funding of £2.7 billion.
Jules White, a headteacher behind the Worth Less? national group of school leaders that has organised letters critical of the government on the funding allocation to education, said: “If expressing political views is about biased and ill-judged grandstanding by heads and teachers, then I fully support the DfE’s views.
“If, on the other hand, the DfE wishes headteachers to be gagged as they simply tell the truth about the financial and teacher supply crisis that our schools are facing then this is unacceptable.”
Last year, Worth Less? organised 5,000 headteachers to lobby the government, while White and his colleagues oversaw a letter sent to an estimated 2.5 million households via pupils from thousands of state schools.
The directive takes place under conditions of growing opposition to attacks on wages and conditions by teaching staff. The school year opened with a major recruitment crisis in the sector. Forty thousand teachers quit in 2016 and there is a shortage of 30,000 currently in the sector. The government has ignored the pay review bodies’ recommendation of a paltry 3.5 percent pay rise, after years of wage freezes.
This has resulted in England’s teachers receiving the second biggest pay cut among teachers in the developed world.
Only teachers in Greece—where the education budget has been slashed by more than a third over a decade of austerity cuts—have taken a bigger hit than in England, where teacher pay fell 10 percent between 2005 and 2017, according to OECD reports.
The directive was met with an angry response by headteachers and teaching unions have said they will defy any attempts by the Department for Education to block criticism.
While claiming they will support the democratic right of teachers to speak out against the onslaught on public education, educators must view such claims with extreme caution. The teaching unions have done nothing to mobilise their members, who are angered by the dire crisis in school age education and have repeatedly overturned strike ballots in favour of organising lobbies and petitions that have done nothing to prevent the government’s agenda being enforced.
The government’s reaction, in seeking to curtail basic democratic rights, reveals how futile the token campaigns organised by the unions are.
The move by the government to censor teachers must be opposed by all teachers. If such draconian measures are imposed, they will no doubt be expanded to clamp down on workers’ opposition throughout the public sector.
Opposition to this cannot be entrusted to the unions, who, despite posturing against the cuts, have organised no unified offensive to oppose them. No concrete campaign has been outlined by the unions or Labour Party to oppose an unprecedented attack on the democratic rights of hundreds of thousands of education workers.
Quoted in the Guardian, Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, played down the authoritarian measures being imposed, merely stating, “It is perfectly reasonable for school leaders and teachers to be able to articulate their concerns … and it is clearly in the public interest for them to have a voice. You cannot disenfranchise 450,000 teachers from talking about education.”
On behalf of the Labour Party, Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner issued a perfunctory response, noting that the government “may hope to silence teachers, but they can’t get away from the fact that they will have cut £3bn from school budgets by 2020.”
The struggle to defend education must be based on a unified campaign amongst teachers, parents and the wider community, based on rank-and-file committees established independently of the unions, against austerity and privatisation and based on socialist policies.

Iran responds to economic crisis and US destabilisation with repression of working class

Jean Shaoul 

Last month, authorities sentenced teacher Mohammad Habibi, a leader of the Iranian Teachers’ Trade Association of Tehran (ITTA-Tehran), to a 10-and-a-half-year term in jail and 74 lashes.
According to the International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran (IASWI), Habibi was arrested on May 20, along with 13 others, after security forces and undercover agents attacked and broke up a peaceful ITTA demonstration in Tehran. It was one of several rallies organised in cities throughout the country by the Coordinating Council of Iranian Teacher Trade Associations to protest low wages, inadequate funding of education, privatisation of schools and the ending of free education. This follows repeated protests by teachers in recent years over the government’s education policies.
Habibi’s arrest occurred just days after being released from 44 days in detention after being violently arrested outside his school on March 3. While all the others were freed the following day, Habibi was put in solitary confinement in Tehran’s largest prison, where he has suffered beatings and was denied hospital treatment for his injuries. Ill-treatment in Iran’s prisons is widespread, with several reports earlier this year of prisoners’ deaths the authorities claimed were suicide. The number of prison deaths is believed to be very much larger than officially reported.
Habibi’s harsh sentence and beating are part of a broader campaign of intimidation aimed at suppressing opposition to the bourgeois-clerical regime’s efforts to impose the full burden of Iran’s economic crisis on the backs of the working class and young people—more than 60 percent of Iran’s population are under 30 years of age.
Last May, Amnesty International appealed for the release of Esmail Abdi, a teacher and trade union activist serving a six-year prison sentence imposed in November 2016 for “spreading propaganda and committing national security crimes.” Abdi had been on hunger strike since April 24 protesting Iran’s suppression of trade unions and the harsh conditions inside Tehran’s infamous Evin prison.
This year has witnessed increasing social and economic unrest among all layers of the Iranian working class over high unemployment and soaring inflation—Iran’s currency has fallen by 70 percent against the US dollar in the last year—following demonstrations initially organised by hard-line forces in Mashhad in December that burst out of their control. Last month, there were strikes at the Haft Tapeh Sugar Cane Mill, Iran National Steel Industry Group (INSIG) in the south west city of Ahvaz and by rail workers throughout the country over unpaid wages, and rallies by hundreds of sacked workers at the Khorak Dam (Cattle Feed) factory in Mashhad demanding their reinstatement. There have also been protests against local and national officials, business chiefs and the religious establishment of Shi’a clerics.
Almost the entire country is suffering from water shortages after a decade-long drought, prompting protests that have been violently dispersed by the police, leading to at least one death. Reports of traders hoarding goods, including medicines, foodstuffs and diapers, along with rampant profiteering on the black market, have fuelled the anger.
The regime has responded with a brutal crackdown, with the various security forces killing more than 20 people and arresting hundreds more. Many are still awaiting trial, while others have received heavy sentences. The authorities have also moved swiftly to close newspapers and social media accounts that express even mild criticism of the regime’s policies or circulate images and reports of political unrest, labour strikes, and protest rallies.
Earlier this month, Iran’s top prosecutor ordered the closure of the Sedayeh Eslahat newspaper, aligned with the reformist faction of the political establishment, on charges of “insulting” Shi’a Islam. Last month, the courts jailed seven journalists and ordered their flogging in public because of coverage of protests by the Dervish minority. Also arrested were four human rights lawyers.
The ongoing social unrest takes place amid increasing US imperialist pressure on Iran. Since coming to power in August 2013, the government of President Hassan Rouhani has accelerated privatisation and slashed social spending as part of an attempt to attract investment following the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed with the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, whereby Tehran agreed to drastic curbs on its nuclear programmes in return for a step-by-step easing of international sanctions. To this end, it rewrote the rules governing investment in the oil sector to satisfy Total, Shell, Eni and other European energy giants.
The promised benefits from the deal were slow to emerge, even before US President Donald Trump unilaterally scrapped it, re-imposing punitive sanctions and secondary sanctions on countries trading with Iran and prompting major multinationals to pull out of Iranian trade and investment. Washington’s plans to re-impose curbs on Iran’s ability to buy US dollars, along with any global trading in Iranian products including oil and gas, will have a calamitous impact on Iran’s already stalling economy.
While Washington’s ostensible purpose is to force Iran to accept a more stringent agreement that would curb not only Iran’s nuclear programme but also its broader political activities across the Middle East, the US is “weaponising” economic sanctions to bring about regime change.
The US is also taking direct measures to stir up dissent, with similar methods used, as some commentators have noted, during the CIA destabilisation campaign aimed at Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953. In June, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s legal adviser, called for the overthrow of the Iranian regime and boasted that the protests that started last December were orchestrated from outside Iran. He said that they “are not happening spontaneously,” but because of “our people” in Albania (where the Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organisation, MEK, is headquartered) and Paris.
He was speaking at a rally in Paris, organised by the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a front organisation for the MEK, which Washington listed as a terrorist organisation until 2012 and which is believed to have support from Saudi Arabia and Israeli intelligence. Also attending the Paris conference were 33 senior US officials and military brass, Stephen Harper, the former prime minister of Canada, and three Conservative and one Labour legislator from Britain.
Washington’s abrogation of the JCPOA treaty has provoked bitter factional infighting within the political establishment, with members of parliament even calling for Rouhani’s impeachment. Last month, the government fired the head of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and abandoned its efforts to limit trading in the rial to a fixed exchange rate while the labour minister has been impeached and dismissed.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei blamed the Rouhani government for the economic crisis and banned any further negotiations with the US. He had previously blamed the economic crisis on foreign countries and was widely believed to have agreed to the JCPOA deal, so his change of tack indicates the extreme nervousness at the top of the Iranian hierarchy at the desperate economic and political situation confronting the leadership.
The central bank has already started to raise interest rates from their already high official rate of 15 percent—in reality, much higher—to shore up the currency that will in turn trigger massive debt defaults and fuel inflation, unemployment and poverty.
Rouhani’s government has sought to introduce four separate pieces of legislation aimed at satisfying the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a Paris-based global intergovernmental organisation linked to the OECD that focuses on anti-money-laundering and countering the financing of terrorism. Failure to meet the FATF’s demands by October would mean that Russia and China, as well as the imperialist powers, would stop dealing with Iran. But such are the divisions and reliance on money-laundering and opacity within the ruling elite, which fears that greater transparency in the banking system could sabotage efforts to circumvent US sanctions, that it is far from clear that Rouhani will able to deliver the necessary legislation.
Factional infighting has also made it difficult for the government to secure agreement on short-term palliative measures, including subsidies and rationing, aimed at ameliorating the devastating impact of US sanctions on the poorest social layers, that would rapidly use up what remains of Iran’s energy earnings.

Four dead in workplace shooting in Maryland, the third mass shooting in the US in 24 hours

Adam Mclean

On Thursday morning, a gunman opened fire at a Rite Aid distribution center in Aberdeen, Maryland, killing three people and injuring three more. The suspected shooter, Snochia Moseley, was found dead at the scene and is believed to have fatally shot herself.
According to accounts of coworkers given to police, Moseley was a disgruntled employee at the distribution center. Previously a security guard at the facility, she was working as a temporary worker at the same location at the time of the shooting. Her exact motives remain unclear.
The Rite Aid distribution center is a large warehouse, sitting next to an Amazon warehouse of similar size. While the conditions at Amazon warehouses are particularly egregious, the same exploitation, in different degree, exists in other warehouses.
Politicians responded by piously lamenting the tragedy without providing any explanation of the regularity of mass violence in the United States. Republican Governor Larry Hogan tweeted “Our prayers are with all those impacted, including our first responders. The State stands ready to offer any support.”
Democratic Senator Ben Cardin echoed this in his own tweet, saying “Details are still emerging, but I've met with the Harford County Executive and Sheriff to offer my sincere condolences. I wanted to be there in person to thank them, as well as the many first responders and federal law enforcement on the scene for their swift responses.”
He also put forward gun control as a palliative for these shootings. Cardin continued, “There is no rational reason we should not close the loophole that allows some gun purchases to occur without a background check or reinstate the assault weapons ban,” but had no other ideas for combating gun violence.
Images and video of police raiding the warehouse with shotguns and assault weapons and of police individually patting down employees appeared on the Washington Post .
Shootings also occurred this week in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. In Wisconsin, software developer Anthony Tong shot four people at his office on Wednesday, seriously wounding three, before being killed himself in a shootout with police. He had worked at WTS Paradigm, and his motive remains unknown. A nearby shopping center was placed on lockdown at the request of the police.
The Middleton police chief responding to the shooting said, “I think a lot less people were injured or killed because police officers went in and neutralized the shooter.”
In Pennsylvania, Patrick Dowdell shot three people at a courthouse where he was due to appear for domestic violence charges on Wednesday. He was shot and killed by police at the scene as well.
These recent episodes of gun violence are only the latest in a long line of mass shootings in America. That three separate shootings occurred in the space of two days is not exceptionally rare is a testament to the frequency of gun violence in the US.
According to the Gun Violence Archive, “There have been 262 American mass shootings (4+ shot or killed in the same incident, not including the shooter) in the 263 days of 2018.” There have been 1,800 mass shootings in the US since 2013.
That mass shootings have become a near-daily phenomenon is a symptom of a society in deep crisis. Political figures issue the standard laments after each tragedy, accompanied by inevitable calls for increasing the powers of the state. These eruptions of violence, however, cannot be separated from the glorification of militarism and the general brutalization of social relations in America, promoted by the entire political establishment.
In the most unequal country in the world, the most psychologically fragile snap and erupt in violence. Mass shootings are only one of the more palpable consequences of this larger trend.