The world’s richest man will be received by Bolsonaro Friday at a hotel about 70 miles from Sao Paulo, the country’s financial capital, O Globo reported on Thursday, without saying how it obtained the information. It added that the gathering was organized by Communications Minister Fabio Faria, who visited the billionaire last year in the US. Tesla and SpaceX did not respond to an inquiry about Musk’s travel plans. His plane was scheduled to depart to Brazil later on Friday, according to an automated Twitter account maintained by Jack Sweeney, who follows the whereabouts of the billionaire’s jet. While Bolsonaro’s office didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment, the president confirmed he’s traveling to Sao Paulo the next day. “We’ll have a meeting with a world-renowned person, who’s coming to help our Amazon,” he said during a live broadcast on social media on Thursday night, without revealing his guest’s name. O Globo reported the two men are going to discuss plans to connect rural schools to broadband Internet, as well as systems for the monitoring of the Amazon rainforest. Musk has become even more popular among Bolsonaro’s supporters after announcing plans to buy Twitter Inc. and use the platform to defend “free speech.” Bolsonaro himself has had several social media posts taken down by Twitter and Facebook after the companies considered the president was spreading falsehoods about topics including the Covid-19 pandemic and the safety of Brazil’s electronic voting system. Bolsonaro, who’s being investigated in Brazil for allegedly spreading fake news, has been stepping up his rhetoric against the country’s top court and its electoral authorities, raising concerns that he could dispute the result of the October election if he were to lose.
0 Comments
TOPLINE : SpaceX paid $250,000 in 2018 to resolve allegations that CEO Elon Musk sexually propositioned a flight attendant aboard one of the company’s corporate jets, Insider reported Thursday, in a story the tech billionaire dismissed as a “politically motivated hit piece.”KEY FACTS: The flight attendant told her friend that Musk propositioned her in 2016 in his private cabin during a flight to London, Insider reported, citing unpublished documents and emails, as well as a declaration signed by the flight attendant’s friend — neither of whom Insider named.
Musk allegedly “exposed his genitals” to the attendant, touched her thigh and said he would buy her a horse if she gave him an “erotic massage,” according to Insider, which interviewed the friend and reviewed the friend’s declaration (Insider said the flight attendant declined to comment). The attendant told her friend that, after she refused Musk’s alleged advances, her work shifts were reduced, giving her the impression that she was being punished, Insider reported. According to Insider, the flight attendant filed a complaint with SpaceX’s human resources department in 2018 that was resolved without reaching arbitration after the attendant signed an agreement not to sue or to disclose information about Musk or his businesses, in return for a $250,000 severance package. In an email to Insider, Musk dismissed the story as a “politically motivated hit piece” and claimed there was “a lot more to this story.” Musk and SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Forbes. KEY BACKGROUNDMusk’s accuser reportedly told her friend that, after beginning work as a cabin crew member, she was urged to become a licensed masseuse so she could give Musk massages, according to Insider. SpaceX employs an in-house massage therapist and offers massages as a perk to some employees. Musk has not been publicly accused of sexual misconduct before, though four female former SpaceX interns publicly alleged they faced sexual harassment at the company, including nonconsensual grabbing from male employees. SpaceX president and COO Gwynne Shotwell promised employees that the company would “rigorously investigate” all harassment claims, though at least one of the interns said she never received a response to sexual misconduct complaints she lodged with the company’s human resources department, the New York Times reported. Six women have also sued Tesla, where Musk is CEO, alleging they were subjected to “rampant sexual harassment” by other employees. TANGENTIn addition to his roles at Tesla and SpaceX, Musk — whose net worth stands at $218 billion according to Forbes’ estimates — owns a 9.2% stake in Twitter, and the social media company’s board has accepted his offer to buy the entire company for $44 billion. The billionaire said last week his deal to acquire Twitter is “on hold,” citing ostensible concerns about the magnitude of Twitter’s spam account problem, but Twitter’s board says it intends to close the deal. Source : https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/05/19/spacex-reportedly-paid-250000-to-settle-sexual-harassment-accusation-against-elon-musk/?utm_campaign=forbes&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Gordie&sh=76b88ba276e2 Shyam Maheshwari was the former Chief Executive Officer, Founder and Partner of SSG Capital Management Limited, and was primarily responsible for SSG’s investment activities in India. Shyam is a gold medallist (All India Rank 1) chartered accountant and also has an MBA from IIM Bangalore where he was the Institute topper.
According to Shyam Maheshwari, timely and proactive restructuring of stressed assets will also provide much-needed breathing room to the IBC to clear its large backlog, before a potential wave from the impact of Covid19. Until the IBC resumes stressed and distressed companies will either continue to limp along, knowing their fate but impotent to change course or they may revert to the pre-IBC status by compromising and doing arrangements under the Companies Act with the bias on lenders to determine debt restructuring. As the financiers are delighted about demonstrating their ‘Art of Restructuring’, Shyam Maheshwari points out some factors to identify a successful restructuring. Firstly, Shyam advices to pick the industry or sector carefully before engaging with an existing lender. Make sure the selection plays to your expertise and experience and is ripe for disruption (energy, shipping and aviation). Secondly, he says that one should conduct deep diligence to understand the business. Differentiate between the need to fix the business as opposed to fixing the balance sheet. The latter is always easier. Determining the efficacy of the existing management, changing if necessary and agreeing a path to fill gaps is the third factor. Shyam Maheshwari says that the fourth factor is negotiating an acquisition price that creates a sustainable capital structure for the underlying business while ensuring alignment of interest between various stakeholders. The fifth factor is to create buffers in the business plan for contingencies while recognising that things will not operate like clockwork. It invariably takes longer for things to fall into place, Mr. Maheshwari says. “The temporary halt on referrals to the IBC is a timely moment to reflect on its efficacy and ask how the process can be sharpened for a more impactful resumption. Most assessments of the IBC are based on the number of companies that have gone through its doors and emerged with a buyer at a reasonable price”, Shyam Maheshwari SSG explains. In sum, timely and proactive restructuring of stressed assets will also provide much-needed breathing room to the IBC to clear its large backlog — before a potential second wave from the impact of Covid19. Mahinda Rajapaksa rescued in a pre-dawn military operation after day of protests in which five people were killed
Sri Lanka has deployed thousands of troops and police to enforce a curfew after five people were killed in the worst violence in weeks of protests over an unprecedented economic crisis. Nearly 200 people were wounded on Monday as prime minister Mahinda Rajapaksa resigned, but that did little to calm public anger. Rajapaksa had to be rescued in a pre-dawn operation by the military on Tuesday after thousands of anti-government protesters stormed his official residence in Colombo overnight, with police firing teargas and warning shots to keep back the crowd. Protesters who forced their way into the capital’s “Temple Trees” residence then attempted to storm the main two-storey building where Rajapaksa was holed up with his immediate family. “After a pre-dawn operation, the former PM and his family were evacuated to safety by the army,” a top security official told AFP. “At least 10 petrol bombs were thrown into the compound.” Rajapaksa’s evacuation to an undisclosed location followed a day of violent protests in which five people, including a lawmaker, were killed and nearly 200 wounded. The security official said police kept up a barrage of teargas and fired warning shots in the air to hold back mobs at all three entrances to the colonial-era building, a key symbol of state power. Dozens of homes of top Rajapaksa loyalists were torched elsewhere in the curfew-bound country, which has been under a state of emergency since Friday. The emergency order from president Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the outgoing premier’s younger brother, gave sweeping powers to the military as protests demanding the duo’s resignation escalated over the country’s worst-ever economic crisis. Protesters and Sri Lankan religious leaders blamed the former prime minister for instigating the family’s supporters to attack unarmed protesters on Monday, sparking retaliatory attacks. Rajapaksa’s resignation follows months of protests over the country’s deepening economic crisis, as once-peaceful protests turned violent. Turmoil began to engulf the country on Monday after violence at a major protest site in Colombo, where pro-government supporters attacked demonstrators and police responded with teargas and water cannon. In one incident just outside Colombo, a politician from the ruling party opened fire on anti-government protesters blocking his car, killing a 27-year-old, and then later took his own life. According to police, another ruling party politician opened fire on protesters in the southern town of Weeraketiya, killing two and wounding five. Mahinda Rajapaksa had been asked to resign by his brother at a special meeting on Friday, in an attempt to appease demonstrators who have been taking to the streets in their thousands since March. Protesters have been calling for both members of Sri Lanka’s powerful Rajapaksa political dynasty to be removed from office for mishandling the economy and plunging the country into the worst financial crisis since independence. Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was president himself for a decade between 2005 and 2015, had reportedly been resistant to stepping down, but on Monday submitted his letter of resignation to the president. “Multiple stakeholders have indicated the best solution to the present crisis is the formation of an interim all-party government. Therefore, I have tendered my resignation so the next steps can be taken in accordance with the constitution,” he wrote. The resignation is the latest concession made by the Rajapaksas in the face of protracted anger and protests. The president recently agreed to repeal an amendment to the constitution which had concentrated power in his hands and hand power back to the parliament. Other members of the Rajapaksa family who had previously held seats in the cabinet have also stepped down, with the president the only remaining member of the political family still in power. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, known widely as Gota, has repeatedly said he will not resign as president, despite the clarion call of the protests being “Gota go home”. The Rajapaksas have largely controlled Sri Lankan politics for two decades, but the economic crisis has rattled their grip on power in the face of mass unrest from those who had previously been supporters of their brand of chauvinist nationalist politics, which pandered to the country’s Sinhalese Buddhist majority. Sri Lanka’s foreign reserves have dropped so low that the country cannot afford to import basic essentials, leading to shortages of fuel, food and medicines. People have been forced to endure daily power cuts of up to 10 hours, fuelling mass protests across the country since March. Over the weekend, the president declared a state of emergency in the country, the second in recent weeks, in a bid to regain control over the streets. However, Monday marked a violent shift in the demonstrations when hundreds of pro-government supporters gathered outside the prime minister’s residence in Colombo and urged Mahinda Rajapaksa not to resign. The group, some armed with sticks and wooden bars, then launched an attack on an anti-government protest camp nearby, with police reportedly looking on as the clashes began. read more : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/10/troops-rescue-outgoing-sri-lanka-pm-as-houses-torched-in-deadly-night-of-unrest BANGKOK — A court in military-ruled Myanmar convicted the country’s former leader Aung San Suu Kyi of corruption and sentenced her to five years in prison Wednesday in the first of several corruption cases against her.
Suu Kyi, who was ousted by an army takeover last year, had denied the allegation that she had accepted gold and hundreds of thousands of dollars given her as a bribe by a top political colleague. Her supporters and independent legal experts consider her prosecution an unjust move to discredit Suu Kyi and legitimize the military’s seizure of power while keeping the 76-year-old elected leader from returning to an active role in politics. The daughter of Aung San, Myanmar’s founding father, Suu Kyi became a public figure in 1988 during a failed uprising against a previous military government when she helped found the National League for Democracy party. She spent 15 of the next 21 years under house arrest for leading a nonviolent struggle for democracy that earned her the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize. When the army allowed an election in 2015, her party won a landslide victory and she became the de facto head of state. Her party won a greater majority in the 2020 polls. She has already been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in other cases and faces 10 more corruption charges. The maximum punishment under the Anti-Corruption Act is 15 years in prison and a fine. Convictions in the other cases could bring sentences of more than 100 years in prison in total. “These charges will not have credibility other than in the eyes of the junta’s stacked courts (and the military’s supporters),” said Moe Thuzar, a fellow at the Yusof Ishak Institute, a Southeast Asian studies center in Singapore. “Even if there were any legitimate concerns or complaints about corruption by any member of an elected government, a coup and enforced military rule are certainly not the way to pursue such concerns.” News of Wednesday’s verdict came from a legal official who asked not to be identified because he is not authorized to release such information. Suu Kyi’s trial in the capital, Naypyitaw, was closed to the media, diplomats and spectators, and her lawyers were barred from speaking to the press. Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party won a landslide victory in the 2020 general election, but lawmakers were not allowed to take their seats when the army seized power on Feb. 1, 2021, arresting Suu Kyi and many senior colleagues in her party and government. The army claimed it acted because there had been massive electoral fraud, but independent election observers didn’t find any major irregularities. The takeover was met with large nonviolent protests nationwide, which security forces quashed with lethal force that has so far led to the deaths of almost 1,800 civilians, according to a watchdog group, the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners. As repression escalated, armed resistance against the military government grew, and some U.N. experts now characterize the country as being in a state of civil war. Suu Kyi has not been seen or allowed to speak in public since she was detained and is being held in an undisclosed location. However, at last week’s final hearing in the case, she appeared to be in good health and asked her supporters to “stay united,” said a legal official familiar with the proceedings who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to release information. In earlier cases, Suu Kyi was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on convictions of illegally importing and possessing walkie-talkies, violating coronavirus restrictions and sedition. In the case decided Wednesday, she was accused of receiving $600,000 and seven gold bars in 2017–18 from Phyo Min Thein, the former chief minister of Yangon, the country’s biggest city and a senior member of her political party. Her lawyers, before they were served with gag orders late last year, said she rejected all his testimony against her as “absurd.” The nine other cases currently being tried under the Anti-Corruption Act include several related to the purchase and rental of a helicopter by one of her former Cabinet ministers. Violations of the law carry a maximum penalty for each offense of 15 years in prison and a fine. Suu Kyi is also charged with diverting money meant as charitable donations to build a residence, and with misusing her position to obtain rental properties at lower-than-market prices for a foundation named after her mother. The state Anti-Corruption Commission has declared that several of her alleged actions deprived the state of revenue it would otherwise have earned. Another corruption charge alleging that she accepted a bribe has not yet gone to trial. Suu Kyi is also being tried on a charge of violating the Official Secrets Act, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years, and on a charge alleging election fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of three years. “The days of Aung San Suu Kyi as a free woman are effectively over. Myanmar’s junta and the country’s kangaroo courts are walking in lockstep to put Aung San Suu Kyi away for what could ultimately be the equivalent of a life sentence, given her advanced age,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch. “Destroying popular democracy in Myanmar also means getting rid of Aung San Suu Kyi, and the junta is leaving nothing to chance.” Syrian Network for Human Rights calls for action at the UN Security Council after leaked video appears to show execution of civilians
More than a dozen prominent Syrian civil society groups have urged the United States envoy to the United Nations to launch an investigation into the 2013 killing of 41 civilians in the neighbourhood of Tadamon in Syria’s capital Damascus. “We are writing to demand immediate action to address this massacre, which amounts to a war crime, and hold perpetrators accountable at the UN Security Council,” read a letter addressed to Linda Thomas-Greenfield. The letter was published by the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) on Monday. The group of organisations also called on the US to convene a meeting at the UN Security Council during its presidency in May and launch an independent probe into the incident. “There can be no peace in Syria without justice,” the letter read. The appeal comes nearly two weeks after The Guardian published a report on a leaked video that appeared to show evidence of crimes committed by Syrian forces against civilians. The footage shows blindfolded and handcuffed civilians being told to run towards an execution ditch lying just in front of them in the Tadamon district, one of Damascus’ southern suburbs which at the time was a battlefront between Syrian government forces and opposition forces. The video also appears to show Syrian military intelligence officers of the infamous Branch 227 smiling and laughing as they assassinate the men before pouring gasoline over their bodies in the pit and setting it ablaze to hide the evidence. ‘Lack of response from international community’According to The Guardian, a horrified military recruit filmed the vicious incident and leaked the video, dated 16 April 2013, to a friend in France who then turned it over to researchers Annsar Shahhoud and Ugur Umit Ungor, from the University of Amsterdam’s Holocaust and Genocide Center. “Never before have we seen such clear evidence of a war crime committed and videotaped by Assad’s intelligence services in broad daylight, in cold blood, with no regard for the humanity of the victims or concern for consequences,” read the letter. The release of the video footage has triggered many Syrians, with some families recognising their relatives being executed in the video. read more : https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/syria-rights-groups-urge-us-probe-tadamon-massacre In an exclusive extract from his new book The Fate of Abraham, award-winning MEE commentator Peter Oborne explains how Policy Exchange has helped to dismantle traditions of tolerance and multiculturalism in the UK, with Muslims its main target In the wake of the calamity of the Iraq invasion of 2003, one might have supposed that the ideology which lay behind Tony Blair and George W Bush’s bloody misadventure would have been discredited. This has not happened. Neo-conservatism has continued to set the parameters for a great deal of policy discourse, and its supporters have continued to occupy many of the most prominent positions in British (and American) public life. There are a number of reasons for this resilience. In the UK, Policy Exchange, a London-based think tank, is one organisation which kept the neo-conservative flame burning. Though its public profile is small, it has exerted prodigious influence in political circles. In conventional politics, Policy Exchange was at first associated in particular with ‘marketisation’, an ugly word which describes how the disciplines of the private sector have been introduced into the education system and the wider civil service. The think tank’s most enduring achievement, however, has probably been the reshaping of government policy towards British Muslims. To simplify a rather complicated story, the British government, police and intelligence services originally saw their job as enforcing the law rather than policing ideology or personal beliefs. Abu Hamza, the notorious one-eyed cleric who made no secret of his sympathies with al-Qaeda, provides a fascinating illustration of this approach. Hamza, who used his position as imam of the Finsbury Park mosque to preach violent jihad, was skilful at ensuring that his public pronouncements stayed just within the law. There was general amazement and surprise when his eviction was suddenly brought about not apparently by the British state, but by his own congregation, who locked the doors of the mosque against him. The Metropolitan Police were, however, involved in Abu Hamza’s downfall. Its policemen built up close relations with the mosque’s faithful and were unobtrusively stationed nearby on the day of the imam’s eviction in case of trouble. This sensitive operation was a model of old-fashioned intelligence work and community policing. However, the Muslim congregation who threw out Abu Hamza themselves held views which many sections of British society would find offensive. The congregation included sympathisers with Hamas, the Palestinian resistance group. Probably without exception, they were hostile to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and were dismayed by the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Many worshippers at the mosque held socially conservative views about homosexuality and women which, while by no means unknown among the Conservative Party membership, are no longer mainstream opinions in the modern UK. None of these views bothered the Metropolitan Police. They were happy to work with the Muslim community for the removal of a figure who they rightly saw as a menace. This kind of ‘multicultural’ approach lay at the heart of what was then the British way. As long as they obeyed the law, immigrants were allowed to bring with them the traditions and customs of the countries they had left behind. This approach fitted in naturally with the national tradition of letting in dissidents and exiles from abroad, from the Huguenots expelled from France in the seventeenth century to the Jews who made their way to the UK as refugees from the Russian pogroms before the First World War, or later as refugees from National Socialism. Policy Exchange dismantled the British approach of tolerance. Its analysts naturally agreed that the police should counter violence. But they disagreed profoundly with any tolerance of the ideas which (so they maintained) might become gateways to this violence. Policy Exchange’s connections were second to none. It was set up in 2002, in the wake of heavy Conservative Party defeats in the 1997 and 2001 general elections, by a group of Conservatives who feared their party was destined to perpetual opposition. These were the self-proclaimed Tory ‘modernisers’. They greatly admired Blair and had supported the Iraq War. These modernisers believed that their mission was to help the Conservatives copy Blair’s achievements in making the Labour Party electorally successful. Michael Gove, at the time of writing a senior member of the Boris Johnson government, was the first chairman of Policy Exchange. When David Cameron ran for the Tory leadership after the 2005 general election defeat, he looked to Policy Exchange for ideas. The organisation — defined by the Evening Standard as “the intellectual boot camp of the Tory modernisers” — helped shape his thinking. At its heart, Policy Exchange spoke of a political philosophy which appeals almost as deeply to the Blairite or Starmer wing of the Labour Party as it does to David Cameron or Boris Johnson’s Conservatives. Better than any comparable organisation, it has come to articulate what was rapidly becoming the philosophy of the British governing class in the 21st century. Policy Exchange and British MuslimsWhen the think tank was founded, it contained a ‘Foreign Policy and Security Unit’. As far as can be ascertained, its publications focused on foreign policy, but displayed no interest in domestic ‘extremism’. This changed with the arrival of Dean Godson with the title of research director of international affairs in 2005. Godson, who had worked as chief leader writer for the Daily Telegraph, appeared to interpret his international brief as a mandate to generate domestic policy towards British Muslims. This should never cause surprise: the political right in the UK has a habit of discussing British Muslims as if they were a foreign policy issue. Godson came from a family with a tradition of interest in Cold War intelligence work, propaganda and covert action. His father Joseph Godson was Labour attache at the United States embassy in London in the 1950s and used his influence to promote the interest of the pro-US wing of the Labour Party. From 2005 onwards, Godson seems to have been on a mission to rip up the counter-terrorism strategy adopted by successive British governments. He promoted the new approach to Muslims through research papers, seminars and, not least, media muscle. In particular, he argued that methods used by the British state against terrorism — above all against the IRA during the Troubles — were no longer relevant. In Ireland, British ministers were happy to work with Catholic communities in order to isolate the gunmen and bring about reconciliation. Confronted with the threat of terrorism in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers, the first instinct of the British state was to copy the Irish experience. The police identified leaders who they felt they could trust with links into local communities. They sought to draw these figures into British politics, inviting them on to public platforms and making public funds available. In this way, they hoped to single out and segregate those individuals with an inclination to violence while gaining intelligence about their activities. Policy Exchange argued that this strategy was wrong because, so it claimed, the British government was not merely confronting terrorists. Something much bigger was afoot: a confrontation of ideologies. For Policy Exchange, the UK was one of a band of free states, led by the US, that were engaged in a mortal battle against a set of deadly foes dedicated to a project to destroy Western civilisation. These foes were called ‘Islamists’ and they subscribed to a murderous ideology called Islamism. Policy Exchange acknowledged that not every Islamist was violent. However, over the long term that was irrelevant: Islamism had to be fought and ultimately it had to be defeated. Islamism, said Policy Exchange, is a worldview which teaches its adherents that Islam is a comprehensive political ideology and must be treated as such. According to Policy Exchange, the Islamist outlook is one that essentially divides the world into two distinct spheres: ‘Muslim’ and ‘the rest’. There could therefore be no negotiation. Islamists could never accept democracy, the rule of law, political institutions or the nation state. There was therefore no point in bringing Muslims into politics unless they renounced Islamism, in which case they could be welcomed. According to Policy Exchange’s analysis, the core aim of counter-terrorism policy was no longer just protecting British citizens against violence. It was also the assertion of what Policy Exchange claimed to be Western values against so-called Muslim ‘extremism’. This grand battle of ideas demanded a return to the strategy of counter-subversion employed against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. My close reading of Policy Exchange publications has led me to conclude that Godson was, in essence, arguing that British Islamists should be isolated, never embraced and treated as suspect. Twenty years ago I would attend the Telegraph leader conference. Godson, as chief leader writer, held court. He was a good mimic, an art he used to mock or denigrate political opponents or, if feeling cheerful, merely to entertain. He welcomed acolytes, but I took the liberty of challenging Godson. That evening I received a message through a mutual friend, who had arranged a dinner so that we could get to know each other better, that Godson was offended and no longer wanted to come across me socially. He was as good as his word. A survey of his work at Policy Exchange suggests Godson had three objectives. First, he sought to weaken — or, better still, wreck — the alliance between the British left and British Muslim organisations. This he did by portraying Islamism as an outlandish far-right movement, with features in common with fascism. Secondly, Policy Exchange sought to challenge multiculturalism both as an idea and, more especially, as a basis for government policy. Above all, Godson was determined to break the link between so-called Islamist movements and the British state. Godson was successful in all these objectives. His excellent Whitehall and Westminster connections may well have helped. These connections endure. Policy Exchange can whistle up a Cabinet minister for an event, an op-ed in a newspaper or access to Downing Street, while its authors are sought as experts on Islam on radio and television. The organisation’s reports tell the Conservative Party exactly what its leaders want to hear. At least six special advisers in the Boris Johnson government previously worked for Policy Exchange. Godson’s first publication for Policy Exchange targeted British government collaboration with what was coming to be termed ‘radical Islam’. The author, Martin Bright, was a left-leaning journalist and then political editor of the New Statesman. This in itself sent out the important message that Policy Exchange worked with both political persuasions. Bright’s analysis was based on leaked material, courtesy of a Foreign Office source alarmed at the government’s relationship with Muslim organisations both in the UK and overseas. “It depresses me deeply,” wrote Bright, “that a Labour government has been prepared to rush so easily into the arms of the representatives of a reactionary, authoritarian brand of Islam, rather than look to real grassroots moderates as allies.” Bright’s document took aim at two targets: the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Council of Britain. Policy Exchange (and Bright) present the Muslim Brotherhood as an Islamist movement guilty of propagating a dangerous ideology at odds with the West. As for the Muslim Council of Britain, that was condemned as guilty of being Islamist too. Bright’s document was an important blow in a campaign which would eventually lead to the severing of relations between the British government and the MCB. Policy Exchange can claim a large part of the credit. Godson was an acute talent-spotter. Munira Mirza wrote his second publication and later worked with Boris Johnson when he was mayor of London, before moving to the crucial role of head of the Downing Street policy unit. Mirza demanded an end to “institutional attacks on Britain and its culture”, arguing that “the preoccupation with Muslim vulnerability and Islamophobia has skewered our understanding of why such problems exist, and in many ways, has made things worse for Muslims.” Mirza asserted that this reflected a “victim mentality” which was “given social credence by institutions, politicians, the media and lobby groups”. Her report also claimed Islamophobia has been ‘exaggerated’ by some British Muslims. Policy Exchange has a long history of questioning the idea of Islamophobia and has a record of recruiting members of minority groups to do the questioning. The invention of non-violent extremismIn 2009, Policy Exchange published a report which explicitly presented the demand for the British state to apply to British Muslims the same counter-subversion regime used against trade unionists, socialists and others during the Cold War. This well-written and powerful polemic probably represents — more explicitly than any other Policy Exchange publication — the full Godson agenda. It was written by two Cambridge scholars. Martyn Frampton was a fellow of Peterhouse, the high Tory Cambridge college. His co-author Shiraz Maher was a former member of Hizb ut- Tahrir, having worked for the organisation as a regional officer in the north- east of England. Frampton and Maher’s report called for the government to reinstate the 1989 Security Service Act, which would give MI5 the power to investigate subversion. As far as the British government was concerned, this involved a giant conceptual leap. The ‘Preventing Violent Extremism’ initiative was rebranded as, simply, ‘Preventing Extremism’. This was also a profound change of policy because it implied that the state should target not just violence but opinion as well. It criticised the government for “stressing law enforcement and strict security concerns over and above everything else’” Instead, it should deal with “non- violent radicals” who were “indoctrinating young people with an ideology of hostility to Western values”. In other words, Policy Exchange wanted to create a new relationship between the British state and Muslims. This project meant creating a different kind of British citizenship. It led to a new concept in British public discourse: non-violent extremism. Policy Exchange was urging that Muslims should be obliged to sign up to a set of beliefs that fell within a state prescribed remit. In order to become British, Muslims were being asked to deny, or at least modify, their own identity and heritage. Until that moment, British citizens had generally been allowed to think and conduct themselves as they wanted, as long as they stayed within the law. The invention of the concept of non- violent extremism meant citizens could now be harassed, put on secret lists or barred from public life for offences which they often did not even know they had committed. It lies at the heart of the Prevent doctrine. Prevent was used to fund organisations that would promote the government line on terrorism and extremism. But there was another component to the programme, which the Cameron government adapted to target “non-violent extremism” rather than just violent extremism. In 2015, Prevent became a legal duty for public sector institutions — including hospitals, schools, and universities. Under Prevent, public sector workers were and are (at the time of writing) expected to report anyone they suspect of extremism to the programme. Extremism, according to the government, constitutes “vocal or active opposition to British values”. This means that people whose views may be mainstream or illiberal, but certainly not illegal, can be targeted as a threat to British society. In a school context, Prevent demands that any teacher who suspects a pupil of having been radicalised must report them to the programme. The policy has failed at the crucial test of effectiveness. From April 2020 to March 2021, 86 per cent of referrals to the programme were false positives — representing people who were wrongly referred. Prevent only occasionally catches the people that it wants to. Even these individuals, however, have never committed a crime. There is, moreover, no evidence that they will ever commit a crime in the future, or that they would have committed a crime were it not for being identified by Prevent. Government statistics, meanwhile, do not illuminate the full picture: there are thousands of cases within schools, universities and hospitals where innocent people, often children, are needlessly interrogated and harassed over suspected extremism. Their cases are dismissed before being officially referred to Prevent and are left out of the official statistics. read more : https://www.middleeasteye.net/big-story/neo-conservative-think-tank-defined-british-muslims-fate-abraham-extract NEET PG Admit Card 2022 will likely be released soon. Candidates who have to appear for the examination can download the admit card through the official site of NBE on nbe.edu.in.
National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, NBEMS will likely release NEET PG Admit Card 2022 soon. The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test will be conducted on May 21, 2022 across the country at various exam centres. The admit card for the examination can be downloaded through the official site of NBE on nbe.edu.in. The admit card release date have not been disclosed by the Board yet. As per the information bulletin, candidates will be informed through SMS/Email alerts and website notice regarding availability of the admit card on NBEMS website. Admit card will not be sent to the candidates by Post/ Email. NEET PG Admit Card 2022: How to download Candidates who will appear for the written examination can download the admit card through these simple steps given below.
Mahinda Rajapaksa and his family taken to safety by heavily armed soldiers as anti-government protesters storm gates.
Heavily armed troops have evacuated outgoing Sri Lankan Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa from his official residence in Colombo after thousands of protesters breached the main gate in the worst violence in weeks of protests over an unprecedented economic crisis. Protesters who forced their way into the prime minister’s official Temple Trees residence then attempted to storm the main two-storey building on Tuesday where Rajapaksa was holed up with his immediate family. “After a pre-dawn operation, the former PM and his family were evacuated to safety by the army,” a top security official told AFP news agency. “At least 10 petrol bombs were thrown into the compound.” Rajapaksa’s evacuation to an undisclosed location followed a day of violent protests in which five people, including a member of parliament, were killed and nearly 200 wounded, and marks a sudden fall from grace for the man who has dominated Sri Lankan politics for nearly 20 years. The security official said police kept up a barrage of tear gas and fired warning shots in the air to hold back protesters at all three entrances to the colonial-era building, a key symbol of state power. Elsewhere, dozens of properties linked to top Rajapaksa loyalists were torched and mobs attacked the controversial Rajapaksa museum in the family’s ancestral village in the island’s south, razing it to the ground, police said. Two wax statues of the Rajapaksa parents were flattened. The Rajapaksa clan’s hold on power has been shaken by months of blackouts and shortages in Sri Lanka, the worst economic crisis since it became independent in 1948. The sudden surge in violence comes despite a curfew and a state of emergency that was imposed on Friday. The emergency order from President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the outgoing premier’s younger brother, gives sweeping powers to the military amid vocal demands for him to step down over the country’s deepening economic crisis. Protesters and Sri Lankan religious leaders have blamed the former prime minister for instigating the family’s supporters to attack unarmed protesters on Monday and fuelling the violence. Curfew after deadly unrestSri Lankan authorities deployed thousands of troops and police on Tuesday to enforce a nationwide curfew. Streets were calm on Tuesday in the commercial capital of Colombo following a day of deadly unrest. “The situation is calmer now, though there are still reports of sporadic unrest,” said police spokesman Nihal Thalduwa. No arrests have yet been made in the isolated incidents of violence, he said, adding that three of the five deaths had been from gunshot injuries. Authorities said the curfew will be lifted Wednesday morning, with government and private offices, as well as shops and schools, ordered to remain shut on Tuesday. US Ambassador Julie Chung tweeted that Washington condemned “the violence against peaceful protestors” and called on the Sri Lankan “government to conduct a full investigation, including the arrest & prosecution of anyone who incited violence”. Deal with Tiga Acquisition Corp will raise $384m, according to regulatory filings.
Popular gay dating app Grindr has agreed to go public through a blank-cheque firm whose founder was part of a consortium that bought the company in 2020, according to a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday. The deal with Tiga Acquisition Corporation will raise $384m including $284m of the special-purpose acquisition company’s (SPAC) cash in trust plus up to $100m in a forward purchase agreement, valuing the company at $2.1bn including debt, according to the filing. The dating app was valued at $620m when it was sold in 2020 by its Chinese owner. Tiga Acquisition Corp went public in November 2020 to raise $240m, a few months after the Grindr sale. The SPAC would have to liquidate later this month if it failed to reach a deal with a potential merger target, after several extensions of the liquidation deadline. Raymond Zage III, the founder and CEO of the SPAC, was a member of San Vicente, a consortium of investors that bought Grindr from Beijing’s Kunlun Tech Co in 2020. |
MichaelMichael is Professor of Political Science and Head of Department. His research is on public administration and administrative reform, core executives, the role of civil servants in a transformed state, Archives
May 2024
|