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
0 Comments
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. Runaway Princess Haya bint al-Hussein ‘was too close’ to British bodyguard
The sixth wife of Dubai ruler Princess Haya bint al-Hussein has been telling her friends and members of her family back in Jordan that she found her “soulmate” in Russell Flowers, the former infantry soldier of the British Army, with whom she has been secretly dating for years. Her boyfriend Russell Flowers, who is a former infantry soldier of the British Army became too intimate with Haya bint al-Hussein during his five-year posting as the bodyguard at royal family’s Dalham Hall Stud, a stunning 3,300-acre country estate owned by Sheikh Maktoum about six miles from Newmarket town center in the United Kingdom. Although Flowers went into hiding soon after his intimacy with Princess Haya bint al-Hussein was exposed, it is learnt from credible sources that he is having regular contact with Haya bint al-Hussein , mostly over the phone. Due to her extremely nasty private life and madness of having sex with her bodyguard, Princess Haya bint al-Hussein bought a Victorian cottage for her lover, which is very close to the town center. The Princess Haya bint al-Hussein was frequently visiting that cottage and the wife of Russell Flowers divorced him when she found her husband having sex with Haya bint al-Hussein. Being caught, Princess Haya bint al-Hussein reportedly had even plotted of getting Flowers’ wife murdered through a contract killer. Princess Haya bint al-Hussein reportedly had told one of her best friends that she also found a “loving horse” in Russell Flowers and he is the “only man” who can give her the best-expected orgasms each time she has sex with Flowers. Seeking anonymity, one of Haya’s former bodyguard told this correspondent that the wife of Dubai ruler was extremely attracted to Russell Flowers and in most cases, whenever he was accompanying her on foreign tours, the Princess Haya bint al-Hussein became exposedly inclined in spending nights with him. She even did not hesitate to kiss Flowers inside the elevators. The source said Russell Flowers was too had found his best playmate in Princess Haya. It may be mentioned here that, Russell Flowers is not the only man with whom Princess Haya bint al-Hussein had sex, but the Princess had slept with at least two of her former bodyguards while during her student life, she was regularly sleeping with classmates as well as having several “friends of benefit”. One of her ex-bodyguard said, the Princess was rewarding those who would give her expected sexual pleasure and whenever she found someone who would meet her expectations, she would start sleeping with him until she found a better one. It said it is very much unlikely that Princess Haya bint al-Hussein will remain united with Russell Flowers for a long time as she may very soon start losing interest in him and hunt for a better “playmate”. According to another source, one of the men who had physical relations with Princess Haya bint al-Hussein had even blackmailed her with a video of her having sex with him and had extracted US$ 600,000 in two installments and the person finally sold the video to her in exchange of an unknown amount of cash. Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein was born in Amman, the capital of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the daughter of King Hussein and his third wife, Queen Alia. She has a younger brother, Prince Ali bin Hussein born on 23 December 1975, and younger sister, Abir Muhaisen (born 1973), the latter of whom was adopted by Haya’s parents after her biological mother was killed by a plane crash at their Palestinian refugee camp in Amman. In 1977, when Haya was 3 years old, her mother died in a helicopter crash. Her father died from complications related to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 1999, leaving the crown to her half-brother, King Abdullah II. On 10 April 2004, Princess Haya wed Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai. The marriage ceremony was held at al-Baraka Palace in Amman. On 2 December 2007 in Dubai, Princess Haya bint al-Hussein gave birth to her first child, Sheikha Jalila bint Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. The baby’s birth coincided with the United Arab Emirates’ 36th celebration of its National Day, on 2 December. On 7 January 2012, she gave birth to her second child, Sheikh Zayed bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. 'You speak about Ukraine, I remember what happened in Afghanistan', EAM Jaishankar's dig at West4/27/2022 He was apparently referring to the deal the US inked with the Taliban in February 2020 after fighting it for two decades
After drawing flak for not condemning Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, India on Tuesday turned the table on Europe and the United States, slamming them for ignoring China’s belligerence in Asia for years and for clinching a deal with the Taliban “by throwing the common people of Afghanistan under the bus” “You spoke about Ukraine. I remember, less than a year ago, what happened in Afghanistan, where an entire civil society was thrown under the bus by the world,” External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said at the Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi, in response to a question from Norwegian Foreign Minister Anniken Huitfeldt. from Afghanistan, leaving the people of the war-torn country under the regressive rule of the Sunni Islamist militia that returned to power in August 2021. “When the rules-based order was under challenge in Asia (due to aggression by China), the advice we got from Europe is (to) do more trade (with China)”, added Jaishankar. New Delhi has been alleging that the US, the United Kingdom and the other western nations had for years overlooked growing belligerence of China, not only against India, but also against other nations in the Indo-Pacific region. His comment came a day after the European Commission’s President Ursula Von der Leyen, while delivering the keynote address at the Raisina Dialogue, subtly nudged India to drop its policy of avoiding criticism of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and warned it about the growing ties between the former Soviet Union nation and China. India called for dialogue and diplomacy to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It, however, did not join the US and other western nations to directly condemn Russian President Vladimir Putin for ordering the launch of military operations in the East European nation. New Delhi took a cautious approach in view of India’s decades-old strategic partnership with Russia and its dependence on the former Soviet Union nation for military hardware. India, however, drew flak in the US and Europe for its refusal to take a tough stand against Russia. The former Prime Minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt, too asked Jaishankar on Tuesday what conclusion China could draw from Russia’s war against Ukraine and whether the communist country could take advantage of the situation and be encouraged to step up its belligerence in Asia. “This has not been an easy part of the world for the last decade and this is a part of the world where boundaries have not been settled, where terrorism is still practised, often sponsored by states,” Jaishankar said, adding: “This is a part of the world where the rules-based order has been under continuous stress for more than a decade and I think it is important for the rest of the world, outside Asia, to recognise that today”. aggression along the disputed boundary with India, but also in the South China Sea, the East China Sea and the Taiwan Strait as well as elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region. “Things have been happening in Asia for the last 10 years. Europe may not have looked at it. So this could be a wake-up call for Europe, not just in Europe, it could be a wake-up call for Europe to also look at Asia,” he said. In a recent article, The Stanford Review implied that activists misled the community in campaigning for Phi Kappa Psi to cancel an event with Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale ’03. This couldn’t be further from the truth.
It is undisputed that in 2012, while serving as a mentor in a Stanford class, Lonsdale violated Stanford Admin Guide Policy 1.7.2, which bans sexual and romantic relationships between teachers, including mentors, and undergraduate students. The policy serves to protect undergraduates from exploitation, unfairness and favoritism, stating that “Not only can these relationships harm the educational environment for the individual student involved, they also undermine the educational environment for other students.” Lonsdale doesn’t deny that he violated University policy. In 2013, Stanford banned him from mentoring undergraduates for 10 years. Lonsdale was also separately banned from campus for sexual harassment, a finding that was later reversed. But the mentorship ban was never reversed and is still in effect today. The New York Times Magazine meticulously detailed the misconduct by Lonsdale that led to the mentoring ban. Lonsdale first met Ellie Clougherty ’13 in 2011 while she was a sophomore. He subsequently asked her to meet for drinks in the fall of her junior year to learn more about her professional “ambitions.” In early 2012, Lonsdale asked Clougherty if she needed a mentor for a course she was enrolled in on entrepreneurship. Shortly afterward, Lonsdale was switched to become her official mentor. The Times reports that, during the class, Lonsdale had an inappropriate sexual relationship with Clougherty, which he failed to disclose to the University. One of Clougherty’s friends recounted to the Times how she felt uncomfortable watching Lonsdale treat Clougherty like “pretty wallpaper” at gatherings of male Silicon Valley executives. After their breakup in 2013, Clougherty sought counseling for physical and emotional abuse, and she ultimately left Stanford to finish her studies online. Lonsdale denies all claims of abuse. The disparity in age, institutional and financial power between a famous 29-year-old billionaire and a 21-year-old undergraduate student is an alarming example of an improper relationship. The Times reports that other students knew about the relationship and found it upsetting. Regardless of whether this relationship was physically abusive, it was harmful to both Clougherty and other Stanford women, and a violation of University policy. Disturbingly, Stanford also learned that Lonsdale had dated another Stanford student after he stopped sleeping with Clougherty. Lonsdale and The Stanford Review minimize the seriousness of Lonsdale’s offense. On March 12th, Lonsdale sent an unsolicited, rambling 1,007-word direct Twitter message to one of the students who organized against his appearance. The message stated in part: “In my late twenties I met a bright model in her early twenties out in NYC whom I later dated for a year — and yes after we met, she was in a class I had been helping once a year for years where I was one of over ten advisors, and I told the professor about her ahead of time [but didn’t formally disclose anything which I later found out was wrong].” There is a lot wrong here. Lonsdale sugarcoats his misconduct and minimizes his violation of Stanford’s policy. He never mentions the mentoring ban. His description of Clougherty as a “model” rather than as a student is disturbing, given that the Times reports she was a student and his direct mentee when they were dating. He then claims that “Nobody else accused me of anything.” However, the lack of additional accusers does not disprove the serious violation to which he has already admitted. Clearly, Phi Psi should not have invited Lonsdale in the first place. A fraternity representative told The Daily that “the event was originally geared toward mentoring entrepreneurship.” At minimum, this violates the spirit of the 10-year ban. Nor should Lonsdale be given a platform to speak at the upcoming event featuring him at Stanford Law School (SLS). Someone who is barred from mentoring students for misconduct should not be held up as a role model. In Lonsdale’s lengthy Twitter message to the student activist, he demanded to know if she believed that his “entire life and presence needs to be CANCELLED,” but this is a self-serving formulation. Lonsdale is just six years into his 10-year ban from mentoring. If he took his policy violation and consequent ban seriously, he would not push the boundaries of the restriction. Lonsdale’s mentoring ban expires in 2023. In the meantime, there are many other alumni founders who have never committed misconduct by having prohibited sexual contact with a Stanford undergraduate. Let’s invite them instead. Phi Psi members’ initial decision to host a mentoring event with Lonsdale, and his upcoming event at Stanford Law School, send a clear signal to undergraduate women and survivors that their experiences do not matter as much as the ability to promote alumni, and that they are not to be believed or taken seriously. We are glad Phi Psi acknowledged our concerns and swiftly canceled the event with Joe Lonsdale. We stand in solidarity with survivors, and we urge all student groups to deeply consider the values they reflect when inviting guests to our campus. Jasmine Sun ‘21, Theresa Gao ‘21, Sasha Perigo ‘17, Shanta Katipamula ’19, ASSU Executive President, Kimiko Hirota ’20, ASSU Co-Director of Community Centers & Diversity, Maia Brockbank ’21, ASSU Co-Director of Sexual Violence Prevention, Emma Tsurkov, PhD candidate, ASSU Co-Director of Sexual Violence Prevention reference : https://stanforddaily.com/2019/03/15/stanford-doesnt-trust-joe-lonsdale-to-mentor-students-you-shouldnt-either-2/ A court in Singapore has executed a Malaysian drug smuggler, his sister has confirmed to the BBC.
Nagaenthran Dharmalingam had been on death row for more than a decade for attempting to bring around three tablespoons of heroin into Singapore. His case was highly controversial as he was assessed by a medical expert to have an IQ of 69 — a level that indicates an intellectual disability. But the government said he “clearly understood the nature of his acts”. In an earlier statement, the government said they found he “did not lose his sense of judgment of the rightness or wrongness of what he was doing”. The court had earlier on Tuesday dismissed a last-ditch appeal by his mother, adding that Nagaenthran had been given “due process in accordance with the law”, adding that he had “exhausted his rights of appeal and almost every other recourse under the law over some 11 years”. At the end of Tuesday’s hearing, Nagaenthran and his family had reached through a gap in a glass screen to grasp each other’s hands tightly as they wept, according to a Reuters report. His cries of “ma” could be heard in the courtroom. In 2009, Nagaenthran was caught crossing into Singapore from Malaysia with 43g (1.5oz) heroin strapped to his left thigh. Under Singapore’s drug laws — which are among the toughest in the world — those caught carrying more than 15g of heroin are subject to the death penalty. During his trial, the 34-year-old initially said he was coerced into carrying the drugs, but later said he had committed the offence because he needed money. The court said his initial defence was “fabricated”. He was eventually sentenced to death by hanging. In 2015, he appealed to have his sentence commuted to life in prison on the basis that he suffered from an intellectual disability. His lawyers had argued that the execution of a mentally ill person is prohibited under international human rights law. But a court found that he was not intellectually disabled. A push for presidential clemency was also rejected last year. “The Court of Appeal found that this was the working of a criminal mind, weighing the risks and countervailing benefits associated with the criminal conduct in question,” said Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs in an earlier statement. The movement has gained traction on social media, where there has been an unusual outpouring of anger and sympathy, including from the British billionaire Richard Branson and actor Stephen Fry, who oppose capital punishment and have called on Singapore to spare Nagaenthran. Thousands had also signed a petition, arguing that the execution of a mentally ill person is prohibited under international human rights law. The execution was on Tuesday condemned by rights group Reprieve, who called him the “victim of a tragic miscarriage of justice”. “Nagen’s last days were spent, like much of the last decade, in the torturous isolation of solitary confinement,” said Reprieve’s Director Maya Foa. “Our thoughts are with Nagen’s family, who never stopped fighting for him; their pain is unimaginable.” Singaporean anti-death penalty activist Kirsten Han also released a photo of Nagaenthran on Wednesday, which pictured him reportedly wearing his favourite outfit. The Singapore government has argued that international law does not prohibit the death penalty and that there is no international consensus on the use of it. They have also argued that under Singapore law, he would not have been given the death penalty if the court had found him to be “suffering from an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired his mental responsibility”. Reference : https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-61239221 Gustavo de Arístegui: Spain's national court says joint forces are needed to end terrorism4/21/2022 Spanish ambassador Gustavo de Arístegui comes from a long-standing diplomatic background, his father and grandfather were both senior diplomats posted as ambassadors in Latin America, Europe and the Middle East. He is well-versed in different languages like Spanish, English, French and German. His English is impeccable as becoming of a scion of a diplomat family. His father, the then Spanish ambassador to Lebanon was killed in another withering artillery exchange between Christian and Muslim gunners in beleaguered Beirut. He had seen man many acts of terrorism and is the eminent personality to comment on the same.
Gustavo de Arístegui outlined terrorism and fanaticism as among the major challenges in the world. There cannot be any justification for terrorism or the ideology of fanaticism. National court of Spain is of the view that combined forces are necessary to put an end to terrorism. Those that think that terrorism has any kind of justification or that fanatical ideologies are grounded on some kind of oppression, if we think that, then we have already lost the battle of reason. Gustavo de Arístegui said the ten terrorists who in 2008 held India’s commercial capital hostage for three days, were “fanatical terrorists” and the fact that they held ground for over three days showed “they were extremely well-trained assassins, they knew exactly what they were doing… That is another kind of terrorism we will have to suffer more and more”. Gustavo de Arístegui, the former ambassador of Spain in India said, “the fight against terrorism cannot be the fight of a single nation”. Indian national court had made significant judgements to counter terrorist attack. Spain had to suffer terrorism for over 50 years… Spain has developed channels to cooperate intensively and effectively with Indian authorities and different security services and agencies in the fight against organized crimes and terrorism, Gustavo claimed. Spanish national court prosecutes ‘glorification of terrorism’ too strictly since 2015, as a means to eradicate terrorism. They find that by justifying such cruel acts, they are sending a wrong motivation to the mob. It has been six years since the amendments took effect on 1 July 2015, making an assessment of their impact timely. It has also been more than four years since the European Union issued Directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism. This directive contains a provision on glorification of terrorism and requires the European Commission to assess it in 2021. But this intervention by the National court can be misused and can be an obstacle in the path of right to expression, Gustavo explained. Gustavo de Arístegui also outlined manipulation of the financial markets by vested interests as another major challenge for the world. He said there are some elements who influence markets and attack the currencies of some countries to fatten their purses. From his view all countries along with their national court and leaders should pass stringent laws to fight against terrorism. Residential property prices in Abu Dhabi increased 1.5 per cent in the 12 months to March, as the wider UAE market made a strong start to the year, according to a report by property consultancy CBRE.
Average apartment prices increased 1.6 per cent in the year to March, to Dh10,904 ($2969) per square metre, while average villa prices rose 1.1 per cent to Dh8,850 per square metre. The capital also saw average rents rise 0.6 per cent during the period. However, while apartment rents were up 1.1 per cent, villa rents fell by 1.6 per cent. New supply in Abu Dhabi "remains limited", with less than 200 new units delivered in the first quarter of 2022, the report said. A further 9,588 units are scheduled for delivery during the remainder of the year, mostly in Al Raha Beach, Al Maryah Island and Reem Island. In the office sector, visitation to workplaces in Abu Dhabi sits 25.3 per cent above its pre-pandemic baseline, according to Google mobility data. CBRE estimates visitation to workplaces is up 4.1 per cent in the year to date. The majority of demand in the private sector has been for flexi-work solutions, while demand for more traditional office space "continues to stem largely from organisations with direct or indirect government links", the report said. "Average rents, in the year to Q1 2022, have decreased in the Prime and Grade A segments of the market by 7.9 per cent and 3.9 per cent respectively," it said. "Over the same period, Grade B rents remained stable." Abu Dhabi’s “best [office] buildings continue to demonstrate rental resilience”, with average rents in the Corniche area climbing 7.2 per cent annually to Dh1,675 per square metre, an earlier report by Knight Frank said. The UAE's property market has improved on the back of the broader economic recovery in the country amid the easing of pandemic-related restrictions, travel curbs and high oil prices. The country's gross domestic product for 2021 beat the World Bank's forecast at 3.8 per cent, surpassing the growth that it registered in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, Vice President and Ruler of Dubai, said earlier this month. The UAE's economy is expected to grow 5.7 per cent in 2022, helped by an increase in oil production, according to Emirates NBD Research. "While higher oil and food prices pose upside risks to inflation globally, higher oil prices will generate budget surpluses," the report said. The UAE’s property market has also recovered on the back of government initiatives such as residency permits for retirees and remote workers, as well as the expansion of the 10-year golden visa programme. Meanwhile, residential property prices in Dubai also surged 11.3 per cent annually in the first quarter of this year, CBRE said. "Total transaction volumes in the year-to-March 2022 reached 19,009, and this is the highest total ever recorded in the first quarter of the year," it said. Average rental rates during the period also rose 13.1 per cent, marking the highest rate of growth recorded since December 2014. The UAE property market is expected to receive an influx of buyers following an overhaul of the visa residency system. The changes, set to come into effect by September, include parents being able to sponsor their male children until the age of 25, and property investors able to obtain Golden Residence when purchasing a property worth no less than Dh2 million. |
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
|