#they commit acts of terror on large governing systems | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

xtruss · 10 months ago

Text

Foreign Policy Priorities: Kamala Devi Harris’s Positions

— By Council on Foreign Relations

AI and Technology

Harris has played a leading role in developing U.S. policy toward artificial intelligence (AI). The Biden-Harris administration has framed supporting the U.S. technology sector as a matter of national security, even as it has sought to confront large tech companies for alleged unfair market practices.

Harris led the formulation of an executive order requiring companies to share with the government risks they are facing and outlining a framework for the safe use of AI that federal agencies can follow.

She reportedly suggested that leading AI firms agree to voluntary safety commitments, including a pledge to submit their most powerful models for government review; fifteen of them did so in 2023. She also led efforts to develop rules surrounding military use of AI that have been agreed to by more than fifty countries.

The Biden-Harris administration passed the CHIPS and Science Act in August 2022, directing more than $280 billion in funding toward domestic production of advanced technologies and the hardware that underpins their development, such as semiconductors.

The same year, the administration published an “AI Bill of Rights” identifying five principles for the responsible deployment of the technology. Harris says U.S. policy toward AI should both stimulate innovation and protect against “profound harm.”

Harris represented the United States at the first international AI governance summit in London in 2023. The summit produced a joint declaration that seeks to ensure the technology is “human-centric, trustworthy, and responsible.” China has also signed the statement.

The Biden-Harris administration unveiled a new National Cybersecurity Strategy in 2023 that urges U.S. companies to take responsibility for ensuring that their systems cannot be hacked and suggests that they could be held legally liable for not protecting “digital infrastructure.” The strategy also called for expanding U.S. military authorization to preempt foreign cyberattacks.

The administration has asked Congress to create legislation strengthening antitrust enforcement that can be used against large technology firms. The Department of Justice has pursued antitrust cases against Apple, Amazon, Google, and other big tech firms.

The administration has cracked down on cryptocurrencies due to concerns over their utility in evading sanctions, laundering money, and financing terrorism. It has directed the Federal Reserve to explore developing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Harris is reportedly seeking a “reset” with the crypto sector.

China

Harris says China is responsible for stealing intellectual property and distorting the global economy with unfairly subsidized exports. The Biden-Harris administration has argued that China’s growing influence and aggression in some areas are the leading national security threat to the United States.

Harris says she will ensure that “America, not China, wins the competition for the twenty-first century.” The Biden-Harris administration has placed stringent restrictions on exports of high-tech products to China that it deems critical to national security. It has pressed U.S. partners in the European Union and elsewhere to impose similar measures on Chinese tech.

She argues that the United States should “de-risk,” not decouple, from China, arguing that Washington lost the trade war that began under Trump. The administration has retained $360 billion worth of tariffs on China imposed by Trump and introduced a raft of its own.

These restrictions followed major legislation that subsidized domestic manufacturing of computer chips, electric vehicle parts, and other new technologies. Firms that produce such goods in China are not eligible for U.S. subsidies.

Harris says the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok poses national security concerns. In April 2024, Biden signed a bill that will ban TikTok from the United States if it is not sold by 2025; Harris has said a ban is not the administration’s intention.

In 2022, she said the United States would “continue to support Taiwan’s self-defense” in line with long-standing U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” toward the island that China claims as its own.

Her campaign says she helped lead administration efforts to ensure freedom of navigation through the South China Sea and sought closer ties with American allies in the Indo-Pacific, including Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea. In April 2024, Harris hosted the first-ever trilateral summit between the United States, Japan, and the Philippines.

Harris met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in 2022, urging him to “maintain open lines of communication to responsibly manage the competition between our countries.” Under the Biden-Harris administration, the United States and China agreed to pursue policies aimed at tripling global renewable energy capacity.

The Biden-Harris administration unveiled two programs aimed at building infrastructure in lower-income countries to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

As a senator, Harris cosponsored legislation calling on several U.S. agencies to investigate China’s crackdown on the Uyghur ethnic group and the autonomy of Hong Kong.

Climate Change

Harris describes the climate crisis as an “existential threat.” She has supported many of Biden’s climate policies, including his decision to rejoin the Paris Agreement, and cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate to pass the largest clean energy and climate investment bill in U.S. history.

Harris backed Biden’s decision to return the United States to the 2015 Paris Agreement, under which nearly two hundred countries agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to limit global temperature rise.

She cast the tiebreaking vote on the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the largest investment in climate-related policies in U.S. history. The bill budgets roughly $370 billion for emissions-reduction efforts, including tax credits and subsidies for clean energy projects. The IRA builds on the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), a $1.2 trillion law to upgrade U.S. infrastructure and spur the adoption of electric vehicles, among other measures.

As part of the IIJA, the Biden-Harris administration created the Civil Nuclear Credit Program to invest $6 billion in existing nuclear energy facilities. In March 2024, the administration announced it will lend $1.5 billion to Michigan to restart a shuttered nuclear plant, the nation’s first such recommissioning.

Harris launched a new partnership between the United States and Caribbean countries that seeks to strengthen energy security, critical infrastructure, and local economies in the region.

At the 2023 UN climate conference in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Harris announced a $3 billion pledge from the United States to the UN Green Climate Fund, the world’s largest fund dedicated to helping developing countries address climate change.

The Biden-Harris administration created the American Climate Corps, a jobs program that aims to train tens of thousands of young people in high-demand skills for careers in climate action and clean energy. The program is modeled after President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps.

The Biden-Harris administration has approved a range of new fossil fuel projects, including an $8 billion oil drilling project in northern Alaska. However, it also announced restrictions on new oil and gas leasing on 13 million acres (5.3 million hectares) of an Alaskan federal petroleum reserve. Under the administration, oil and gas production has continued to grow to historic highs, with the United States becoming the world’s largest crude oil producer.

As a 2020 presidential candidate, Harris put forth a $10 trillion plan that called for net-zero emissions by 2045 and a carbon-neutral electricity sector by 2030. She also pledged to end federal support for the fossil fuel industry and called for a carbon tax and a ban on fracking. Her 2024 campaign said she will not ban fracking.

As a senator in 2019, Harris was an early co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a nonbinding congressional resolution that aimed to help the United States transition to 100 percent clean energy within a decade, and said she would eliminate the Senate filibuster to pass the deal if needed.

Defense and North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO)

Harris has positioned herself as a strong supporter of multilateral cooperation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). She has emphasized the U.S. commitment to Ukraine and furthered U.S. space policy as chair of the White House National Space Council.

The Biden-Harris administration’s 2022 National Security Strategy [PDF] broadly maintained the Trump administration’s focus on great-power competition with China and Russia. Harris has pledged to ensure the United States “always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”

At the Munich Security Conference in 2024, Harris reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to NATO, calling it the “greatest military alliance the world has ever known.” Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Biden-Harris administration supported NATO enlargement by pushing for approval of Finland’s and Sweden’s accession bids. (The countries joined NATO in 2023 and 2024, respectively.)

The Biden-Harris administration also formulated an updated Indo-Pacific Strategy [PDF], which pledges to support “a free and open Indo-Pacific.” To that end, the United States has inked a new defense pact with Papua New Guinea and advanced an existing defense agreement with the Philippines. The Biden-Harris administration has also deepened security cooperation with Japan and South Korea, and it held the inaugural in-person summit of the so-called Quad—an alliance comprising the United States, Australia, India, and Japan—which aims to counter China in the Indo-Pacific.

The administration announced a new trilateral pact with Australia and the United Kingdom, known as AUKUS, that seeks to bolster the countries’ allied deterrence and defense capabilities against China, including by supplying Australia with nuclear-powered submarines.

Harris has called for greater involvement with Africa, and in 2023, led a weeklong trip to the continent. In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration published a new Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa [PDF] that emphasizes democracy protection, economic development, and the clean energy transition; that same year, a U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit produced commitments to increase U.S. military aid and training for African governments.

Harris chairs the White House’s National Space Council, which advises the president on space policy and strategy. In 2022, she announced the U.S. commitment to halt anti-satellite weapons tests, which create dangerous atmospheric debris. She has also overseen a large increase in the number of signatories to the Artemis Accords, a global agreement governing space-related activity.

In 2019, she told CFR that the war in Afghanistan “must come to an end.” The Biden-Harris administration withdrew all remaining U.S. troops from the country in August 2021 as part of an earlier deal struck by Trump.

She also told CFR that she would consider some sanctions relief to improve life for North Koreans in exchange for Pyongyang taking “serious, verifiable steps” to denuclearize.

As a senator, Harris voted against reauthorizing parts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because it did not require warrants for the government to access U.S. citizens’ information.

Fiscal Policy and Debt

The Biden-Harris administration has focused on making public investments in infrastructure and green energy, expanding the middle class, and challenging monopolistic consolidation. To pay for a surge in spending, it has sought to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Harris supported legislation signed by Biden that authorized trillions of dollars in new public spending. In 2021, the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the largest infrastructure spending bill in decades, authorized $1.2 trillion in spending toward U.S. roads, railways, airports, and other infrastructure. Additional subsidies for semiconductor and climate investments have surpassed $800 billion.

Nonpartisan watchdogs expect that the administration’s spending programs will increase the growing federal deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next decade. The deficit is now $1.7 trillion, and the national debt has climbed past $30 trillion, or more than 100 percent of U.S. economic output.

She has backed Biden’s proposals to institute $5 trillion worth of tax increases. She supports raising the top income tax rate, taxing capital gains like income for Americans making more than $1 million, and implementing a wealth tax that would impose a 25 percent levy on individuals with more than $100 million worth of total assets, including unrealized gains. She also favors raising the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent.

Harris says that building the middle class will be a “defining goal” of her presidency. Her proposed policies include raising the minimum wage, eliminating taxes on tips, and creating a newborn child tax credit of up to $6,000 per year. The economic proposals in a fact sheet released by the Harris campaign would add $1.7 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, according to some estimates.

In 2018, she proposed legislation that called for reversing the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Many of these cuts are set to expire in 2025; Biden has proposed maintaining cuts for Americans making less than $400,000, a plan Harris now supports.

In 2021, the Biden-Harris administration brokered a global agreement to tax corporations at a minimum of 15 percent, though it is yet to be implemented. A year later, the administration introduced a 15 percent corporate minimum tax on U.S. companies with annual income over $1 billion. Harris supports raising that rate to 21 percent.

The administration has made antitrust policy a priority, challenging alleged monopolies in the aviation, energy, and technology sectors. In 2022, the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice recorded the most challenges to proposed mergers since the United States began requiring premerger reviews in 1976.

Global Health and Pandemic Prevention

Harris has prioritized national and international health-care issues. She has long been an outspoken supporter of reproductive rights, advocating for new legislation to restore abortion rights overturned by the Supreme Court. She has also played a role in the administration’s efforts to address the opioid epidemic.

The Biden-Harris administration pursued an aggressive COVID-19 vaccination policy that included free vaccine access and a nationwide vaccine mandate that would have affected most large employers. (The Supreme Court later struck down the mandate.) In 2021, the administration released a national pandemic strategy [PDF] that focused on quickly ramping up vaccine production, protecting essential workers, and expanding access to testing and treatment.

The administration issued an executive order retracting Trump’s decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization, to which the United States is one of the largest donors.

In 2023, Harris convened state attorneys general from across the country to discuss state and federal efforts to address the U.S. opioid epidemic. The Biden-Harris administration has declared synthetic opioid trafficking a national emergency; sanctioned firms and individuals in China, a critical node in the drug’s supply chain; and pushed China and Mexico to do more to stem the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration unveiled a new national biodefense strategy [PDF] that aims to help the United States better prepare for large-scale biological or viral threats that could emerge in the future. The strategy led to the creation of the White House’s Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, tasked with coordinating, leading, and implementing pandemic preparedness efforts.

Harris has been a leading voice on reproductive rights. She criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a 1973 decision which recognized a constitutional right to abortion, and supports new legislation to enshrine Roe into federal law. In 2021, the Biden-Harris administration rescinded the so-called Mexico City policy blocking abortion-related programs from receiving U.S. foreign aid, saying that it undermined U.S. efforts to support women’s health.

As a senator, Harris cosponsored legislation that sought to ban states from imposing restrictions on abortion rights, and she voted against a bill that aimed to ban abortions after twenty weeks.

Immigration

Harris advocates for comprehensive immigration reform. She was tasked with leading the federal effort to address the root causes of migration from Central America, though her comments dissuading would-be migrants from traveling to the United States have created controversy.

Harris has promised to reform the “broken” immigration system, including by bringing back and signing into law the bipartisan border security bill that failed twice in Congress.

Biden tapped Harris to lead the administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from Central America’s so-called Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Since 2021, Harris has helped secure some $5 billion in private sector investment to promote economic opportunities and curb violence in Central America.

During her first international trip to Guatemala and Mexico in 2021, she told would-be migrants thinking about making the dangerous trek to the southern U.S. border “do not come” given the likelihood they would be turned away by border authorities.

The Biden-Harris administration reinstated the Central American Minors program, which has allowed thousands of children from the Northern Triangle to gain refugee status or temporary legal residence before traveling to the southern U.S. border.

The Biden-Harris administration has sought to rebuild the U.S. refugee resettlement program after Trump made large cuts. In fiscal year 2023, the United States welcomed more than sixty thousand refugees, over double the previous year. The administration also created new parole programs that have welcomed tens of thousands of Afghan and Ukrainian refugees to the United States.

The administration has sought to restore asylum access, including by ending daily limits on asylum applications and restoring protections to victims of domestic and gang violence. However, it unveiled a new policy in 2023 that allows the government to deny asylum to migrants who did not previously apply for it in a third country and to those who cross the border illegally. This approach includes new screening centers in several Latin American countries.

In 2024, the administration also issued an order temporarily blocking people who illegally cross the border from seeking asylum once the number of daily crossings exceeds a certain threshold—which it has for much of Biden’s presidency. A separate order also expanded green card access for certain undocumented immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens.

The administration has expanded and renewed temporary protected status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of eligible nationals of several countries, including Afghanistan, Cameroon, and Ukraine.

The Biden-Harris team has expanded the capacity of some guest worker visa programs in response to the increasing demand for temporary workers.

As a presidential candidate in 2019, she put forth an immigration plan that called for the creation of a path to citizenship for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, a program launched by former President Barack Obama that provides deportation relief and work permits to undocumented migrants brought to the United States illegally as children.

In 2020, she reintroduced the Access to Counsel Act, which would ensure that people held or detained while entering the United States have access to legal counsel. She originally introduced the bill—her first as a senator—in 2017. She also supported legislation that would have expedited the reunification of immigrant families.

Middle East

Harris backs Israel’s right to self-defense but has also been outspoken about the toll on Palestinian civilians amid the war between Israel and Hamas. She supports an immediate cease-fire and hostage release as well as a two-state solution to the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Harris reiterated her support for Israel in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July 2024. She has welcomed U.S. military aid to Israel, which has topped $12 billion since Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023, and her campaign says she does not support an arms embargo on the country.

Harris called for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war in March 2024, one month before Biden did. She said she supports “Israel’s legitimate military objectives to eliminate the threat of Hamas” but decried the “humanitarian catastrophe” in the Gaza Strip. She has pressed Israeli leaders to do more to protect civilians and has pushed the Israeli government to allow more aid into Gaza.

She says a two-state solution is the best way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She has called for a “revitalized” Palestinian Authority to govern a unified Gaza and West Bank. She also says Israel needs to hold “extremist settlers” in the West Bank accountable for violence against Palestinians. In February 2024, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned four Israeli settlers accused of violence in the West Bank.

In 2021, she affirmed U.S. support for the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization deals between Israel and Arab countries negotiated by the Trump administration.

Before Hamas attacked Israel, the Biden-Harris administration was seeking a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. In exchange, Riyadh had asked for formalized U.S. security guarantees, cooperation on a civilian nuclear program, and Israeli concessions toward Palestinians.

As a senator, she supported a 2018 resolution calling on the president to end all military actions in Yemen and voted to block weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. The Biden-Harris administration froze certain offensive arms sales to Saudi Arabia in 2021 before resuming them in August 2024 with a $750 million weapons sale.

She says she will take “whatever action is necessary” to defend U.S. troops against Iran and its proxies. After Iran-aligned forces killed three U.S. service members in Jordan in January 2024, U.S. military forces struck more than eighty-five Iran-linked targets in Iraq and Syria.

In 2019, she told CFR that she would rejoin the 2015 Iran nuclear deal if Iran returned to compliance. The Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to rejoin the deal were hindered by Iran’s support of Hamas, the Houthis, and other groups antagonistic to the United States. After Iran-aligned forces killed three U.S. service members in Jordan in January 2024, U.S. military forces struck more than eighty-five Iran-linked targets in Iraq and Syria.

Russia–Ukraine

Harris says the United States will back Ukraine’s defensive efforts against Russia for “as long as it takes” to counter the threat that a Russian victory would pose to the rest of Europe. She has represented the United States at peace talks on Ukraine and encouraged Congress to give Kyiv tens of billions of dollars in financial assistance.

Harris has condemned Russia’s invasion, saying the United States is “committed to helping Ukraine rebuild” and achieve “a just and lasting peace.” Since 2022, the United States has provided Ukraine with some $175 billion in assistance, including financial, humanitarian, and military support.

In June 2024, Harris represented the United States at a peace summit organized by Ukraine in Switzerland, where she sought to rally global support to pressure Russia to end its war. At the summit, she pledged close to $2 billion in additional aid for Ukraine.

Harris argues that a failure to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine would embolden other countries considering invasions. She has helped coordinate with Western allies to impose sweeping sanctions, export controls, and other penalties on Russian entities and individuals, including the Russian private military company Wagner Group. The measures have focused on isolating Russia from the global financial system, limiting its energy exports, and hampering its military capabilities.

She says Russia has committed crimes against humanity in Ukraine. In 2019, she told CFR that Russia’s occupation of Crimea is a “severe violation of international norms.”

In 2018, Harris was among more than two dozen Democratic lawmakers who objected to Trump’s decision to withdraw from a 1987 treaty that required the United States and Russia to eliminate their stockpiles of midrange, ground-launched nuclear missiles.

Trade

Harris says trade is important for economic growth but argues that trade deals should shield American workers from unfair practices abroad. The Biden-Harris administration has applied new guardrails on trade aimed at promoting U.S. manufacturing, countering China’s economic rise, and addressing worsening climate change.

Before becoming vice president, Harris said she is “not a protectionist Democrat” and opposed widespread tariffs, which she has argued contribute to inflation. However, the Biden-Harris administration has maintained some $360 billion in tariffs on China that were implemented by Trump and introduced tens of billions of dollars in additional duties.

The Biden-Harris administration has argued that previous trade deals focused too much on boosting corporate profits while exposing U.S. workers to unfair competition. It has sought to strengthen investment in U.S. manufacturing and infrastructure to increase the country’s economic competitiveness.

As a senator, Harris opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement negotiated by President Barack Obama and from which Trump withdrew, arguing the deal would harm American workers and the climate. The Biden-Harris administration has instead sought to negotiate a successor deal that includes cooperation on supply chains but does not eliminate tariffs or increase access to the U.S. market.

She was one of ten senators to oppose the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was negotiated by Trump and supported by Biden. In 2019, she said that she would not sign a trade deal “unless it protected American workers and it protected our environment.”

The Biden-Harris Administration has mobilized the federal government to support strategic domestic industries, an effort known as industrial policy. Harris cast the tiebreaking vote in favor of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which contained roughly $370 billion in federal grants, loans, and tax incentives for clean energy. To obtain access to IRA funding, companies must agree to limit operations in China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

In 2022, the administration passed the CHIPS and Science Act directing hundreds of billions of dollars toward U.S. semiconductor manufacturing. It has also imposed a slew of new restrictions aimed at curtailing Beijing’s access to advanced technologies and pushed U.S. allies, including major semiconductor suppliers Japan and the Netherlands, to implement similar restrictions.

Harris has said that she wants to reform the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Biden-Harris administration has pushed for changes to the WTO’s dispute-settlement mechanism even as it has continued Trump’s and Obama’s practice of blocking nominees to its appeals court, saying that China is gaming the system.

#Council on Foreign Relations #CFR Education #Newsletter #Kama Devi Harris #Tim Walz #AI and Technology #China #Climate Change #Defense | North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO)#Fiscal Policy | Debt #Global Health | Pandemic Prevention #Immigration #Middle East #Russia ��🇺 | Thug Ukraine 🇺🇦#Trade

2 notes · View notes

dragoneyes613 · 1 year ago

Text

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about stupidity.

Its nexus with hatred, that is.

The connection was amusingly evident last month, when when a 34-year-old woman named Ruba Almaghtheh, shouting “Free Palestine,” plowed her Chevy Impala into a building in Indianapolis associated with the “Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge,” a black supremacist sect whose ideology is based on animosity toward white people and, in particular, Jews.

Ms. Almaghtheh, a Muslim native of Jordan, told officers at the scene that she had been watching coverage of the war in Gaza before driving into the “Israel school” and, according to the arrest affidavit, she “decided to [crash] into the building on purpose because she observed a symbol [a star resembling a Jewish one]… on the residence…”

Nice going, Ruba!

Another contender of the Dumbest Hater prize, heretofore the “Ruba,” is Benjamin Burton Brower Jr., 30, who faces felony charges of his own after surveillance cameras at the Salvation Army church and soup kitchen in Altoona, Pennsylvania, recorded him in broad daylight taping razor blades to the hand railing at the building’s entrance.

He was fingered because, according to the Altoona Police Department, he was “shirtless during the incident and identified by a large red swastika tattoo on his chest.”

Not the brightest wolf in the lair.

Then, of course, we have the utter ignorance displayed by college students whose minds somehow permanently deleted the events of October 7 and absorbed a mindless “pro-Hamas” mush in the guise of supporting Palestinian aspirations.

Chant along with me: “From the classrooms to the quad, minds have turned to sod.”

Comedian/commentator Bill Maher well expressed the student mind-muddle at some Ivy League universities with a memorable metaphor: “If ignorance is a disease, Harvard Yard is the Wuhan wet market.”

He went on to note “how higher education has become indoctrination into a stew of bad ideas, among them the simplistic notion that the world is a binary place where everyone is either an oppressor or oppressed—in the case of Israel, oppressors being babies and bubbes.”

None of which, of course, is to say that all anti-Semites or all anti-Israel “activists” are stupid. There are plenty of high-IQ haters. But, when one notes their justifications for their prejudiced positions—wild notions and conspiracy theories, especially about Jews—and their ready acceptance of demonstrable lies as facts (and, concomitantly, their total ignoring of actual facts), the inescapable conclusion is that, stupid or not, what they spew is stupidity.

And what they often reveal is simple ignorance.

A recent survey of college students who sympathize with Palestinians showed that less than half of the students who embrace the “from the river to the sea…” slogan, which Hamas used in its 2017 “revised” charter, were able to name the river and the sea they were shouting about. (Some 10% of those surveyed, moreover, identified Yasser Arafat as the first prime minister of Israel.)

And then there is the ignorance of the definitions of the words “genocide,” “apartheid” and “terrorism.”

Genocide, as defined in 1948 by the United Nations Genocide Convention, refers to “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Considering that, from 1990 to 2022, the Palestinian population increased from 1.98 million to 5.04 million people, Israel is sure doing an uncharacteristically bad job of genocide.

There’s only one genocidal actor in the current war, and it isn’t Israel.

Apartheid was South Africa’s racist system of institutionalized segregation from 1948 to the early 1990s. The government forbade blacks from marrying non-blacks. Hospitals and beaches were segregated. Education opportunities for blacks were restricted.

Israeli law mandates, and its independent courts ensure, the equal treatment of all the country’s citizens, Arab and Jew alike. Israeli Arab citizens serve as ambassadors, legislators, journalists and academics. Not to mention that the Knesset includes an Islamist Arab political party, or that Arab citizens of Israel have been elected to every Knesset since the state’s founding.

And terrorism refers to violent actions intended to, well, instill terror, rather than to achieve a military objective. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 was terrorism. The al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, were terrorism. The October 7 Hamas pogrom was terrorism. Israel’s current war is an attempt to prevent terrorism.

So much stupidity and ignorance. It will be hard to decide who wins the Ruba.

#antisemitism

2 notes · View notes

24worldnewsnet · 23 days ago

Photo

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION During my first Administration, I restricted the entry of foreign nationals into the United States, which successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld. In Executive Order 14161 of January 20, 2025 (Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats), I stated that it is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes. I also stated that the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests. More importantly, the United States must identify such aliens before their admission or entry into the United States. The United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to our national security. I directed the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, to identify countries throughout the world for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries pursuant to section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). After completing that process, the Secretary of State determined that a number of countries remain deficient with regards to screening and vetting. Many of these countries have also taken advantage of the United States in their exploitation of our visa system and their historic failure to accept back their removable nationals. As President, I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people. I remain committed to engaging with those countries willing to cooperate to improve information-sharing and identity-management procedures, and to address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks. Nationals of some countries also pose significant risks of overstaying their visas in the United States, which increases burdens on immigration and law enforcement components of the United States, and often exacerbates other risks related to national security and public safety. Some of the countries with inadequacies face significant challenges to reform efforts. Others have made important improvements to their protocols and procedures, and I commend them for these efforts. But until countries with identified inadequacies address them, members of my Cabinet have recommended certain conditional restrictions and limitations. I have considered and largely accepted those recommendations and impose the limitations set forth below on the entry into the United States by the classes of foreign nationals identified in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation. NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should

0 notes

readingwar · 3 months ago

Text

Breaking the Silence: Confronting Wartime Sexual Violence

Introduction

Sexual violence has been used as a weapon of war throughout history. It is not just a byproduct of conflict but a deliberate tool to instill fear, destroy communities, and assert dominance. In many wars, armies have systematically used rape and sexual slavery to break the morale of the enemy. One of the most brutal examples of this occurred during World War II when the Japanese Imperial Army committed widespread sexual violence in occupied territories.

China was one of the worst-affected regions. The invasion of Nanjing in 1937 led to mass killings and rapes, leaving deep scars on survivors and their communities. Furthermore, the Japanese military institutionalized sexual slavery through the "comfort women" system, forcing thousands of women into military-run brothels under inhumane conditions. These acts were not random but organized and sanctioned by military authorities.

Despite overwhelming evidence, accountability for these crimes has been limited. Japan’s post-war response has been marked by denial and attempts to downplay these atrocities. Survivors have fought for justice for decades, yet their voices are often ignored. Understanding these events is crucial, not just for historical accuracy but for recognizing patterns of wartime sexual violence that continue today.

The Japanese Imperial Army and Wartime Sexual Violence

During World War II, the Japanese Imperial Army committed large-scale sexual violence in occupied territories. This was not random or isolated but a systematic strategy to dominate and terrorize local populations. The military used sexual violence to break resistance, humiliate communities, and establish control. Chinese cities, especially Nanjing, saw some of the worst atrocities. Women were brutally raped, often in public, and many were murdered afterward to eliminate witnesses.

Additionally, the Japanese military introduced an organized system of sexual slavery. Women were abducted, deceived, or forcibly recruited into "comfort stations," which were military-run brothels. These stations operated across occupied regions, including China, Korea, and Southeast Asia. The military claimed this system was meant to "protect" local women from uncontrolled violence, but in reality, it institutionalized rape under the guise of order.

Furthermore, these crimes were not just acts of individual soldiers. Military leaders permitted, encouraged, and even facilitated them. Soldiers were often desensitized through propaganda, which depicted enemy women as inferior and available for exploitation. Meanwhile, the government and military command avoided accountability, portraying such violence as an unavoidable part of war. Even after Japan's defeat, many of these crimes remained hidden due to political pressure and historical revisionism. Understanding these patterns helps reveal how gendered violence in war is deliberately organized, rather than just a consequence of conflict.

Case Study: The Rape of Nanjing

The Rape of Nanjing remains one of the most horrifying instances of wartime sexual violence. In December 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army captured the Chinese city of Nanjing. Over the next six weeks, soldiers carried out mass executions, widespread sexual violence, and extreme brutality against civilians. Historians estimate that between 20,000 and 80,000 women were raped, many of whom were then killed to eliminate evidence.

The sexual violence was systematic and intentional. Soldiers abducted women from their homes, streets, and refugee shelters. Victims included girls as young as seven and elderly women. Many were gang-raped, while others were subjected to extreme forms of torture. Pregnant women were not spared, and some were killed by bayonets after being assaulted. Families were forced to witness these crimes, furthering the psychological trauma.

Additionally, sexual violence was used as a military strategy. The Japanese army sought to break Chinese morale and terrorize the population into submission. Rape was not just about individual soldiers acting out aggression—it was an institutionalized practice allowed by commanders. Many officers turned a blind eye, while others encouraged it as a form of "reward" for troops.

Meanwhile, international observers and foreign residents in Nanjing documented these atrocities. Westerners in the city, such as missionary Minnie Vautrin and businessman John Rabe, attempted to protect Chinese civilians by creating safety zones. Their reports later became crucial evidence in war crimes trials. Nevertheless, for decades, Japan’s government either downplayed or denied the extent of these crimes, adding to the survivors' suffering. The Rape of Nanjing remains a painful reminder of how sexual violence can be weaponized during war, leaving lasting trauma for generations.

Comfort Women: Institutionalized Sexual Slavery

The "comfort women" system was one of the most brutal forms of institutionalized sexual slavery in modern history. During World War II, the Japanese Imperial Army established military brothels across occupied territories, forcing thousands of women into sexual slavery. These women, known as "comfort women," were taken from countries like China, Korea, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Many were kidnapped, deceived with false promises of work, or forcibly recruited by military authorities.

These women endured extreme physical and psychological abuse. They were kept in cramped, unsanitary conditions and forced to serve dozens of soldiers each day. Many suffered from repeated beatings, forced pregnancies, and untreated sexually transmitted diseases. Those who resisted were often tortured or killed. Additionally, the system stripped these women of their identities, reducing them to mere objects for military use. They were denied basic human rights, and their suffering was ignored by both the military and local authorities.

Furthermore, the comfort women system was not an informal practice—it was an organized and government-sanctioned operation. The Japanese military supervised the brothels, ensuring a constant supply of women for soldiers. This system was justified as a means to "maintain discipline" and prevent soldiers from committing random acts of sexual violence. However, it only reinforced the widespread use of rape as a weapon of war.

Meanwhile, survivors of the comfort women system have fought for justice for decades. Despite overwhelming evidence, Japan has largely avoided full acknowledgment and accountability. The trauma of these women has been passed down to future generations, highlighting how institutionalized sexual violence leaves deep and lasting scars on societies.

Repercussions and Legacy of Wartime Sexual Violence

The impact of wartime sexual violence extends far beyond the immediate suffering of victims. Survivors of atrocities like the Rape of Nanjing and the comfort women system faced lifelong trauma, physical injuries, and social stigma. Many were left with permanent reproductive health issues and psychological scars. Additionally, survivors were often shunned by their communities, forcing them into silence. The fear of shame prevented many from speaking out, leaving their suffering undocumented for decades.

Furthermore, the failure to hold perpetrators accountable has contributed to historical denial and revisionism. The Japanese government has repeatedly downplayed or disputed the extent of these crimes. Some officials claim the comfort women were voluntary prostitutes, despite overwhelming evidence proving coercion and brutality. This refusal to accept responsibility has worsened diplomatic tensions, particularly with South Korea and China, where survivors and activists continue to demand formal apologies and reparations.

Meanwhile, the legacy of wartime sexual violence has influenced modern conflicts. The use of rape as a weapon of war has been documented in conflicts from Bosnia to Rwanda. The lack of justice for past victims has emboldened new perpetrators, showing how impunity fuels repeated cycles of violence. Additionally, efforts to recognize and support survivors have grown. International human rights organizations and legal frameworks, such as the UN’s efforts against sexual violence in conflict, have emerged in response to historical injustices. Nevertheless, the struggle for recognition and justice continues, highlighting the lasting consequences of wartime sexual violence.

Accountability and the Role of Stakeholders

Addressing wartime sexual violence requires accountability from multiple stakeholders. The Japanese government holds primary responsibility for acknowledging its past actions. While some apologies have been issued, they have often lacked sincerity or have been retracted by later administrations. Additionally, efforts to revise history textbooks and deny the experiences of survivors continue to obstruct justice. Formal recognition, reparations, and historical accuracy are crucial steps toward accountability.

Meanwhile, international organizations, including the United Nations and human rights groups, play a key role in advocating for justice. Legal frameworks such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) recognize sexual violence as a war crime, yet enforcement remains weak. Stronger international pressure is needed to ensure that crimes like those committed by the Japanese Imperial Army are neither forgotten nor repeated.

Furthermore, survivor advocacy groups and activists have been instrumental in bringing these atrocities to light. Former comfort women have bravely shared their testimonies, despite threats and societal stigma. Their efforts have led to global awareness and ongoing legal battles. However, support from governments and civil society remains essential in ensuring justice. Without collective action, historical denial will persist, and future generations may never learn the full extent of these crimes.

Conclusion: Learning from History

The history of wartime sexual violence, particularly the atrocities committed by the Japanese Imperial Army, reveals the lasting consequences of unchecked power and impunity. The suffering of comfort women and the horrors of the Nanjing Massacre remain painful reminders of how war disproportionately affects women and marginalized groups. Additionally, the failure to fully acknowledge these crimes has allowed historical denial to persist, deepening the wounds of survivors.

Furthermore, justice remains incomplete without sustained global efforts to recognize and prevent sexual violence in conflict. Legal accountability, historical education, and survivor advocacy are essential in ensuring these crimes are not repeated. Meanwhile, governments, international organizations, and civil society must work together to challenge impunity. The lessons from history must serve as a warning—without truth, justice, and remembrance, the cycle of violence will continue.

0 notes

123-er--ed · 3 months ago

Video

youtube

Peru’s Chinese funded ‘megaport’ | BBC News : Title: A Call for Change: Addressing Peru’s Deep-Rooted Challenges with Compassion and Bold Reforms Peru has long faced an array of interwoven challenges that continue to affect its people. Among these are: Political Corruption and Institutional Weakness: Corruption has eroded public trust in government institutions, weakening democracy and hampering effective governance. Economic Inequality and Poverty: Large gaps persist between rich and poor, leaving vulnerable communities trapped in cycles of poverty. Social Violence and Organized Crime: Schemes such as the “gota a gota” predatory lending system force citizens into endless debt, while extortion and other criminal practices inflict terror on everyday life. Inadequate Public Services: Deficiencies in healthcare, education, and infrastructure hinder human development and community resilience. Environmental Degradation: Mismanagement of natural resources and environmental neglect threaten the livelihoods of rural communities and the nation’s long-term sustainability. Urban-Rural Divide: Rapid urbanization has left many rural areas neglected, creating disparities in access to opportunities and services. Historical and Cultural Challenges: Legacy issues of inequality and marginalization continue to shape social dynamics and hinder national unity. To transform this complex reality, a multi-faceted, human-centered approach is essential. Some of the best solutions include: Strengthening Democratic Institutions: Implement transparent anti-corruption measures and reform public administration to rebuild trust and ensure accountability. Inclusive Economic Reforms: Promote policies for inclusive growth that support small businesses, create jobs, and improve social safety nets so that economic benefits reach all segments of society. Enhanced Public Service Delivery: Invest in healthcare, education, and infrastructure with community participation, ensuring that public services are responsive, efficient, and accessible. Modernizing Law Enforcement and Justice: Equip the police and judicial bodies with the technology and training necessary to combat organized crime and extortion effectively while safeguarding human rights. Community Empowerment and Education: Foster local initiatives that empower communities to take charge of their development. Education campaigns can help citizens understand their rights and organize for collective action. Sustainable Environmental Policies: Develop strategies to protect natural resources while promoting sustainable development, ensuring that economic progress does not come at the expense of the environment. Global Alliances and Media Attention: Engage with international media, NGOs, and governments to create external pressure for reforms, drawing on the global community’s commitment to human rights and democracy. These solutions require both immediate actions and long-term, structural reforms. They must be rooted in compassion, transparency, and a deep commitment to the dignity and well-being of every Peruvian citizen. A Call for Comprehensive Change in Peru As a concerned citizen from Peru, I feel compelled to speak out about the deep-rooted challenges our nation faces. One of the most destructive issues is the "gota a gota" extortion system—a predatory loan practice that traps vulnerable citizens in a vicious cycle of debt, intimidation, and violence. This exploitative system not only devastates families and small businesses but also fuels a broader climate of fear that paves the way for further violence, including assassinations and acts of terrorism by organized criminal networks. To truly overcome these challenges, we must implement a series of comprehensive and humane solutions: Financial and Legal Reforms: Promote Fair Credit Access: Develop and support formal microcredit schemes that offer fair, affordable loans to small businesses and individuals, reducing the need for dangerous informal loans. Strengthen Legal Frameworks: Enact and enforce stricter laws specifically targeting "gota a gota" practices, with harsher penalties for extortion, and streamline judicial processes to ensure swift justice for victims. Modernize and Empower Law Enforcement: Enhance Training and Technology: Equip our police and investigative units with the latest tools—such as geolocation, data analytics, and intelligence-sharing platforms—to dismantle criminal networks effectively. Improve Coordination: Foster greater collaboration between local and national law enforcement, and build partnerships with international agencies to share best practices in combating organized crime and terrorism. Invest in Social Development: Education and Financial Literacy: Launch nationwide campaigns to educate citizens about financial rights and risks, empowering them to avoid predatory lending schemes. Strengthen Public Services: Improve healthcare, education, and infrastructure to reduce economic disparities and create opportunities for vulnerable communities, thereby reducing the allure of criminal recruitment. Community Empowerment and Global Alliances: Local Initiatives: Encourage community-based programs that support victims, promote awareness, and build networks of support to resist extortion and violence. International Pressure: Use global platforms to share our struggles and successes, calling on international media, NGOs, and governments to support our efforts and hold local authorities accountable. These solutions must be executed with a strong human touch—restoring hope, dignity, and safety for every Peruvian. We need urgent, coordinated action from our government, civil society, and international partners to create a safer, more just future. #EndGotaAGota #JusticeForPeru #StopViolence #HumanRights

#youtube

0 notes

news365timesindia · 4 months ago

Text

[ad_1] Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that India and the United States have stood firmly together in the fight against terrorism and agree that concerted action is necessary to tackle cross-border terrorism. In his statement in the joint press conference with US President Donald Trump, PM Modi lauded the decision of United States to hand over 2008 Mumbai terror attack accused Tahawwur Rana and said the Indian courts will now take appropriate action. India has been facing the scourge of cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan. “India and the United States have stood firmly together in the fight against terrorism. We agree that concerted action is necessary to eradicate cross-border terrorism,” PM Modi said. “I am thankful to the President that he has decided to hand over the culprit who committed the killings in India in 2008, to India now. Indian courts will now take appropriate action,” he added. The joint statement issued after the bilateral talks said that PM Modi and President Trump called on on Pakistan to expeditiously bring to justice the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai, and Pathankot attacks and ensure that its territory is not used to carry out cross-border terrorist attacks. The joint statement mentioned the need for cooperation against Pakistan-based terror groups – Jaish-e Mohammad, and Lashkar-eTayyiba. The two leaders reaffirmed that the global scourge of terrorism must be fought and terrorist safe havens eliminated from every corner of the world. “They committed to strengthen cooperation against terrorist threats from groups, including Al-Qa’ida, ISIS, Jaish-e Mohammad, and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba in order to prevent heinous acts like the attacks in Mumbai on 26/11 and the Abbey Gate bombing in Afghanistan on August 26, 2021,” the statement said. “Recognizing a shared desire to bring to justice those who would harm our citizens, the US announced that the extradition to India of Tahawwur Rana has been approved,” it added. PM Modi and President Trump also pledged to work together to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems and to deny access to such weapons by terrorists and non-state actors,” it said. As part of commitment towards energy security, the two leaders announced their commitment to fully realize the US-India 123 Civil Nuclear Agreement by moving forward with plans to work together to build US-designed nuclear reactors in India through large scale localization and possible technology transfer. “Both sides welcomed the recent Budget announcement by Government of India to take up amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA) for nuclear reactors, and further decided to establish bilateral arrangements in accordance with CLNDA, that would address the issue of civil liability and facilitate the collaboration of Indian and US industry in the production and deployment of nuclear reactors,” the statement said. [ad_2] Source link

0 notes

news365times · 4 months ago

Text

0 notes

instantpay · 1 year ago

Text

How Compliance Fosters Trust and Growth for Businesses Today

In today's fast-paced business world compliance is not just about obeying laws, especially now that regulations are evolving all the time. It is a cornerstone for every successful company. Observing rules and regulations is not just about avoiding penalties; it is about creating trust between an entity and its customers. Whereby a firm proves its commitment to compliance, this tells the buyers that it carries itself with honesty and respect for the law.

This cultivates a sense of assurance and loyalty from customers hence making them do businesses with such entities even in future. Additionally, compliance can enable business expansion in different areas. Firms are able to avoid difficulties they may encounter while penetrating into new markets by keeping to regulations.

But beyond that, compliance has more benefits than what one could imagine at first sight. A good compliance programme that stresses proactive risk management and ethical conduct can help foster accountability within an organisation. This subsequently keeps the organisation from facing legal problems and damaging its reputation down the road. Furthermore, as regulations become increasingly complex, companies that invest in strong compliance capabilities will be better placed to negotiate through this dynamic landscape over time and prosper accordingly in the long-term perspective.

Understanding Compliance for Indian Business

Compliance refers to the act of adhering to rules, regulations, laws, standards, or guidelines established by an authority or governing body. It involves ensuring that individuals, organisations, or systems adhere to these established requirements to avoid legal or regulatory penalties, financial losses, or reputational damage.

Compliance can apply to numerous areas such as business operations, finance, healthcare, environmental protection, data security, and more. It often involves implementing policies, procedures, and controls to ensure adherence to the regulations and standards relevant to a particular industry.

In the financial sector, companies are facing increasingly stringent know-your-customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) regulations.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Know Your Customer (KYC): This regulation requires financial institutions to thoroughly verify the identities of their customers. This is done by collecting personal information, such as name, address, and date of birth, and verifying it against government-issued IDs. KYC helps prevent financial crime by making it more difficult for criminals to launder money or finance terrorism.

Anti-Money Laundering (AML): AML regulations are designed to prevent criminals from disguising illegal funds as legitimate income. Financial institutions are required to monitor customer transactions for suspicious activity and report any such activity to the authorities. This includes transactions that are large, unusual for the customer, or involve high-risk countries.

Consumer Protection: Financial regulations also encompass consumer protection. They ensure that customers are treated fairly and that banking practices do not harm them. This includes requirements for clear disclosure of terms and fees, fair lending practices, and protection of customer data.

Market Integrity: Compliance also promotes fair and efficient markets. Regulations prevent insider trading, market manipulation, and other activities that could harm investors.

Risk Management: Financial compliance involves identifying, assessing, and managing risks. This helps financial institutions protect themselves from fraud, cyberattacks, and other threats.

By adhering to these regulations, financial institutions can help maintain a stable and secure financial system, protect consumers, and prevent financial crime. Related Reads: Future-Proof Your Online Business for the Digital Age

All About Central Know Your Customers (CKYC)

The Indispensable Role of Digital Identity Verification

Navigating the Digital Realm with Know Your Customer Precision

The Importance of Compliance for Business - Why is It So Critical Today?

Compliance has become a front-and-centre issue for companies today. Beyond just avoiding penalties, a robust compliance program powers key benefits:

Builds Customer Trust & Loyalty – In today's world, consumers, especially younger generations like millennials and Gen Z, are increasingly making purchasing decisions based on a company's ethical practices and sense of accountability. Conversely, businesses that fail to act ethically risk a significant loss of customer trust. Social media has empowered consumers to research and share information about companies with ease, so negative news travels fast.

On the other hand, companies that cultivate a reputation for trustworthiness are not only likely to retain their existing customer base but will also find it easier to attract new customers. Millennials and Gen Z are brand loyal when they connect with a company's values, and they are vocal advocates for brands they admire. By acting ethically, companies can expand their market reach and achieve long-term success.

Rules Strengthen – Regulators have enacted stricter KYC, AML, and data security rules to crack down on financial crimes and protect consumers. This proactive regulatory approach reflects a collective commitment to fostering a secure and transparent financial ecosystem, ensuring that financial institutions adhere to the highest standards of integrity while fortifying consumer trust.

Negligence Costs – Regulators are closely monitoring compliance, ready to slap hefty fines on lapses. Non-compliance exposes companies to huge potential costs, from fines and lawsuits to reputational damage impacting revenue and growth.

Increases Revenue – Partners and clients are more inclined to do business with companies that adhere to compliance standards. This can lead to a significant increase in sales revenue, as compliance becomes a key factor in business-to-business partnerships. Moreover, major banks and financial institutions will only work with compliant partners to avoid regulatory and reputation risk.

Improves Processes & Systems – Adhering to the latest regulations pushes companies to adopt stronger systems, standards and practices. This not only enhances internal systems and daily operations but also ensures the safety of both employees and customers.

Reduces Risk – Compliance is a shield against legal risks, protecting companies from lawsuits and hefty regulatory fines. By following regulations, businesses safeguard their financial well-being and maintain the trust of stakeholders.

In light of these realities, compliance has become both a strategic imperative and competitive advantage for leading companies.

Understanding Compliance In Banking & Fintech

In the realm of banking and fintech, compliance is crucial for ensuring the safety and security of financial information. Protecting personal information, preventing fraud, and meeting legal requirements are essential for maintaining the integrity of financial services.

For instance, KYC (Know Your Customer) regulations require verifying identities before onboarding customers. This process involves:

Collecting and validating identifying documents

Cross-checking against authoritative databases

Approving only legitimate and verified users

Additionally, AML (Anti-Money Laundering) regulations mandate ongoing monitoring of customer transactions to detect suspicious patterns that could indicate potential money laundering or other financial crimes.

Furthermore, ensuring data privacy and security is paramount. This involves:

Securely collecting, storing, and transmitting customer data using encryption techniques

Implementing robust access controls, such as passwords and multi-factor authentication

Adhering to the principle of data minimisation, collecting only the necessary customer data for the services provided By diligently adhering to these compliance measures, financial institutions can foster trust, mitigate risks, and maintain a secure and reliable environment for their customers.

Ensuring Compliance in Indian Business - Turning Compliance Into An Advantage

Compliance is an ongoing journey, not a one-and-done activity. It goes beyond mere regulatory adherence, encompassing ethical practices and the building of customer trust. Regulations will only expand as technologies like AI, blockchain and open banking take hold. To stay ahead:

Think long-term – Prioritise long-term gains over short-term expediency. Shortcuts that might seem convenient today can expose the company to significant legal and financial risks down the road. Invest in building a strong compliance foundation, this ensures stability and avoids costly scrambling to fix problems later.

Invest in automation –Tools like identity verification and transaction monitoring solutions can significantly reduce the manual effort required for compliance, freeing up your team's time for strategic initiatives. Automate repetitive tasks, This improves accuracy and reduces the risk of human error.

Make it a culture – Make compliance a core value, not just a legal obligation.

Empower everyone to be accountable. Train employees at all levels to understand their role in compliance. This fosters a sense of shared responsibility and ownership. Encourage employees to speak up about potential issues without fear of retaliation. This helps identify and address problems early on.

Collaborate with regulators – Maintain a transparent and cooperative relationship with regulatory bodies. Proactively engage with regulators. Stay informed about upcoming regulations and demonstrate your commitment to compliance.View regulations as an opportunity to improve your practices. Compliance can lead to better risk management and a more secure operation.

Showcase your commitment to compliance. Consumers are increasingly concerned about data privacy and security. By promoting your strong compliance practices, you can build trust and attract customers.Compliance can be a differentiator. In today's competitive landscape, a reputation for ethical behaviour and data protection can be a significant advantage.

While compliance undoubtedly comes with a cost, the consequences of negligence can prove far costlier in the long run. As businesses navigate the intricacies of regulatory frameworks, the investment in compliance becomes a strategic decision for long-term success.

Instantpay: Paving the Way for Seamless Compliance in Indian Business Operations

At Instantpay, we understand the challenges businesses face in staying ahead of evolving regulations. Our commitment is to assist companies in turning compliance from a cost into a competitive advantage. Here's how:

Faster Onboarding: Our automated ID verification streamlines the onboarding process, ensuring a swift and seamless experience for users.

Real-time Identity Checks: We verify user identities against official databases in real-time, enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of the verification process.

Comprehensive Validation: Our suite of identity verification and onboarding APIs covers a range of factors, including addresses, income, and employment, providing a holistic approach to compliance.

By partnering with Instantpay, businesses can focus on their core operations, confident that compliance is not a hindrance but a strategic advantage. Let's connect and explore how Instantpay can future-proof your business in the ever-changing landscape of regulatory requirements.

The Bottom Line

In the dynamic world of fintech, compliance emerges as an essential for businesses aspiring to foster trust and achieve sustainable growth. From building customer trust to reducing risks and improving operational processes, compliance is a multifaceted tool that goes beyond regulatory checkboxes. As the financial landscape continues to evolve, businesses must view the importance of compliance for business not merely as a requirement but as a strategic imperative. Instantpay stands as a reliable partner in this journey, helping businesses navigate the complexities of compliance and transforming it into a competitive advantage. In an era where regulations shape relationships, businesses that prioritise compliance are poised for enduring success.

Compliance is about much more than avoiding penalties. It's about putting customers first, leading with ethics and building companies that stand the test of time. Companies that get compliance right have much to gain today and tomorrow.

FAQs

1. Why is compliance important for Indian businesses?

Compliance is paramount for Indian businesses as it serves as a safeguard against legal risks, ensuring adherence to laws and regulations. By prioritising compliance, businesses build trust with stakeholders, avoiding potential fines, reputational damage, and legal consequences that could otherwise hinder operational efficiency and profitability.

2. How does regulatory compliance contribute to the success of a business?

Regulatory compliance is a cornerstone for business success, fostering ethical conduct and shielding against legal liabilities. Beyond that, it elevates the organisational reputation by promoting a culture of integrity, transparency, and accountability. Also, it helps attract investors, customers, and top-tier employees.

3. Why is compliance crucial for the overall health of a business?

It serves as a proactive measure to mitigate risks, prevent penalties, and preserve the reputation of the business. This commitment to compliance cultivates a culture of responsibility and integrity, laying the groundwork for long-term success and growth in a dynamic regulatory landscape.

4. What are the key responsibilities and roles of compliance within an organisation?

The primary role of compliance within an organisation is to ensure alignment with applicable laws, regulations, and industry standards. This involves conducting comprehensive risk assessments, developing and updating policies, providing ongoing training, and implementing robust monitoring mechanisms.

5. How does compliance impact customer relationships for businesses?

Compliance plays a pivotal role in building and maintaining customer trust. By adhering to ethical practices and legal standards, businesses reassure customers, fostering a sense of reliability and dependability. This trust is integral for customer loyalty and sustained growth.

6. How does compliance adapt to the ever-changing regulatory landscape?

Compliance is not a one-time effort; it's an ongoing process. Organisations need to stay vigilant, regularly update policies, and invest in training to adapt to evolving regulations. This adaptability ensures that businesses remain resilient and can navigate through the complexities of an ever-changing regulatory environment.

7. What role does technology play in ensuring compliance for businesses?

Technology, like the solutions offered by Instantpay, can streamline and enhance the compliance process. Automated identity verification, real-time checks against official databases, and comprehensive validation tools not only ensure adherence to regulations but also make compliance more efficient, allowing businesses to focus on their core operations.

0 notes

mnmlawpartners · 1 year ago

Text

Everything You Need to Know About Public Interest Litigation in India

In the vast landscape of legal proceedings, one term that has gained significant prominence in India is "Public Interest Litigation" (PIL). the legal framework has grown into a potent tool that allows individuals and organizations to tackle matters of public interest, With its foundations in administrative law. In this blog let us explore everything you need to know about Public Interest Litigation in India.

What Is a Public Interest Litigation?

Generally, The meaning of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) refers to legal proceedings initiated in a court of law to safeguard the "Public Interest." Any issue that impacts the interest of the general public can be addressed through the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, encompassing concerns such as Pollution, Terrorism, Road safety, Construction hazards, and more.

What Are the Types of Public Interest Litigation?

The types of Public Interest Litigation are classified as:

Representative Social Action

Representative Social Action involves litigation filed by an individual or group on behalf of others who may not have the means or resources to approach the court independently. Individuals are empowered to be the voice of the marginalized through this form of PIL.

Citizen Social Action

On the other hand, Citizen Social Action involves Public Interest Litigation initiated directly by concerned citizens who perceive an issue affecting the public at large. The role of an engaged and proactive citizenry in legal matters is highlighted by this form.

What Is the Nature and Scope of Public Interest Litigation in India?

Nature of Public Interest Litigation in India

Social Justice and Public Interest

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India is deeply intertwined with the pursuit of social justice. Equitable legal remedies are catalyzed by it, ensuring fairness and equal treatment for all.

Locus Standi and Liberal Interpretation

The nature of PIL in India is characterized by a liberal interpretation of locus standing, allowing individuals or groups to represent the wider public interest. This will make sure inclusivity in accessing the legal system.

Judicial Activism

Judicial activism is fostered by Public Interest Litigation, enabling societal issues to be proactively addressed by the judiciary. A dynamic approach to problem-solving beyond traditional legal constraints is reflected in this nature.

Remedies Beyond Traditional Damages

PIL goes beyond conventional legal remedies, seeking systemic changes rather than mere monetary compensations. The nature of PIL is distinguished from typical litigation by this innovative approach.

Environmental Conservation

Environmental conservation is encompassed by the nature of PIL, with cases addressing pollution, deforestation, and wildlife protection. As a potent force for preserving India's natural resources, Public Interest Litigation appears.

Human Rights Protection

Public Interest Litigation serves as a robust shield for protecting human rights. PIL addresses issues of discrimination and inequality by contributing to the advancement of fundamental rights.

Access to Healthcare and Education

PIL plays a key role in assuring access to healthcare and education for all citizens. Its commitment to promoting a healthy and educated society is highlighted by the nature of PIL.

Consumer Protection

Public Interest Litigation acts as a guardian of consumer rights. Cases related to misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices find resolution through PIL, ensuring consumer protection.

Public Accountability and Governance

PIL's nature includes holding public officials accountable and ensuring transparent governance. Good governance and accountability in administrative actions are promoted by it.

Scope of Public Interest Litigation in India

Access to Justice

The scope of PIL in India significantly contributes to enhancing access to justice. Justice being accessible to all is ensured by Public Interest Litigation by providing a platform for individuals and organizations.

Environmental Protection

PIL's scope extends to matters concerning environmental protection. As a powerful tool, environmental degradation is prevented, and sustainable development is promoted by it.

Human Rights

The broad scope of PIL encompasses human rights issues, addressing discrimination and safeguarding individual rights. PIL plays a pivotal role in the advancement of a rights-based society.

Government Accountability

Public Interest Litigation's scope includes ensuring government accountability by allowing citizens to question policies and actions. It enables transparency and governance responsiveness.

Corruption and Good Governance

PIL serves as a vital instrument in addressing corruption and promoting good governance. It acts as a deterrent, bringing issues of maladministration to the forefront.

Social Justice

The scope of PIL is integral to achieving social justice. by contributing to the creation of an inclusive and society equitable and It manages issues of inequality and discrimination.

Consumer Rights

PIL's scope extends to the protection of consumer rights. it gives rights to the consumers to aspire to justice against unfair trade practices and also makes sure that their rights are upheld.

Education and Health

PIL plays a vital role in shaping policies related to education and healthcare. By addressing deficiencies in these sectors, it contributes to the overall well-being and development of society.

Media and Freedom of Expression

The safeguarding of the freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democracy, is included in the scope of PIL. Cases related to media censorship and restrictions on free speech often find resolution through PIL.

Innovative Remedies

PIL allows for innovative remedies beyond traditional legal measures. It allows the judiciary to compose solutions that address individual challenges, fostering adaptability in the legal system.

Eligibility Criteria for Public Interest Litigation in India?

Eligibility Criteria for Public Interest Litigation in India is open to any citizen with a genuine interest in a matter that affects the public at large. The broader welfare of society must be focused on by the petitioner, and personal interests must not be pursued. The legal right and ability to file a case are really important prerequisites.

In India, the eligibility criteria extend to various avenues:

Anyone with Interest: Individuals or groups with a genuine interest in a matter.

Directly Affected Individuals: Those directly affected by the issue at hand.

Influencers for Change: Positive change can be influenced by individuals.

Legal Right and Ability: The petitioner or group must have the legal right and ability to file a lawsuit.

Any Indian citizen can file a public litigation in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, in a High Court under Article 226, or in a magistrate court under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

When Can Public Interest Litigation Be Rejected?

Despite its broad scope, some situations are When Can Public Interest Litigation Be Rejected? While social justice is facilitated by PIL, there are instances when such petitions may be rejected by the court. This could be due to the lack of a genuine public interest motive or if the matter falls outside the purview of PIL.

Frivolous Petitions: PIL case petitions lacking substance and filed for frivolous reasons may be rejected.

Personal Vendetta: If the litigation is motivated by personal vendetta rather than a genuine concern for public interest, it may be rejected.

Abuse of Judicial Process: If the court finds that the petitioner is abusing the judicial process or seeking personal gain, the PIL may be rejected.

Failure to Comply with Procedures: Failure to adhere to procedural requirements or guidelines may result in the rejection of a PIL.

Matters That Cannot Be Taken as a Public Interest Litigation Petition

Certain matters, even if of public concern, may not qualify as suitable for PIL. This includes

Private disputes without public interest.

where Matters are pending before other courts.

Matters affect only individuals without a wider societal impact.

For a comprehensive understanding of Public Interest Litigation, legal help on Public Interest Litigation, may be necessary. One can reach out to M&M Law Partners, Best Civil Lawyers in Delhi firm with expertise in these matters.

FAQ -

Can a Government Employee File a Public Interest Litigation in India?

Yes, a government employee can file a Public Interest Litigation if the issue raised is of public importance and not related to their grievances as an employee.

What Is the Importance of Public Interest Litigation?

The safeguarding of the broader interests of society, the promotion of justice, and the holding of authorities accountable for their actions are important through the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation.

Can a Foreigner File a Public Interest Litigation in India?

Foreigners are generally not eligible to file PIL in India. The petitioner must be an Indian citizen or an entity with a legal right to sue. However, it might be considered, when the matter has an effective public interest.

#legal firm #public litigation #m&m law partners #law #litigation

0 notes

thelonkgeningof1692 · 5 months ago

Note

God another absolute crock of shit. Let's go over it together.

"Every right I have is by virtue of being a human being. Government can't grant rights, it can only protect them or violate them. Human rights are inalienable." 🔴

Doesn't change the fact that LGBTQ individuals owe their current existence within the US almost entirely to the political left, since the political right has been fighting tooth and nail for decades to disenfranchise and oppress you.

You support the people who hate you.

"And the left are the ones currently trying to violate my, and everyone else's, human rights via censorship," 🔴

A minority of leftists support censorship, like many other rightists you've based your entire view of the left on lies spread in the echo chambers you inhabit.

People like Andy Ngo, Chaya Raichik, and Donald Trump have been allowed to spread disinformation that has inadvertently encouraged shootings and bomb threats through stochastic terrorism (random terrorism preformed by angering large groups of people with the hope that someone commits a crime or act of violence) for years without impunity.

If we are to continue existing in a civil society, we cannot allow people to purposefully but inadvertently encourage random acts of terrorism and then deny wrongdoing.

Punishing these people for their lies, for the crimes their audiences commit because of them, is not censorship, it's just the right thing to do.

"gun control," 🔴

No other wealthy, first world country on Earth has mass shootings like the US does.

Uncoincidentally, no other wealthy, first world country has a 2nd amendment like the US.

The problem is and always has been the guns.

It is necessary for society to prevent people who are a danger to themselves or others from owning firearms.

A blanket ban on firearms, which very few leftists actually support, is unnecessary.

Unfortunately you've been brainwashed to believe that a mass genocide will be attempted if even the smallest level of federal gun control passes, despite the fact that the FAWB didn't cause a second holocaust, but actually lowered the rate an deadlines of shootings by a noticable and measurable degree (even though the right continues to deny this proven fact unabashedly with their whole chest despite it being proven multiple times by multiple studies).

"voter fraud," 🔴

This claim is hilariously sad for 2 massive reasons.

1. The right has been responsible for am overwhelming majority of voter fraud in most recent US federal elections.

From republicans stealing their dead parents ballots and voting for them, to republicans setting fire to ballot boxes, to red states and the supreme court purging voter registration lists and disenfranchising thousands of US citizens, to the then president of the united states leading a scheme to steal the 2020 US presidential election with fake electoral college votes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot

Every major attempt at voter fraud and election theft has been orchestrated by the right, regardless of how much the right wants to shift the blame.

2. There's so little evidence of the left commiting voter fraud, that in the over 60 court cases regarding supposed voter put forth by Donald Trump's lawyers, at no point were they able to provide almost any evidence when asked, and what little evidence the did show was so terrible that many of the cases were immediately dismissed after it became clear they had no basis.

If a person goes to court over 60 different times over something, and they can't properly back up any of their claims, and all the cases get thrown out because of a lack of evidence, any reasonable and logical person would agree that the thing being accused didn't happen, buy unfortunately, the political right is not made of reasonable and logical individuals.

"weaponizing the justice system against political enemies, and about a million other things." 🔴

It's not lawfare when the person is actually guilty, and Donald Trump is so blatantly guilty that it's actually depressing how few cases put against him have actually advanced.

He committed 34 counts of business fraud just to hide the fact he paid off a porn star from the press before the 2016 election. A crime he was not only convicted guilty of but will not face any prison time for.

He brainwashed his base for months and then riled them up at the capital with shit like "You have to fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore", right before they stormed the capital and checked every single box that defines the word insurrection. An action which the constitution itself says should bar someone like him from office.

Or how he asked the Governor of Georgia to "find" the exact amount of votes he needed to win the state. The most blatant request for someone to commit election fraud I've ever seen asked by a politician.

The bottom line is that Trump is guilty of almost everything he's been accused of and a bunch of other crap we'll probably never know about until after he dies.

He is the most corrupt president ever. There are more investigations int him and his staff than any other president in history.

Nixon would have killed to be as unstickable as Trump.

Yet despite everything he's done, you people routinely deny it like it's not the most ridiculously obvious shit on Earth.

It's fucking disgraceful what Maga has turned this country into.

You're all a bunch of zombies with your eyes and ears sewn shut, blindly following the least trustworthy person on the planet who lies about even the most trivial shit.

It makes me legitimately sad to see you fall for the shit you do.

If you're gay, Republicans don't want you. I guess you didn't get the memo. They don't care about LGBQ rights.

Literally every slur I've ever gotten has been from a leftist, but go off I guess

275 notes · View notes

voteformightyclocks · 3 years ago

Text

Let’s Talk Star Wars Politics

Please don’t immediately be scared off, this isn’t going to get HIGHLY political, it’s more an analysis of how politics seem to work in Star Wars versus how it’s actually been portrayed in media, and I’ll also discuss my concerns with how Lucasfilm appears to be moving forward with these themes. Please note that I will not be diving into the Sequel trilogy, as that gets a bit more complicated, but if this post receives enough attention, I might be persuaded to make a sequel post for the Sequel trilogy

What does each side stand for or fight for? This is simple. The Rebellion fights for freedom, the Republic fights for peace and order. Pretty straightforward. However upon closer analysis, the Empire is fighting for peace and order, and the CIS (Separatists) fights for freedom...

The entire point of the Trade Federation blockade on Naboo was that the Republic wouldn’t listen to the concerns of some of it’s planets, and was largely hypocritical. The Republic would tolerate slavery on some planets like Tatooine, however abolished slavery on other planets such as Naboo and Coruscant. In fact, the further from the heart of the Republic you get, the more chaotic and disorganized things become, because the known galaxy was a very large thing for the Republic to try to keep on top of. This was why the CIS arose: they sought to liberate many suffering planets and form a new government that would take the planets the Republic was sacrificing, and give them new life. The problem was, they acted out in a very aggressive way, and turned themselves into terrorists to try to tear down the Republic

And the Republic listened. Many planets and senators approved of Chancellor Palpatine’s choice to reform the Republic into an Empire, and initial results were extraordinary. The Empire’s reach grew, and many planets that suffered under the Republic now prospered. This lasted for several years before the Empire had a similar issue: they couldn’t cover everything. Corruption grew at the edges of the Empire. Many worlds like Coruscant thrived like never before, however planets like Tatooine and Lothal saw a major increase in corruption, and the Empire, in an effort to combat this, tolerated many issues such as slavery. But this only encouraged corruption. And it was only a matter of time before the Rebellion arose

The Rebellion utilized similar strategies to the CIS; they committed acts of terrorism to fight the Empire. In response, many of the Empire’s resources had to be redirected to fight the Rebellion, and it wasn’t working. In fact, it put more pressure on the Empire because they no longer had the resources to fight corruption within their own ranks. So they put all expendable resources into the Death Star and blew up Alderaan. They knew the Organa family was involed in the Rebellion, and the war was causing the Empire to descend into chaos, so they needed this Death Star to count. But the Rebels blew up the Death Star, which left the Empire crippled, and allowed the Rebels to gain support among many systems

A huge theme in both of these eras is a central power unable to handle everything in the galaxy, and a rival power decided, “Let’s be terrorists and take over in a violent way”. In both cases, both sides were irrational, power-hungry, and did what was in their best interests

However, both sides also tried. Enter “Andor”

The Andor show is CLEARLY about to paint the Empire as a bunch of fat, spoiled pigs who don’t care. This is likely for some lesser worlds, so maybe the whole corruption angle could fit into here, but I’m largely concerned that the inner workings of the Empire will soon be tossed out the door. It would be so easy for the Andor show to retcon parts of the Thrawn series and create minor inconsistencies with Rebels

Do I think they will? No. I think Andor will succeed. I think Ahsoka probably will, too. I think both will surprise us

But I think they’ll come close, and that’ll make three major series (Kenobi, Andor, Ahsoka) connected to Rebels and other assorted parts of Star Wars that come so close to major retcons but just barely save themselves. Lucasfilm is walking a fine line right now. I think we’re safe for this year and next, but how long until Lucasfilm goes too far?

This has been a Clock Talk. Farewell, and take care

#star wars #andor series #ahsoka series #kenobi series #kenobi 2022 #star wars politics #star wars original trilogy #star wars prequels #lucasfilm #disney #disney+#voteformightyclocks #thrawn #galactic republic #galactic empire #cis #separatists #rebellion

22 notes · View notes

24worldnewsnet · 23 days ago

Photo

0 notes

theravenclawrevolutionary · 4 years ago

Note

i'm not a frev expert. and you seem to be approchable enough and to have read enough. i had a question, or kind of a question. i just. i think that if robespierre wasn't against all the deaths by guillotine, he wouldn't have written that quote about virtue and terror. maybe i'm getting you wrong, or i'm not understanding the sense of that quote. could you explain?

Oh dang. I'm kinda surprised that people think I have any real authority on the subject of the Frev since I'm not an actual historian or anything and I'm surprised people find me approachable but of course I'll try my best for you Anon! And if anyone else has a better interpretation or anything else to add please, go ahead. I'll also try my best to keep it in as simple language as I can. But I digress.

⚠ This post is quite long so be prepared for that ⚠

First of all, Robespierre has more than one quote talking about terror and virtue. I'm assuming that you're thinking of the one that goes, "Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country." since that is the most common one. However, if you're talking about the one that goes "Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country." Let me know and I'll write about that one. The former is definitely a quote that, in my experience studying the Frev, gets misinterpreted from what it was originally meant to say fairly often.

To start with, it's very important to know what connotation and definition the words 'virtue' and 'terror' had in revolution-era France. Modern-day definitions may not be the same ones that were used in the past. According to my research, which of course isn't infallible, virtue was used to refer to someone's disposition and the way it would lead them to choose good over evil whereas where terror was seen simply as great fear. At the time there was no connotation of our modern-day terrorism to associate with the word. Nowadays we associate terror with terrorism which brings to mind murder, mindless destruction, oppression, and unchecked authority in which someone's ideals are forced upon large groups of people. Because of this many people assume that this is what Robespierre had in mind when he referenced terror when really he meant to describe the use of intimidation tactics to seize power from those who oppressed the lower class people and the general fear that was felt by the commoners.

Essentially the Reign of Terror meant 'a time period where everyone felt a sh*t load of Fear over all the bad stuff happening at once while the regular people try to overthrow the oppressive ruling class with intimidation tactics.' It does not mean 'a time period where loads of people were purposely committing widespread acts of terrorism to push their agendas'. And really, it was the only way to give everyone the chance to get rid of the old government, the monarchy, and allow a fair democracy that would be beneficial to the future of France to be built.

Next, it's important to know the context in which this quote was originally said. The speech where Robespierre said it took place on Feb 5th (?) of 1794. By this point, the revolution has been well underway for several long years and, as I said, a lot of sucky things are happening at the same time. The republic was in a war with a massive part of Europe and they're kinda getting curb-stomped. The country is in a state of civil war between the people that still supported the monarchy and all the different groups that had different views of how the country should be run. France's economy was complete sh*t too, so all this really radicalized the people and made the whole revolution situation so much worse than it already was.

At the time there were two factions, so to say, in the National Convention that were hella pissed at each other and really at odds. the Hébertists (who, to make things easy, wanted to escalate the Terror, go on the offensive with the military, and the overthrow and replace some of the existing government structures at the time) and the Dantonists (who wanted to sorta get rid of the revolutionary government, negotiate for peace in the war, and chill out on the whole Terror thing). And remember that these groups of people were very loose and like people in today's politic didn't agree with every stance their 'faction' took.

By the time Max made this speech, which was addressing these two groups, the situation between them was escalated big time. The Hébertists, with their views of 'more terror all over! That'll help us win everything,' or 'terror without virtue,' were pushing for a system that would quickly prove fatal. By contrast, the Dantonists with their, 'we just need to kinda chill and things will work out,' way of thinking or 'virtue without terror', would only lead to them (and the rest of the country) getting walked over by everyone else.

Throughout the entire speech, a speech I haven't recently read all the way through, Max comes back to the idea of terror and virtue, stressing that both are necessary. What I think he meant to do was talk about how the revolution couldn't survive without both terror (fear and the aggression that causes it) and virtue (the choice of good over evil) being applied. He's trying to explain to both groups that a little bit of both ideals is the most beneficial way to go about things. In reality, it has nothing to do with whether he personally believed in or advocated the death penalty/ the use of the guillotine. Instead, Robespierre is emphasizing that at that particular moment in time doing what is right and good (virtue) will most likely end up causing some bad things that will make people afraid for a while (terror).

What Robespierre is not saying is that terror, and by extension the violence that is causing the terror is virtuous. There are several easy-to-find sources that prove his personal disapproval of the death penalty from a moral standpoint. As a young lawyer in his hometown in Arras, he became physically ill at the idea of having one of his clients sentenced to death, even though he was found guilty of the crime he was on trial for. He made a speech agreeing with the abolition of the death penalty on May 30th of 1791 (?) arguing that there is no place for the death penalty in a civilized society because the law needs to be a model of what is good. He attempted to save the lives of Georges Danton and Camille Desmoulins, two friends/coworkers that he is commonly charged with sending to their deaths when the opposite is actually true. Additionally, he did the same with other more controversial people including the king's sister of all people, Madame Elisabeth. Even when voting for the death of the king he reiterates his own opinion on the death penalty saying, "For myself, I abhor the penalty of death that your law so liberally imposes, and I have neither love nor hatred for the King; it is only the crimes that I hate…. It is with regret that I utter this baneful truth…Louis must die in order that our country may live." Though it conflicts with his personal views, Robespierre makes the decision based on the needs of France as a country, something that many politicians need to relearn how to do today.

Long story short, he was not supporting the use of the guillotine with that quote, but rather trying to get two opposing factions to realize that both intimidation/fear and making sound, beneficial decisions would keep France on the right track to building a successful democracy for the people. Hopefully this helped and I explained it in a way that was easy for you to understand. If you ever have any more Frev related questions feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer or I'll send you in the direction of someone else more knowledgeable if I don't know.

Also, can someone tell me if I did a good job of explaining this? I can never tell if things I write about the Frev make sense to me because I actually know exactly what I mean to say so everyone else kinda goes along with it or if I actually say helpful things of substance. Thanks guys! And if anyone else knows more about the subject or if I've made a mistake please help me out.

~Dara

#french revolution #robespierre #frev #maximilien robespierre #history #history facts #historical quotes #politics #my idiot explanations #idk if i worded this right #or if i even explained it right #i hope i helped though

35 notes · View notes

123-er--ed · 3 months ago

Video

youtube

#youtube

0 notes

bring-it-all-down · 4 years ago

Text

I am begging people to familiarize themselves with US efforts to overthrow the Cuban government in order to reinstate private corporations.

Prior to the 1959 revolution, American businesses owned the vast majority of the country’s sugar production as well as roughly 70% of the country’s land. This land was organized into a plantation system consisting of latifundia––large privately-owned pieces of land worked by slaves. This ownership was aided by America’s support (and installation) of the brutal dictator, Fulgencio Batista, who received monetary and military support in violently silencing the poor Cubans who opposed his suspension of civil liberties, including the right to strike. During the Cuban revolution, many of these landowners and business owners escaped to America rather than cooperating with the revolution and allowing their property to be nationally controlled. JFK in 1963 admitted that Batista’s regime was the fault of the US.

After the nationalization of Cuba’s industries, like sugar plantations, oil refineries, and banks, the U.S. authorized the CIA to begin attempts to overthrow the government and re-establish American private corporations on the island.

The first such attempt was the Bay of Pigs invasion in April of 1961. The invasion was carried out by a combination of CIA-funded Cuban exiles (named the Democratic Revolutionary Front) and members of the US military. The 1,400 invaders where defeated after only three days, however, after Castro took over leadership of the Cuban troops.

Following this embarrassment, JFK announced a full trade embargo on Cuba, beginning in February 1962. This trade embargo is still in place and has denied Cuba roughly $130 billion over the past 6 decades, according to both Cuban and United Nations estimates.

In November of 1961, the US government created another project to overthrow the Cuban government, titled Operation Mongoose. This project was more secretive and sinister than the Bay of Pigs invasion, involving political, psychological, military, intelligence, and assassination components meant to destabilize the entire Castro regime and bring the island back under American control. This operation distributed anti-Castro propaganda in Cuba, the US, and worldwide; funded militias in Cuba; established guerilla bases throughout the country; carried out attacks on power plants, oil refineries, sugar mills, and other manufacturing sites; and attempted multiple times to assassinate Castro and other Communist Party members (the CIA planned at least 500 assassination attempts against Castro in his lifetime). The Operation was scaled back in late 1962 due to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In conjunction with Operation Mongoose, the US considered implementing Operation Bounty––distributing leaflets around Cuba offering significant monetary rewards for the murder of Castro and a handful of other party members––and Operation Northwoods––committing acts of terrorism against US military and civilians in the US and Cuba and blaming them on Cuba. These projects were both allegedly ultimately rejected.

From 1960 to 1962, the US facilitated Operation Peter Pan, in which Catholic “charities” and the US government sent 14,000 unaccompanied children (mainly of upperclass families) to the US so they wouldn’t be enrolled in the government’s literacy campaign. While many children were eventually reunited with their families, others were placed in foster families as far away as Illinois and New York. They were all made to learn English and speak only in English in the orphanages in which they all lived for at least 6 months. The result was an alienation from their Cuban culture and an indoctrination into US propaganda.

On October 6, 1976, CIA-assisted Cuban exiles planted bombs on Cubana de Aviación Flight 455, departing from Barbados and heading toward Jamaica. The bombs detonated, exploding the plane and killing all 73 passengers, including the entire Cuban Olympic fencing team. Two of the terrorists, Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles eventually moved to the US, and Bosch was pardoned by George H.W. Bush in 1990.

In 2010, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) created ZunZuneo, named “Cuban Twitter.” This social media platform, designed to undermine the communist Cuban government, spammed its users with propaganda and collected private data to assist them in fomenting a revolution among Cuban youths.

These are just the very basics of the US’s efforts to overthrow the Castro government and reinstitute Cuba as a resource for American capitalism and imperialism. If you want to talk about whatever protests may or may not be happening in Cuba right now, you cannot do so outside of this context. You cannot talk about the poverty of Cuba without placing the blame on American embargoes.

If you want to discuss America’s understanding of Cuban humanitarian need, you cannot do so without reckoning with America’s use of Guantanamo Bay on the same island which we are supposed to believe they want to liberate.

Just last week, the President submitted a budget to Congress, asking for $20,000,000 to fund support for private businesses in Cuba and $13,000,000 to find Office of Cuba Broadcasting, which transmits American propaganda in Spanish to Cuba. This office was created in the 1980s for the explicit purpose of undermining communism in Cuba.

This is not to say that every single Cuban is happy with the Cuban government at all times, but rather that the US has a vested interest in overthrowing the government and establishing a capitalist, US-friendly one in its place. Any international protest crowd that is full of American flags should be a GIANT tip-off that the CIA/US government might just be involved! Just imagine what the CIA is hiding when all of the information comes from declassified files!!!!!

#Cuba #CIA #America does not remotely care about legitimate humanitarian abuses #It cares about making it seem like communist countries are committing such abuses to give it pretext to meddle and commit acts of terrorism #Anti-capitalism #Anti-imperialism

20 notes · View notes