openDemocracy: Terms and conditions apply: Georgia and Ukraine’s visa-free victory

A political climate hostile to immigration among EU states turned the rather technical procedure of lifting restrictions on short-term visas into a highly politicised ordeal. Concerns over the supposed threat of increased irregular migration and organised crime based largely on anecdotal evidence were used as an excuse by certain EU member states to stall the process and push through a much harsher visa suspension mechanism for all third countries that enjoy visa-free travel to the EU. As part of its strategy of externalising migration controls to third countries, the EU can now swiftly reinstate visa requirements if third countries fail to, for example, accept rejected asylum seekers or effectively prevent the transit of irregular migrants.  [...]

To add insult to injury, Ukrainians in particular were subject to regulations that required them to check-in in person at EU embassies and get their passports stamped upon returning from their trip abroad. Back in 2011, there were multiple reports of consulates forcing Ukrainian citizens to leave behind deposits (in the form of personal documents or money) to ensure they would not overstay their visas. These measures, which were condemned by Ukrainian civil society organisations such as Europe Without Barriers, made obtaining a Schengen visa a thoroughly humiliating, time-consuming and frustrating procedure, particularly for young, independent travellers and those with limited financial means. [...]

In fact, resistance on the part of some of the most influential EU member states such as France, Germany and the Netherlands threatened to sabotage the entire process, sapping the patience of Georgian and Ukrainian officials and weakening public trust in the prospect of imminent visa liberalisation. Unsubstantiated arguments about the dangers of an influx of irregular migration and criminality was used as justification for stalling negotiations in the same way as France, Germany and Netherlands had stalled visa liberalisation for the Western Balkans several years prior on the basis of the high number of asylum claims emanating from the region.

read the article 

Haaretz: Author Jamaica Kincaid, a Jewish Convert, Knows Exactly What's Wrong With Israel

When asked a few hours before the ceremony about the Knesset’s new nation-state bill, which aims to stop Arabic being an official language in Israel, Kincaid – who converted to Judaism many years ago and is on her fifth visit here – says she read about it but hoped it wasn’t true. [...]

“Well, that seems to be a problem here. What do you do next? And the solution seems to be a cultivation of some of the worst things that have been directed at Jews themselves. How does this end? I mean, people use words like apartheid and colonization – that’s not what’s happening here. Something is, but I don’t think we’ve found the right words for it. It’s something new that’s going on, and maybe when you are in something, you can’t find the right words. It’s like apartheid – it might be heading that way. That language bill was not a good sign. What made people think that was a thing to do? It’s madness.” [...]

“I think one of the reasons this whole thing with the occupation and the territories is so alive is because most people do what Israelis do, just do it. They just do it! It’s not a conversation. You conquer the line, you drive the people off it, or you kill them. You know, you just do it. Then you move on. And maybe 100 years later, you have a little ceremony where you say, the head of state says, ‘I’m so sorry I did that.’ But you just do it. So yeah, it’s a burden,” she notes. “Every human being should get up every day and realize that to be alive is a burden. That’s a debate: Am I going to eat this; am I going to be cruel; am I going to be kind; who am I? And I suppose that’s what I like about being a Jew. It’s a burden.”

read the article 

The Conversation: Note to Margaret Court: the Bible isn’t meant to be read that literally

In the Hebrew scriptures, Abraham fathered children with his concubine as well as his wife, and Moses likely had two wives (one of whom is presented as problematic because she was a foreigner). Famous biblical kings, like David and Solomon, had entire palaces full of often dubiously acquired wives and concubines that served as symbols of their power and status.

The reality is families in the Bible reflect the patriarchal structures of their period. Women were considered commodities to be married off for political alliances, economic reasons, or to keep families connected. They had no autonomy to choose their partners.

Polygamy was common, as was the use of slaves as sexual concubines. I don’t hear anyone advocating a “biblical view” of marriage suggesting we return to those particular scenarios.

In the New Testament, Jesus said nothing about homosexual relationships or marriage, except that people should not divorce. This teaching is widely ignored by many Christian denominations today. Most likely, Jesus’ concern in speaking against divorce was for the vulnerable place in which it left women, given they could not usually earn their own money or inherit.

Marriage was allowed in the New Testament, but the most prolific writer, Paul, thinks celibacy is preferable for a Christian. When Paul writes “there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28), he presents an ideology profoundly disruptive of patriarchal family structures, gender roles and hierarchy. [...]

Indeed, if Court applied the literalism with which she reads Genesis to the whole of the Bible, she’d find herself in hot water, since 1 Timothy 2:12 explicitly forbids women teaching or having any authority over men. This kind of culturally bound ideology is precisely why biblical scholars and mainstream Christian churches do not adhere to a literal interpretation of this ancient and diverse text.

read the article 

ArguingFromIgnorance: Election 2017 — Part 2 — Where Do The Parties Stand On Brexit?

The Atlantic: Japan's Lower Parliament Passes Law Allowing Its Emperor to Abdicate

Amid fears that permanently allowing emperors to abdicate could subject monarchs to political manipulation, the new bill is set to expire in three years, and cannot be applied to any subsequent emperor. Legislators were open to the special provision due to Akihito’s age and declining health. The emperor, who is now 83 years old, underwent heart bypass surgery in 2012 and previously received treatment for prostate cancer, including a surgery in 2003. The surgery marked the first time a Japanese emperor was operated on outside of palace grounds, once more signaling the progressive direction of Akihito’s monarchy. As Japan’s ruler during World War II, Akihito’s father, Emperor Shōwa, was accused of carrying out horrific war crimes. As a result, Akihito’s nearly 30-year reign has been characterized by making amends for past suffering inflicted by Japan.  

In many ways, the current Japanese monarchy has been one of firsts. Akihito is the first member of the Japanese imperial family to marry someone without royal heritage. He met his wife, Michiko Shōda, on a tennis court in 1957. Akihito is also the first emperor of Japan who was never considered divine. Japanese legend claims the nation’s imperial house—the oldest continuous monarchy in the world—is descended from the sun goddess, Amaterasu. Akihito’s father was the first monarch to renounce the concept of a divine emperor. [...]

As it stands, women who marry must leave the imperial family. Imperial Household Law also stipulates that women cannot become monarchs. Discourse among legislators and academics surrounding the royal status of women has carried on for years. According to a recent Kyodo News survey, 86 percent of Japanese citizens would support a female empress, while 62 percent would support allowing female members of the imperial family to remain royal after marriage. Another 68 percent said they supported revising the Imperial House Law to allow any future emperor to abdicate the throne

read the article 

Haaretz: Trump and Netanyahu Are Deluding Themselves Over Sunni Coalition

The paradox is that while Qatar hosts the largest U.S. air base in the Middle East, it is also an ally of Iran, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood (which is defined in both Saudi Arabia and Egypt as a terrorist organization), and funds extremist Syrian militias, including those affiliated with Al-Qaida. [...]

The Arab settling of scores with Qatar does not end there. For decades, the regime-controlled Al Jazeera has served as a tool to attack other Arab countries and leverage Qatar’s influence on Arab public opinion. The network’s unreserved support for the Muslim Brotherhood led to a long feud with Egypt; a television series about relations between the founder of the Jordanian monarchy and the Zionist movement infuriated Jordan; and the exposure of corruption in Saudi Arabia rocked the House of Saud. Last week, a Saudi newspaper, Al Jazirah, published an article stating: “Confusion is shrouding the small country that grew up and became a television station.” [...]

For example, even when it has supported extremist Islamic groups, Qatar has had official relations with Israel. And while it has cooperated with Turkey in the fight against Syrian President Bashar Assad, hosted conferences of the Syrian opposition and funded anti-Assad militias, at the same time, Qatar has offered its services as a mediator between the rebel militias and the Syrian regime. It is a member of the Sunni Muslim coalition that King Salman of Saudi Arabia established 18 months ago, which was intended to confront Iranian influence – at the same time Qatar and Iran have joint ownership and management of the world’s largest natural gas field (in the Persian Gulf), and even have joint agreements for military cooperation. [...]

Qatar may be the most prominent example of how a Sunni Arab state can maintain strong relations with the two “religious axes” at the same time without losing its relationship with the United States. The fabric of Qatar’s ties shows that national and economic interests are more important than a shared religious foundation – more so than the shared religious component between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which has created tensions between the two countries, despite the fact both are acting to block the growing Iranian influence.

read the article

Politico: Leo Varadkar wins leadership of Ireland’s ruling party

At 38, Varadkar, who won 60 percent support in the party’s electoral college, will become the youngest person to lead the Irish government since it gained independence from Britain in 1922. The current minister for social protection is also openly gay and the son of a Hindu immigrant father who was born in India. He trained as a medical doctor. [...]

Varadkar takes over at a time when the country prepares to tackle three major issues which, if handled poorly, could backfire politically on the Irish government, which comprises of 11 Fine Gael parliamentarians, known as TDs, and three independents in cabinet, as well as the agreed support of the main opposition party, Fianna Fáil.

Formal negotiations on Brexit will commence later this month with the future for the border separating the Republic of Ireland from Northern Ireland still unclear, an issue which could have massive implications for the Irish economy.

Added to this is a major housing crisis in the greater Dublin area and the prospect of the fourth referendum in 34 years on the delicate issue of abortion. [...]

A number of back-bench members of parliament who were disgruntled at being overlooked for promotion by Kenny, opted for Varadkar instead of his closest leadership rival Simon Coveney when it became clear three weeks ago that Varadkar’s bid was building momentum.

read the article 

Quartz: China is touting its protection of human rights in a Muslim-majority region riven by violence

The report, titled “Human Rights in Xinjiang—Development and Progress” was issued by the information office of the State Council, China’s propaganda department. The introduction to the report (link in Chinese) declares that “Before 1949, when People’s Republic of China was founded, people in Xinjiang had been suffering from foreign invasions’ influences, ripped by the feudal society and suppressed by privileged religious stratum.” Since then, it goes on to say, China has provided the foundations for “people with different ethnicities in Xinjiang to truly enjoy human rights.”

Not everyone agrees with Beijing’s definition of “human rights.” The violence-prone region’s 10 million Muslim Uyghurs say they are treated as second-class citizens, and the community has been targeted by the authorities as part of the effort to wipe out homegrown terrorists in recent years. The report hardly mentioned any of China’s ongoing crackdowns. [...]

In March, authorities passed a new regulation that bans over a dozen behaviors that authorities deem “abnormal,” including wearing an veil or a beard, common practices by Muslims.

read the article 

Al Jazeera: Has Katie Hopkins committed a hate crime?

Hopkins' use of the words "final solution" - the Nazi term for the Holocaust - was interpreted to mean that she was advocating the killing of Muslims. Complaints were made to the police who are reviewing the matter and, as a result of the public outcry, Hopkins was fired from her job as a presenter at LBC radio, although she remains a columnist for the Daily Mail. [...]

Indeed, Hopkins' writings reveal a pattern of abusive and inflammatory language conveying a message of hatred and fear about Muslims, which, it could be argued, amounts cumulatively to a form of religiously aggravated hate speech. For instance, she stokes up fear against Muslims when she describes Muslim demonstrators as "the vanguard of an army that can hide in plain sight amongst us" in one of her articles . At other times she is plainly abusive, such as in a recent tweet where she, in effect, called Muslims "nasty sods".  [...]

The answer is that, sadly,  Islamophobia is so endemic within the British media and society at large - as has been well documented by organisations such as the independent think tank, the Runnymede Trust, and the Islamic Human Rights Commission - that when Hopkins expresses Islamophobic views, they are not recognised for what they are, but, instead, are treated as legitimate, if inflammatory, expressions of political opinion.

read the article