openDemocracy: Oslo: the small hotels where we meet

It’s a very important question. Take Norway for example. There is only one big city in Norway, and that is Oslo with 700,000 people. One third are from parts of the world other than Norway and it is the only city that is like that. And people in Oslo are not afraid of diversity. In our recent elections, they voted for the Labour Party, the socialist left, the Green Party. But people in the countryside, people who live in places where they have almost no diversity and don’t see people from other parts of the world, are afraid. I tried to find out: “what is this?” What happened to these small communities? [...]

We saw when we had the refugee crisis, how small villages in Norway who set up refugee camps reacted when they started closing down because there were no more refugees. Many of them started saying, “Give us back the refugees!” Because they had become friends with the refugees! If you don’t meet a man or woman from Syria, you may be afraid of the hijab, or of the men. But if you meet them, maybe in another village, then you can start a dialogue.  [...]

I think that they must be. But maybe we are not good enough on that front. You were talking about Breivik. When I talked to him about those things and asked him, “Why do you hate people of a different skin colour from yourself?”, he has lots of answers. But I can see from an old photo when Breivik was in his second year at school that he was together with a boy who was totally black. I asked him,” Did you like him?” He said, “Yes, of course, he was my best friend!” “How can you become best friends with this guy?” Breivik said, “He’s not like the rest of them!” And when I talked to the young Nazis, they said the same thing. ”I hate them, but he’s not like that”, because they know him. So it is very important, as we said, that when we have big festivals, it must be a festival for everybody!  And as I was saying earlier today, our diversity campaigns must not be narrow – they must be much wider, not just concentrating on students or on certain people in certain departments ­– and that it is the ways we meet that are most important.

read the article

Aeon: The copy is the original

The Chinese have two different concepts of a copy. Fangzhipin (仿製品) are imitations where the difference from the original is obvious. These are small models or copies that can be purchased in a museum shop, for example. The second concept for a copy is fuzhipin (複製品). They are exact reproductions of the original, which, for the Chinese, are of equal value to the original. It has absolutely no negative connotations. The discrepancy with regard to the understanding of what a copy is has often led to misunderstandings and arguments between China and Western museums. The Chinese often send copies abroad instead of originals, in the firm belief that they are not essentially different from the originals. The rejection that then comes from the Western museums is perceived by the Chinese as an insult. [...]

In the West, when monuments are restored, old traces are often particularly highlighted. Original elements are treated like relics. The Far East is not familiar with this cult of the original. It has developed a completely different technique of preservation that might be more effective than conservation or restoration. This takes place through continual reproduction. This technique completely abolishes the difference between original and replica. We might also say that originals preserve themselves through copies. Nature provides the model. The organism also renews itself through continual cell-replacement. After a certain period of time, the organism is a replica of itself. The old cells are simply replaced by new cell material. In this case, the question of an original does not arise. The old dies off and is replaced by the new. Identity and renewal are not mutually exclusive. In a culture where continual reproduction represents a technique for conservation and preservation, replicas are anything but mere copies. [...]

The preservation of historical monuments in the modern sense of the term begins with the museumisation of the past, whereby cult value increasingly gives way to exhibition value. Interestingly, this goes hand in hand with the rise of tourism. The so-called Grand Tour that began in the Renaissance and reached its apogee in the 18th century was a precursor of modern tourism. In the eyes of tourists, the exhibition value of ancient buildings and artworks, which were presented to them as attractions, increased. In the same century as tourism was beginning, the first measures to preserve ancient structures were undertaken. Now it seemed imperative to preserve ancient structures. The onset of industrialisation further increased the need for the conservation and museumisation of the past. In addition, the burgeoning fields of art history and archaeology discovered the epistemological value of old buildings and artworks, and rejected any intervention that might alter them.

read the article

The Telegraph: Beware 'Disease X': the mystery killer keeping scientists awake at night

Disease X is not a newly identified pathogen but what military planners call a “known unknown”. It’s a disease sparked by a biological mutation, or perhaps an accident or terror attack, that catches the world by surprise and spreads fast.

By including it on the list, the WHO is acknowledging that infectious diseases and the epidemics they spawn are inherently unpredictable. Like the Spanish flu which killed 50m to 100m people between 1918 and 1920, Disease X is the catastrophe nobody saw coming until it was too late. [...]

On the bright side, the number of incidents involving bioweapons to date has been very low, with hoaxes far outnumbering genuine attacks. Non-state actors, including IS, appear to lack the capacity to develop a bio-weapon with large scale reach.  [...]

Only last year Canadian researchers published a peer-reviewed paper detailing how they had synthetically engineered horsepox (a close relative of the smallpox virus) from scratch using equipment now which falls within the reach of many terror groups.

The paper’s publication has been widely condemned as a security breach. The details provided could “substantively assist those with lesser degrees of experience to synthesize smallpox”, said one critic.

read the article

SciShow Psych: How Your Baby Changes Your Brain

Forbes Why White Evangelicalism Is So Cruel

Robert Jeffress, Pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas and an avid supporter of Donald Trump, earned headlines this week for his defense of the president’s adultery with a porn star. Regarding the affair and subsequent financial payments, Jeffress explained, “Even if it’s true, it doesn’t matter.”

Such a casual attitude toward adultery and prostitution might seem odd from a guy who blamed 9/11 on America’s sinfulness. However, seen through the lens of white evangelicals’ real priorities, Jeffress’ disinterest in Trump’s sordid lifestyle makes sense. Religion is inseparable from culture, and culture is inseparable from history. Modern, white evangelicalism emerged from the interplay between race and religion in the slave states. What today we call “evangelical Christianity,” is the product of centuries of conditioning, in which religious practices were adapted to nurture a slave economy. The calloused insensitivity of modern white evangelicals was shaped by the economic and cultural priorities that forged their theology over centuries. [...]

Southern denominations faced enormous social and political pressure from plantation owners. Public expressions of dissent on the subject of slavery in the South were not merely outlawed, they were a death sentence. Baptist ministers who rejected slavery, like South Carolina’s William Henry Brisbane, were forced to flee to the North. Otherwise, they would end up like Methodist minister Anthony Bewley, who was lynched in Texas in 1860, his bones left exposed at local store to be played with by children. Whiteness offered protection from many of the South’s cruelties, but that protection stopped at the subject of race. No one who dared speak truth to power on the subject of slavery, or later Jim Crow, could expect protection. [...]

What developed in the South was a theology carefully tailored to meet the needs of a slave state. Biblical emphasis on social justice was rendered miraculously invisible. A book constructed around the central metaphor of slaves finding their freedom was reinterpreted. Messages which might have questioned the inherent superiority of the white race, constrained the authority of property owners, or inspired some interest in the poor or less fortunate could not be taught from a pulpit. Any Christian suggestion of social justice was carefully and safely relegated to “the sweet by and by” where all would be made right at no cost to white worshippers. In the forge of slavery and Jim Crow, a Christian message of courage, love, compassion, and service to others was burned away.

read the article

Vox: The UK prime minister says Russia tried to assassinate an ex-spy on UK soil

If this happens, May would probably target Russian oligarchs, access to British banks, and perhaps even military officials with ties to the chemical program, experts told me.

It’s also possible that the effects of the attack will spread. British authorities are recommending that around 500 people wash their clothes, rinse off their glasses, and clean their cellphones with baby wipes because they may have been exposed to the nerve agent at the restaurant or pub. [...]

US intelligence links at least 14 deaths in the UK to Russia, including outspoken oligarchs and journalists. “We know the Russians have an active program of killing people in the UK that they don’t like,” a British intelligence officer told Steven Hall, a former CIA official focused on Russia, according to BuzzFeed News. [...]

So it’s unclear if Trump will join Britain in punishing Russia with sanctions, or what exactly the measure will be. But it’s clear May feels her fellow citizens were attacked — and she will likely do something about it.

read the article

The Guardian: Five years on, Pope Francis has failed to deliver on his promises

Two issues above all remain a problem for him: child abuse and the role of women. Francis’s creation of a special commission to examine the global problem of children being abused by priests was considered a breakthrough. Four years down the line, and with the two abuse victims who were members having resigned, it seems no nearer to producing new ways of dealing with the issue. And despite Francis’s own zero-tolerance comments about abuse, there have been occasions when he has seemed unwilling to take action against those involved.  [...]

There are certain changes that Francis has made. There is a new tone, focused on mercy and understanding, rather than rigid roles and condemnation of people. This is typified by his “Who am I to judge?” comment about gay people. He emphasises the church serving others and working with other Christian churches. He highlights the plight of the marginalised. He is a charismatic public figure, a successful one-man PR campaign for Christian values. But while the church may not have a reverse gear, its progress is at snail’s pace.

Two things above all are impeding its progress. The Vatican’s career bureaucrats are one. If Francis is to enact further change, he has to rethink their hold on power. The simplest way to deal with it would be to limit how many years they can serve in Rome to 10, or even five. He could also open up Vatican posts to lay people, men and women. The other big issue that needs to be addressed is the role of pope itself. Being a roving global peacemaker, managing a church of 1.2 billion people, trying to reform Rome, writing theological documents and being a spiritual guide – it’s hard to see how one human being can do all this, especially at the age of 80. When the cardinals went to the ends of the earth to find Francis, they handed him a mission impossible. His greatest legacy, as he contemplates the next five years, would be to rethink the role of the pope itself.

read the article

The Guardian: Tory links to Russia and Saudis run deep. So where’s the media outrage?

Before we get out the bunting, though, let’s look at one donation as an example. It was 2014, and Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Russia’s former deputy finance minister, paid the princely sum of £160,000 to play tennis with David Cameron and Boris Johnson. In total, since 2012 – when the Electoral Commission initially declared her an “impermissible donor”, before subsequently allowing her to donate – she has handed the Tories £514,000.

I put it to you gently that if Labour took half a million pounds from the wife of a former Cuban minister, there would be no debate about whether this represented a scandalous financial relationship with the Cuban regime. Other examples include £400,000 from Gérard Lopez, a businessmen on the board of a company that partnered with Russian banks that had sanctions imposed on them during the Ukraine crisis. [...]

In 2011, for example, the Financial Times reported that “even donors admit that Tory MPs’ desire to cut the 50p top rate of income tax is because these rich City donors are so close to the party”. This same City of London is awash with dodgy money from Russia. No wonder, then, that in 2014 a secret government document revealed plans to stop any sanctions against Russia that might damage the City. Labour has attempted to introduce legislation that could prevent certain Russian individuals entering Britain or block their assets: how mysterious, then, that the Tories blocked it for “technical reasons”. [...]

And then there is the Tories’ financial heart. The Qatari dictatorship owns three times more property in London than the Queen, and more than the mayoralty. Indeed, the Qatar Investment Authority owns Canary Wharf, the Shard and Harrods. Let’s be clear: the Qatari regime has backed extremist and terrorist organisations, as have wealthy individuals under its jurisdiction. As Paddy Ashdown put it in 2015, David Cameron failed to put sufficient pressure on Qatar and Saudi Arabia to stop funding extremism, leading Ashdown to “worry about the closeness between the Conservative party and rich Arab Gulf individuals”. Consider Theresa May’s refusal to publish a report on foreign funding of extremism. Well, it would hardly go down well with the Gulf states, which are so deeply embedded in Tory milieus, would it?

read the article

openDemocracy: ‘We won’t give up’: 25 years of feminist resistance to the war on women’s bodies in Poland

According to official statistics, only 1,098 legal abortions were performed in the whole country in 2016. Many more women terminate their pregnancies illegally, in conditions that may be unsafe, amid a climate of fear and intimidation. Those who can afford it, may travel outside of the country to access these services.

In 2013, 20 years after the restrictive law was passed, a poll from the Public Opinion Research Centre (CBOS) found that as many as one in three Polish women have had an abortion. A Poland free from abortion is a pure fiction. [...]

In January 2018, the Polish parliament rejected our proposal to make abortion safe and legal, and instead voted to continue work on a project put forward by hardline conservative group to also outlaw abortion in cases where the foetus has a congenital disorder – which account for 95% of all legal abortions performed in Poland today. [...]

We also reject homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. Poland is one of the worst states in EU to be an LGBTIQ individual. More than 2 million people in our country live in same-sex relationships but have no right to legalise them through marriage if they wish to. Violence against LGBTIQ people is common and goes unpunished.

read the article