#devolution agreement

[allthecanadianpolitics]

After nearly 25 years as a territory, Nunavut is expected to sign a devolution agreement Thursday with the federal government.  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is scheduled to arrive in Iqaluit Thursday to sign the agreement alongside the territorial government representatives and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.  The signing of this agreement essentially transfers responsibility of Crown lands and waters from the federal government to the territorial government.  The details of the agreement have not been released publicly, but will be available once the agreement is signed.

Continue Reading

Tagging @politicsofcanada

[beautifulpersonpeach]

Not gonna lie, this whole thing really sucks. I think I wrote a message awhile back about the very cool feminist angle of the Plus Global Auditions Invitation video, I'm an SNL Army and was new to watching kpop very closely and was so sold by that video. I thought - 'this company is really different.' Going public with a company f*cks a lot of things up, it happens all so often, and often it's the people and the ethos that gets messed up the most. It's frustrating to see this devolution. Because I was really excited by what MHJ was being given space to do at BH/Hybe. Though, as a fellow art school student, I am shaking my head and serious side-eyes at how she says things like 'I'm an artist, I don't know how to read contracts' (obviously I'm paraphrasing) - it's clear Hybe knows she's got the goods but she's not playing by their game anymore. The response and flood of crazy comments and hate at BTS is frustrating but expected, but just such a waste of time all the same. I've also never thought BH and then Hybe were super super smart and long-gaming everything (don't come for me Bangtan U fans) I think they were lucky and scrappy and skillful and making cool things happen moment to moment. Later on they got better at the strategic planning, sure. I don't know. They may need a good kick in the pants to remember that's what makes them great at what they do. But still, I hate the idea of MHJ being cooked even if she seems like a real pain in the tush to work with. Because technically, she's what got me to really buy-in to what BTS & BH were doing in the first place.

***

Yeah, it's a shitty situation.

To be fair, I think at the start, Bang PD was trying to do something different and 'forward-thinking' with HYBE. He sought out good talent going by the hires he did in 2019/2020, managing to onboard creatives like Min Heejin and Zico. Zico already incorporated his company to manage himself before Bang PD approached him, which is probably why he owns ~24.5% of KOZ - his sub-label in HYBE.

But with Min Heejin...

She had partnered with 250 - a popular DJ in Korea and NewJeans' main producer, since she left SM in 2018. He runs BANA (a creative collective) but she'd wanted her own label since the start.

Bang PD knew this, and wanted her for HYBE, so it's likely he made all sorts of promises to get her on board without awarding her a single share. Almost as soon as key creative decisions had to be made post-Global Plus audition, they both clashed, but HYBE as a company was less than 1 year old and it appears Bang PD and MHJ still had good relations... which was kinda easy since he still needed her creative output and wanted to see what she could do. So they let her make her own label: ADOR, and keep NewJeans even though according to Min Heejin, HYBE executives and Bang PD thought her concept and style of music for them would be impossible to sell to k-pop stans.

They expected NewJeans to fail or flounder. Instead, by 2023 NewJeans had become one of the top 5 most valuable k-pop IPs in Korea. If my guess is right, by that point she had no shares in ADOR, no agreement with HYBE's indefinite non-compete clause. She could walk anytime and I'm sure a lot of people wanted her.

Then HYBE approached Min Heejin with the shareholder contract to give her 20% of the company. It's a classic 'carrot and stick'. The carrot was easy to see. Apparently offered her the shares at a very low price, apparently Bang PD even lent her the money to buy it, for a valuation that HYBE considered more than generous, he was in her KakaoTalk chats buttering her up with those godawful emojis lmaooo. He was selling that shit hard. The stick in the contract was the poison pill which essentially tied her to HYBE for as long as they want her.

Perhaps she was aware of the pill and signed any way because at that point they still had good relations with Bang PD and HYBE in general. But according to her, Bang PD kept wanting more control over NewJeans the more successful the group became. Realizing she had to do something about the poison pill, she sought to negotiate, and as is typical in these sort of situations, you fight greed with more greed.

Asking to bump up the multiple on the options from 13x to 30x is frankly ridiculous. For a male CEO I can see it being considered... maybe, but for a woman? In Korea?

I'm sure when the other suits at HYBE heard that's what she was asking, at least one of them almost had a stroke. The logic is simple though: start crazy high and end.. just high. If HYBE was looking to exert more control over NewJeans (for example, every sub-label and group in HYBE changed to using 'bio-paper and ink' for their albums starting in 2023, to help HYBE meet their ESG targets. The only company that's not made the switch yet, is ADOR. Given how carefully MHJ controls branding and album design for NewJeans, I can see this minute detail being a massive thorn lol)... anyway, if HYBE was indeed looking to gain more control, the fact that they'd have to pay 30x if MHJ exercised her options on a whim, would serve as a very strong deterrent.

Given what I understand Korean corporate culture to be like, I doubt she had any friends in upper management to start, but with a demand like that, practically all of them would turn enemies in a heartbeat. It's the sheer audacity lmao. My guess is she would've eventually negotiated down, at least once she was assured real creative independence from Bang PD. But at some point, rather, quite predictably given this is corporate Korea, the need for control and the egos involved decided she had to be cut loose now and perhaps taught to not bite the hand that feeds her.

It's not a sentiment limited to the suits at HYBE. It's followed her since SM and the general public would hate it too, which is one reason I think it's only a matter of time before the narrative switches again to HYBE's favour. I promise you, most regular men in Korea would go red in the face, eyes bulging out their heads, drool and spit shooting out like projectiles, at the thought she would dare to demand such a thing. And in a way they'd be right. It's an insane amount of money for female creative in Korea, but I think given everything else, it also seems like a gamble she was taking as a means to an end. A simple negotiating tactic, given what she keeps highlighting as her main goal - unimpeded and full creative and managerial control.

Bang PD wants to build a 'forward-thinking' company comparable to Western conglomerate juggernauts like SONY and Warner Music, but I don't think these Korean men have the chops to do it right, just yet. I've had that impression of Bang PD for a few years now. He's been getting results, but they are inconsistent and he's got the biggest 'surety' in a sense with BTS, so he's been fine, and will continue to be fine for a few more years at least. But if they are messing up this spectacularly with their first female executive and one of their most valuable IPs, over... an options price negotiation?

And they want to pretend to be better than any other corp in Korea?

Lol.

Anyhoo.

I sympathize a bit with how you feel, but as a Korean woman, I guess I'm numb to it. There's a reason I've never chosen to work in that country, there's a reason why the birth rate is nearing the negatives. It's really unfortunate, and I'm sorry you're seeing a prior expectation you had getting blown up this way. And this latest hatefest on BTS has been quite ugly and isn't near done yet. This whole situation is gross, and even more so when the motivations behind it are so... banal and backwards.

But these are undercurrents that are too simple and boring for the average stan. Burning the witch who is responsible for masterminding the demise of a virtuous group is far more exciting. And so that's how the story will go.

I just hope that by some miracle, NewJeans turns out okay and manages to thrive after this. Because in all of this mess, they will deal with the implications the most and for the longest time.

[rants-about-opm]

Depression, Coping Methods, and Genos

Right now, I feel like that one gif of Pedro Pascal laughing and then beginning to sob hysterically. Life is kicking my ass.

But speaking of depression, I wanted to do a little thinking about Genos, and his story.

His life has been pretty dark so far. Losing his childhood to the rampaging cyborg, becoming a cyborg himself.

But these aren't really the only big things that have happened to him. They're just the only events he's realized have had an effect on him.

Since then, he's become very closely involved with a man who has trouble reciprocating those emotions. He's been torn apart and rebuilt numerous times, losing bits of his humanity each times as he becomes more and more of a high tech murder machine.

His strength continues to fail him when he needs it most, meanwhile Saitama's time and attention becomes more and more divided on people he hardly sees as worthy of those things. Worst of all, no one seems to understand him, his goals, or his devotion to Saitama. He's often laughed off and ignored by people who are meant to be his peers, and even Saitama has no real interest in Genos' long winded stories.

That brings us around to his coping methods, one of the more prominent of which is his habit of long winded explanations of topics he finds important. His journey to Saitama, Saitama's time travel endeavor, etc. Aside from that, we have his obligatory journaling, his insistence on having a goal to work towards at any given time, and dependence on being able to respond to any given scenario with the calculated and emotionless precision of a machine.

That last one is arguably the most important, because of how it influences the above. Saitama is a very closed off person, and he expects Genos to respect that- which he does!

To his own detriment.

Genos is completely fine with their terms of agreement, but his overly compliant nature means his needs are ultimately ignored. The methods he's developed to express himself and interact with the world in a way that is comfortable for him are seen as nuisances in Saitama's lifestyle.

Ultimately, none of this seems to have much effect on Genos. At least, not in a traditional manner.

But Genos is not traditional, is he? And depression and anxiety can manifest in many forms.

I would argue that Genos' entire relationship with Saitama is one of the few visible effects of the internal havoc at play.

He seeks refuge and guidance under Saitama as an extension of his need to become strong enough to avenge his village. This leads to him suppressing his habits to conform. The problem is that he isn't Saitama, not even close. This is kind of where we see a devolution of Genos' ability to cope, as he descends into a manic state of endless self destructive behavior, enabled by Saitama's baseless encouragement and Kuseno's ability to fix whatever breaks.

Saitama is not a mentally healthy individual. As a result, any attempt to follow in his footsteps is not going to craft a mentally healthy individual. The problem is that both of these two are emotionally constipated. Saitama has lost connection with his emotions and had little desire to reconnect, and Genos works to shed all proof of his humanity.

We've already seen the end result of Saitama reaching his breaking point. I shudder to think of what will happen when Genos inevitably reaches his.

I feel like there's more to say, but this is getting long winded, and my brain is fried. If anybody has any additions or corrections to make though, I'd love to continue this line of thought, and maybe examine some other characters, since everyone in ONE'S work is mentally unstable in some way.

Thanks for reading!

[darkmaga-returns]

Today’s book is:

Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order by Patrick M. Wood

In 1974, Trilateral Commission member and academic Richard Gardner wrote an article "The Hard Road to World Order" for Foreign Affairs magazine, predicting the future of the Commission's self-proclaimed new international economic order. Gardner spoke of an "end-run around national sovereignty", a "booming, buzzing confusion", and building it from the "bottom up" rather than attempting an "old-fashioned frontal assault".

After almost 45 years, it is time to examine the record. In Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, Wood traces the steps and developments that led to the United Nations' establishment of sustainable development goals as an outgrowth of historic technocracy from the 1930s.

UN programs such as 2030 Agenda, New Urban Agenda, and the Paris Climate Agreement are all working together to displace capitalism and free enterprise as the world's principal economic system.

As a resource-based economic system, sustainable development intends to take control of all resources, production, and consumption on Earth, leaving all of its inhabitants to be micromanaged by a scientific dictatorship. Topics covered in this audiobook include the devolution of federal governments combined with the rise of global smart cities.

Tools are examined, like ubiquitous surveillance, collaborative governance, public-private partnerships, reflexive law, fintech, including cryptocurrencies, and the drive toward a cashless society. The spiritual aspect of sustainable development is also explored as an important component of manipulation.

Looking underneath the cover of globalization, Wood shatters the false narrative of a promised utopia and exposes the true nature of the deception used to promote this new economic order. Those elite who hate the bedrock of American liberty and its time-tested constitution have pulled out all the stops to destroy both, and it's time for citizens to stand up to reject them. As always, Wood closes with the nature of effective resistance and the tools that can help to achieve success.

You can buy the book here (Amazon link).

[cctinsleybaxter]

On a post about the 2024 Nunavut Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement

[midnight-els]

3, 5, 7, and 11 for the for all mankind ask meme!!!!

Thanks! 🥰

3. Favourite use of music?

I do think every use of Sinatra for Ed's scenes is brilliant, especially as the seasons go on, but for sheer awe and amusement power, the pirate song in the solar sail scene wins. The Sojourner crew knew what they were doing and boy did they lean into it 😂

5. What alternate history moment do you want the show to have explored more?

It was just a throwaway moment in the newsreel, but I really want to know more about the impacts of the IRA succeed in killing Margaret Thatcher in the Brighton Bombing. Does it precipitate any change in the UK/US/Western country's relationship to terrorism (especially as we then don't have 9/11 and its impacts!)? What does it mean for Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement? For electoral politics in the UK? For devolution? The political scientist in me needs answers.

7. Favourite EARTH moment?

Aleida hugging Margo in 4x06. It still makes me cry so much: her being so relieved Margo is alive despite all her hurt and just SOBBING, Margo so not expecting it and having to take a moment before she can return the hug. GOD 😭

11. Favourite costume?

I am a simple homosexual, and the answer must therefore be Margo's grey three piece suit in 1x06.

I'm constantly blown away by the costuming in the show and have always been a real sucker for the period pieces. I wasn't sure about this season because 00's fashion is, uh, not my favourite but it is being used so skillfully to complement and expand the character choices I am loving it more than ever.

[woozapooza]

Ultimately, far-right conspiracy theorists and horny reply guys’ response to Gomas as well as the media’s despicable handling of the footage, represents a turning point in the evolution — or devolution, as the case may be — of internet culture. Not only is it no longer true that private citizens enjoy a reasonable expectation of being able to have a very bad day — in fact, maybe even the worst day of their lives — without millions of people watching that bad day happen in real time; or that their physical appearance not be meticulously scrutinized; or that they be accused of being government plants whose identities have been erased by the CIA, by boomers who are too dumb to figure out how to do a simple LinkedIn search. Not only do we seem to have come to a universal understanding that vulnerable people who behave erratically make for good content, ethics be damned, but we also seem to have come to an agreement that these people deserve to have our own twisted narratives projected onto them, even if they beg for us to do otherwise. I don’t know anything about Tiffany Gomas. I don’t know if she’s a bad person or a good person or if she had some sort of premonition or if she freaked out because she lost his AirPods or if she was unwell or took too many Ambien without going to sleep. I know absolutely nothing about her except for two things: she was a person who had a very bad day, and she was a person who wanted to be left alone. And because we weren’t willing to do the latter, she has to relive the former, over and over and over again, possibly for the rest of her life.

[crystallizedkingdoms]

so nunavuts devolution agreement was signed, and in the midst of checking stuff out i unfortunately fell into a bit of a doom scroll. but the most fascinating thing i found in the droves of ignorant and hateful tweeting, i find it utterly fascinating how white people see indigenous faces and expressions as full of hate.

I’ve seen a few variations of this tweet, and while I don’t really care to dissect the allegation this guy is throwing trudeau, I literally can’t help but notice how this guy is seeing very happy Inuuk men as being… upset? untrusting?

like. nothing aside from maybe the man’s arms being crossed portrays anything bitter. but because we raise our eyebrows in approval, because we don’t have the exact same meanings in our expression for white people, we’re just seen as Angry when we’re not. idk its weird. anyway nunavut devolution yayy

[mixedadvocate]

The Devolution of the Term “racist”

There is a fundamental dispute being played out in the western world daily. This dispute will ultimately lead to senseless violence unless we as “western society” work with patience and understanding to bridge the communication gap. I by no means have the answers, but I have noticed a few salient points through saturnalias with like-minded people and solitary deep reflections.

As a society and a civilization, we have decided that categorizing entire social groups as having certain fixed traits is largely bad, thereby creating an implicit agreement that such labeling is “racist”. Arbitrarily placing every member of a demographic group into a single, non-distinct group by virtue of certain shared characteristics reminds us of the many unmerited and dehumanizing policies previously justified in the name of race.  The modern difficulty has sprung from two differing views on what racism consists of, separating proponents into two diametrically opposed factions. Moreover, the term “racist” is now often used to shut down conversations rather than leading to meaningful dialogue.

The factions arose as a result of competing interpersonal societal dynamics designated as ‘truths’ by each faction. The first group’s truth is the idea that each individual should be treated as an individual no matter the group to which they belong. The second group’s truth is that the first truth can be absurd at a practical level if an individual does display many stereotypical characteristics or behaviors that are typically reflective of the larger social group to which he belongs. The latter part of this second truth became problematic since by indicating or referring to the second truth in the ‘incorrect’ manner, a member of the second group could be labeled a racist by group one for daring to notice that individuals in social groups tend to have certain shared behaviors or characteristics.

The conflict arises when individuals in Group one categorically refuse to acknowledge that social groups tend to follow certain trends or have predominant characteristics. However, Group one contradicts itself with the view that accepting certain behaviors and general characteristics can or should be expressed, via ��most [insert noun] are [Insert adjective]” with respect to certain (majority) groups (of power). Thus, making a blanket statement about one social group may raise no reaction, while making the same statement about a different social group makes the statement racist.

For example, in both news media and in the academic world if someone says “most white people are bad,” very few people will make an issue out of it. However, if one inserts a minority group’s race instead of the term white, then the speaker is declared a bigot or racist if he does not couch the statement within approved, yet undefined parameters. The justifications are arbitrary by logical standards. According to the new age (modern) definition of racism, only white people can be racist because of historical injustices and power dynamics perpetrated by whites against other races. So, “most white people are bad” is just a historical fact. Proposing that “power” is the source of one’s ability to be harmfully discriminatory is based on a feeling, not based on the rationality of fairness between two individuals(or groups). Harmful discrimination that should be condemned is not dependent on the race of the utterer/committer or the race of the object of said discrimination. Otherwise discrimination is riding a seesaw of power dynamics in a racial struggle dependent on the group one belongs to, which then taken to its logical conclusion turns into an eye for an eye: we discriminate against you because you (usually the subjects perception of the objects ancestral lineage) discriminated against me and my ancestry.

For example, look at South African racial politics post-Apartheid and the state of the country today. Apartheid was terrible and treated the native black South Africans horribly, but the current treatment of the white South Africans does not look much different than how the native South Africans were treated. While understandable, as the injustice of Apartheid is still fresh in the country’s eyes. It is a perfect example of how power based on the personal position [one’s race] corrupts more than any other characteristic that is given power. Is this ideology any better than the racial discrimination the term “racist”, or the ending of Apartheid was originally seeking to address?

Compare the modern view of a racist to the classical view that asserts that no matter which noun is inserted in the statement, if it is “racist” against one social group then it is racist against any social group. This has been the predominant definition of racism since the beginning of its coining. Furthermore, the term “racist” has been weaponized against individuals and groups to advance certain political or ideological agendas. It has been used to silence dissenting opinions, discredit opponents, and stifle free speech without logical justification.

For better or worse, everyone is placed as a member of one of these factions when the term racist gets used. If it ended there, things might make more sense, even though neither side can articulate their position to the satisfaction of the other. However, the divide between these groups is exacerbated by their inability to explain in concrete terms when grouping people together constitutes racism and when it does not.

This further breakdown in the conversation is caused by the inability to explain the reason Group one finds a particular statement racist. Implicit in the term “racist” is the idea that what is being stated is false, bad, missing information, and/or uncomfortable. However, without further explanation as to why one interprets the particular statement as racist, it is unclear why the particular statement or action is being condemned. By using such a strong word without clearly explaining why a particular behavior or statement is harmful, the arbiter treats the person’s statements or behaviors as purely imaginary (as in a manner of coping that is not based in reality). Telling someone, “oh, that is racist” or “you are racist” signals to the speaker that they need to stop what they are saying because they are out of touch with a moral and just reality. Furthermore, the epithet “racist” signals that the conversation is corrupt, immoral, and the “racist” needs to change their behavior and their belief or be cast out from this particular social environment. Alternatively, the person labeled “racist” must remove themselves from this environment if they do not quickly correct what they are communicating. Yet, what truly divides people is when the conversation devolves into a fight over whether a statement is racist or not and the fundamental definition of racism (Modern vs Classical) instead of trying to understand each person’s underlying worldview and value system and accepting those differences.

Thus, society is asking busy people with diverse and complex lives to navigate these attacks and conflicting approaches instantaneously to fit into modern society, social circles, and global life as many social interactions are being replaced by artificial social media exchanges. To add to the difficulty, most people are used to using heuristics—mental short-cuts–in their social interactions. Navigating the “racist” debate requires careful planning to say the proper thing in the clearest way possible given the particular situation; however, most of these conversations are generally unplanned. It is delusional to believe that this is practical since it takes way too long to think outside of one’s beliefs; especially when one is in a battle for one’s near and dear beliefs. Managing the conversation requires a decision tree, which is only helpful when one has time to analyze probabilities and various outcomes that lead to other probabilities, etc. But for everyday interactions, having an overly complex mental schema like the above is reserved for those with highly powered brain function and people with severe anxiety disorders, a very small percentage of the population. Therefore, most people are forced to choose sides in this convoluted space.

When the world we live in makes people choose a side, and then makes people feel evil for the side that they choose, everyone loses. I have been in conversations where I break all of this down, just for someone to start screaming at me that I am justifying violence or using a complicated way of justifying racism. This reaction is the crux of what I hope people realize: that we have corrupted the very building blocks of conversing about race to the point that when people disagree on this topic, they do not really articulate themselves in a constructive manner. Rather, they get angry and talk past each other. Navigating the complex ways people view racism should lead to a form of ego death and a realization of “fuck, this shit is complicated.” The conversation should entail trying to understand someone’s personal motivations, not boxing them in with a label that only one’s own “group” understands. Still, it’s a lot easier to fall back on one’s beliefs and treat the other side as a threat, which is a primal reaction – especially if what one believes (one’s identity) is being attacked constantly and one is being called evil or being accused of bad intentions. At a certain point, people on both sides will realize (at least at a subconscious level) that conversations are not going to change and violence is the purest form of communication when words no longer lead to effective dialogue.

I pray to be wrong, and I chose the challenge of writing this in the hope of making a difference. So, all I ask is that the next time you use the word “Racist” or a similar term, please realize that most of what you are achieving is counterproductive and only signals which side of the debate you are on. You are tricking yourself into believing that you are articulating something of substance to the other side. Instead, you are contributing to the violence that is an inevitable result of the modern decay of venting that we like to call communication. But ultimately, I might be the one tricking myself into thinking I have articulated something of substance.

I also pray for understanding. However, I do not pray for peace, since peace without understanding is just the illusion of a ceasefire when a shortage of ammunition is really the cause of the calm.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Nearly 25 years after Nunavut became a territory, it has signed a final agreement with the government of Canada to have the final say over a long list of decisions that were, until now, usually made in Ottawa.  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Premier P.J. Akeeagok and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. president Aluki Kotierk signed the agreement at a ceremony in Iqaluit this afternoon.  It's the largest land transfer in Canada's history, Trudeau said — two million square kilometres of land and water. The 239-page document outlines how Canada will give control over Nunavut's land and resources to the government of Nunavut — a process known as devolution

Continue Reading

Tagging @politicsofcanada

[adamsrib68]

Signing of the Nunavut Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement - Januar...

[theoptimisticpatriot]

Should Higher Education be devolved?

First posted on the HEPI blog 5.12.24.

Should higher education policy be devolved?

This deceptively simple question raises profound questions about what the United Kingdom represents (or should represent) in the 21st century, the desirability of centralising or decentralising public policy, and the best way of organising what is a key component of society, economy and state in a modern world.

The idea of the UK as a unitary state escaped the imaginations of Scotland and Wales decades ago and was only ever compelling for one community in Northern Ireland. Only in the Anglo-centric imaginations of England did Britain and the UK continue to be regarded as an extension of our own nation. These developing national aspirations were given institutional form via UK devolution 25 years ago. Northern Ireland gained devolved higher education policy under the 1998 Belfast Agreement and higher education was devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly soon after. As the resulting national political communities deepened, the ability to shape higher education policy made an important contribution. It became one of devolution’s defining features, even briefly impinging on England in 2003 when Scottish Labour MPs were whipped to impose fees on English students their constituents would not have to pay.

Given the disparity of size and weight of England within the UK, ending Higher Education devolution would not lead to a genuine UK wide policy but the imposition of English political priorities on the whole of the United Kingdom. This is why neither governments nor electorates in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now demanding to adopt the current English fees, English funding, English regulation or the whole framework of perverse incentives within which English universities operate. Nor did they want to slash overseas student numbers, a policy driven by English political concerns. Though every nation finds university funding challenging, and it is impossible for devolved national policymakers to ignore the policy framework in England – indeed, the Welsh Government have announced plans to raise the undergraduate fee cap to £9,535, mirroring the recent uplift in England - calls for automatic alignment with England are few and far between.

No doubt, the silence reflects an awareness that the UK Government does not and never did make policy based on a balanced assessment of its impact on each nation. When the UK Government trebled English fees for full-time home undergraduates, based as we now know, on a dodgy measure of the impact on public funding, it showed little interest in the consequences for students and institutions in the devolved nations. Most calls to roll back devolution stem from a desire to re-assert the Anglo-centric British Unionism in which policy is made in England by English-based policymakers who conflate English interests with those of the rest of the UK.

The principle of sovereign decision-making should remain, but it should also be recognised that the current devolution settlement is far from ideal, and not only in higher education. For those who want the UK to prosper rather than fracture, devolution is only one step in a wider process of ensuring that the powers and responsibilities are exercised at the most appropriate level of local, national and union government. Crucial to that is finding the best forms of collaboration between those who hold devolved powers. One largely unplanned consequence of UK devolution was the measure of progress by the degree of separation between the devolved nations and the UK Government. Powers were seen as either devolved or not. Some have challenged the idea that Whitehall simply decided to ‘devolve and forget’, but it was rare for discussion of how best to work together to feature in England’s Anglo-centric political debate. The Welsh Government has repeatedly tried to open this debate but has simply been rebuffed.

The system can work better, and the higher education sector could provide crucial leadership. In the past, confidence in a unitary British state deteriorated with the erosion of British unionist communities confident in their shared interests. The changing structure and ownership of the economy have made a coherent British (or Anglo-Scottish) business class a thing of the past. The British trade union movement drawing strength from industry and mining is a shadow of its former self. But in higher education, a UK-wide community of interest remains founded in a common interest in research, education and knowledge exchange, and facing shared challenges of economic viability and sustainability. In my admittedly limited experience, there are no distinct national fractures in the understanding of the purpose or practice of higher education within universities. With a new UK Government taking office, is it too much to hope that both the sector and ministers in the UK Government and the devolved administrations might show how devolution and collaboration can work better together.

We might start with the institutional arrangements for cooperation. England is the largest part of the UK, but its higher education interests are not recognised, nor are clear distinctions drawn with UK-wide interests. The UK Government constantly conflates UK priorities with those of England. Relations across the UK would be strengthened if the English interest were separately identified, and the issues for cross-UK collaboration defined, within the mechanisms for intra-governmental relations. In turn, ministers in the UK Government might be encouraged to be clear when their comments on the sector apply only to England’s universities and when to all of them.

The sector itself could also be clearer about UK-wide and national policy. A recent Universities UK (UUK) report on financial sustainability calls for ‘urgent action by the UK Government’ without exploring the different responsibilities of the different governments. HEPI and London Economics have published valuable comparative research on national funding models. It highlights the wide range of taxpayer support for students across the UK but does not unpick the influence of UK Government policy, how the resources available are reflected in the Barnett formula, and the impact of legitimate national resource allocation decisions. Without this we do not know whether each nation starts on the same level playing field.

Devolution was intended to encourage policy innovation and experimentation, but there is little shared analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the different funding models that might shape the future evolution of all national policies. Each model produces different incentives for institutional and individual behaviours and has different implications for graduate finances and university viability. This, too, is an area where the sector could do far more to lead the discussion.

The distribution of research funding is not devolved, but perhaps more should be. A coherent UK-wide research strategy is important. However, both the nations and the emerging English mayoral combined local authorities – which often cover populations and economies comparable to the devolved nations – cannot influence the research investment they need to foster regional economic growth. Current place-based research UKRI funding rounds mirror the Whitehall obsession with competitive funding rounds in which most lose out. A new balance between UK-wide strategy and allowing greater autonomy to nations and England’s localities is possible.

Attempts to overturn the devolution settlement would cause political pain and widen rifts in the UK’s unions. But there is much we could do to improve it, and it’s a debate the sector should have the confidence to lead.

[thecountydiary]

Kitui Mp Dr. Makali Mulu Applauds Ksh. 387 Billion Allocation to Counties

Outstanding Mp. Hon. Dr. Makali Mulu, Member of Parliament for Kitui Central, has hailed the Mediation Committee’s resolution on the Division of Revenue (Amendment) Bill, 2024, which allocates a record Ksh. 387 billion to County Governments. Speaking at Parliament Buildings, Dr. Mulu described the agreement as a significant milestone in Kenya’s devolution agenda. He emphasized the critical role…

[everythingkashmir]

Kashmir lessons from Northern Ireland peace process

By Faisul Yaseen

Sean Murray and Muhammad Yasin Malik are similar yet different.

A former member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, Murray was jailed for 12 years for explosive offences in 1982.

Today, he is a senior member of Sinn Fein and an Irish Republican from Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Like Murray, Malik, the chairman of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), a pro-independence armed group in Kashmir, renounced violence in 1994 and took a plunge into separatist politics. However, unlike Murray, he remains imprisoned at New Delhi’s Tihar Jail and was awarded life sentence by India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) court.

In an interview in Belfast, Murray said that the transition from the armed conflict to the political conflict in Northern Ireland was difficult.

“British government was reluctant but the Irish diaspora and the US helped pave the way to the Good Friday Agreement that gave us the political structure,” he said. “The Good Friday Agreement was a breakthrough although there still are issues.”

Murray said that the Police and the criminal justice system that were earlier seen as extensions of unionism had improved.

On whether there was any chance of people in Northern Ireland taking up arms again, he said, “Not in the foreseeable future.”

Murray though was quick to add that when they launched an armed rebellion, it was the “right thing to do.”

He said that having British soldiers on Northern Ireland streets would be a disaster.

“I have seen friends in graveyards. I have had sleepless nights. To every action there is a reaction. No one explains the fear of the conflict, the fear that you are going to die,” Murray said.

Like him, Malik too saw most of his JKLF members killed, but ironically after renouncing violence.

Similarities and Dissimilarities

There are various similarities between the Northern Ireland and the Kashmir conflict but the way Britain and India have dealt with the two conflicts does not derive any parallels.

While Britain responded to the violence perpetuated by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) with the devolution of more powers to Northern Ireland, New Delhi reacted to the armed insurgency in Kashmir with the abrogation of its semi-autonomous status.

The Troubles led to the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998, and the St Andrews Agreement of 13 October 2006 but would Kashmir insurgency similarly shift from a violent means to a peaceful dialogue process, leading to some sort of resolution, remains to be seen.

Salil Tripathi in his opinion piece ‘Where the Irish and Kashmiri stories converge and diverge’ for the ‘The Mint’ writes, “Northern Ireland elects its own first minister and there is significant devolution of power (not unlike the spirit of Article 370), and governments are formed based on power-sharing.

“In Northern Ireland, former first ministers are not under house arrest without being charged; the internet has not been shut down; troops are not marching and the streets not deserted; and nobody – not Catholic revellers, nor Protestants marching provocatively during the season - fear being shot at by pellet guns and getting blinded.”

Kashmir Conflict

If Shakespearean drama Hamlet were to be about India-Pakistan relations, the Prince of Denmark has to be Kashmir.

The north-Indian region of Kashmir has been a bone of contention between India and Pakistan since 1947 and people of Kashmir have borne the brunt of this conflict for the past seven and a half decades.

Since late 1980s, the conflict has turned uglier with human rights organisations putting the number of people killed at 70,000, many more thousands wounded, over 8500 subjected to enforced disappearances, hundreds of women raped, and thousands of children orphaned.

Intermittently, in the past, there have been efforts to foster friendly relations between New Delhi and Islamabad, and also between New Delhi and Kashmir, but, of late, there have not been any major peace and reconciliation efforts. For the past over 10 years, New Delhi has been dealing Kashmir with an iron fist with policies like ‘Operation All-Out’ against the local insurgents and clamping down on the separatist groups.

With the focus shifting from developmental activities to anti-militant and anti-separatist activities, the governance has taken a hit.

Kashmir for Northern Ireland-type Resolution

In Kashmir, both the pro-India as well as the pro-independence leadership has called for the resolution of the Kashmir issue on the pattern of Northern Ireland.

Three-time chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah pitched for the resolution of the Kashmir issue on the model of Good Friday Agreement.

“Like Northern Ireland, the only roadmap forward is two Kashmirs with an easy border and autonomy,” Business Standard quoted him as saying during a discussion organised by South Asia Institute at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London.

“Kashmir can be solved if both the nuclear powers – India and Pakistan - realise that whatever solution has to emerge, everybody will not accept it,” he said.

Abdullah’s archrival in politics and Kashmir’s head priest, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who heads the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), a conglomerate of various Kashmiri separatist groups, in an interview to Reuters said, “I think Kashmir and Northern Ireland do have similarities – the fact that it’s the will of the people to be their own masters and not under the hegemony of one party or the other.

 “If you look at Northern Ireland, it has moved from confrontation to cooperation. That is what we have to do.”

Not only in Kashmir, the Northern Ireland conflict resolution process has also found takers in Pakistan.

Pakistan’s former human rights minister, Shireen Mazari also proposed the Northern Ireland model as a possible solution to “Kashmir dispute”.

At a webinar organised by Islamabad Policy Institute, a prominent think tank of Pakistan, Mazari said, “Pursuing the model of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 brought together all parties to the conflict in Northern Ireland and ended decades of violence. The Northern Ireland model can be a possible approach to resolving the Kashmir dispute.”

Abrogation of Article 370

On 5 August 2019, Government of India (GoI) decided to annex the semi-autonomous Kashmir region while abrogating Article 370 of the Indian constitution.

For over a year, people did not have access to the internet.

The academic activity in schools, colleges, and universities suffered with students unable to attend the classes due to undeclared curfew, shutdowns, and a civil disobedience movement against New Delhi’s unilateral decision of stripping the region of its special status.

The business activity in the region suffered a body blow with the Kashmir economy witnessing loss worth billions of Indian rupees.

GoI not only downgraded the status of the semi-autonomous region but also divided it into two union territories – the Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir, and the Buddhist-majority Ladakh, both controlled directly from New Delhi without any role of local governance.

The development of the region, the premise on which the GoI took this decision, is completely missing from Kashmir.

People of Kashmir believe that the real reason for abrogating the special status of the region is their distinct ethno-religious identity.

New Delhi’s decision of doing away with the special status of Kashmir has complicated the matters further with disenchantment spreading even among the pro-India political parties in the region.

Even three former chief ministers, Farooq Abdullah, Omar Abdullah, and Mehbooba Mufti remained in detention for around a year and have been placed under house arrest from time to time.

Issue of Identities

Clearly, India has not been able to handle its ethno-religious identities well.

Contrary to this, the United Kingdom seems to have handled the experiment of nationalities within in a better way.

While India stripped the special semi-autonomous status of Kashmir and is on a path of ‘Ek Vidan, Ek Pradan, Ek Nishan’ (One constitution, one state head, and one flag), democratic movements in the UK led to autonomy and devolution of powers.

Over the years, the UK has yielded benefits by allowing devolution of powers in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales with democratic movements from the ground up. Time to time referendums have also been conducted.

The British way of dealing with the issue of nationalities within, devolution of powers, and autonomy has proved to be successful.

That the capital centres of London, Edinburg, Cardiff, and Belfast have come to co-exist in a four-country kingdom explains why “military might” should not be used to subdue a population and hold a region hostage.

The second half of the 20th century witnessed violence of the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland and counter-violence.

However, the repercussions of hardline stances taken by the state as well as the population were damaging.

It is praiseworthy how, despite differences, each political party in the United Kingdom has people who stand for the devolution of powers and how their decisions are not driven by a fanatical minority.

The thinking has been that the people at large – the majority – should be consulted, but at the same time, the minority not forgotten.

In the Northern Ireland conflict, the players on both sides came to the negotiating table, saving thousands of lives in the process.

This is an approach that Kashmir also needs to adopt to save the region from a nuclear war, something that almost started after a 20-year-old Kashmiri youth, Adil Ahmad Dar rammed an explosive-laden vehicle into the convoy of the Indian paramilitary forces on 14 February 2019, killing 40 Indian soldiers.

With the warring factions adopting the hardline approach on Kashmir, the developmental activities of the region including healthcare and education have been hampered while people continue to get killed in the mindless violence every day.

As often the structural violence is government-induced, the Indian state has lost the Kashmir argument both on greed and grievance debate.

Peace a Process, Not an Event

Jonathan Powell, a central figure in the construction of Britain’s foreign policy under Tony Blair and his chief negotiator in the Northern Ireland peace talks in his book ‘Great Hatred, Little Room: Making Peace in Northern Ireland’ wrote that there was a craving for peace not just in Northern Ireland but Britain too that led the peace process forward.

“By the early 1980s, people on all sides in Northern Ireland were becoming weary of the cycle of blood, and the pointlessness of violence was clear. The IRA realised that they could not win militarily, and the British Army knew that, while it could keep a lid on violence ‘at an accepted level’, it could not win either. Everyone started to look for the exits.”

He stressed that the peace process was not a one-time thing but something that needed to be carried forward with planning and care.

“Breakthrough agreements are the beginning not the end of negotiations. Peace is a process, not an event,” Powell writes.

Powell’s words resonate among the people working on the peace process in Kashmir.

While states are very protective of their borders, most groups are not.

A British national, Tahir Aziz, who leads the work of Conciliation Resources on South Asia said that his organisation wants to “promote spaces” for the people to “think and talk”.

“We try to help people in Kashmir, India, and Pakistan find non-political ways to talk about things. People have been using media outlets and films to talk about the issues of governance and security,” he said.

Conciliation Resources started work on Kashmir in 2003-04 and by 2007, the organisation was spending money on practical exercises on either side of the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border that divides Kashmir into the Indian and Pakistani administered parts.

By 2008, the Confidence Building Measures like the cross-LoC trade had started between India and Pakistan.

The trade continued even after the Mumbai attack of November 2008 in which 170 people were killed.

While holding the government to account these days is considered anti-national and anti-government while the act is labelled as treason, institutions play a key role in peace processes and the interaction of the people with these institutions plays an even greater role.

Aziz said that one of the main things that helped de-escalate violence in Northern Ireland was the police reforms.

Former Superintendent of Police and counter-terrorism expert, Ken Pennington could not agree more.

“Police have a plan, but militants have a cause. Sometimes violence is the only agency and criminalisation of violence doesn’t help. The state has a moral obligation to human rights,” he said. “Conflict isn’t black and white, but grey, murky, and moving. Folding a murdered colleague’s uniform has been the hardest thing for me.”

While the peace process finds many takers both in Northern Ireland and Britain, some sections feel the dice are loaded in favour of the Irish nationalists.

Tom Roberts, a former member of the pro-state Ulster Volunteer Force, who served 13 years in jail, said, “An Ireland at Sinn Fein terms isn’t acceptable. The Sinn Fein’s aggressive pursuit of constitutional change does not improve the situation.”

According to him, Northern Ireland was one of the most law-abiding societies till 1968.

“We couldn’t have risen as bad people one fine morning,” Roberts said.

Endless Peacekeeping Trap

The peaceniks have to be careful about the peace processes as peace building often witnesses fatigue.

Editor of Accord, Alexander Ramsbotham said that sometimes there is not a clash of historical facts but a clash of myths.

There is a phrase ‘Save Georgia from the Georgians’ but there is also another phrase, ‘a thoughtful person is worth a thousand fanatics,’” he said.

Peace processes often witness an increase in the number of proxy peace actors and conflict entrepreneurs, leading to wars within wars.

In the Balkans, Sudan, and Myanmar, the peace processes were pushed and hence did not last long.

On the other hand, the peacekeepers in the UN missions do not even leave their barracks, making the critiques of peace building weary of the endless peacekeeping trap.

They feel expressions of distrust, pessimism, and even cynicism about liberal peacebuilding have become common and they resent expatriates from imposing their ideas in a manner both disrespectful and humiliating.

The peace builders have to keep the balloon analogy of expanding space slowly and slowly in mind.

In Japan, when vases are broken, the broken parts are joined and the vases repaired with gold-coloured adhesive or even gold. In Cyprus, the sewerage system led to dialogue. The Srebrenica massacre happened just 26 years ago in an emancipated and educated Europe, making it all the more important for peacemakers to stay vigilant of the spoilers.

As conflicts are not frozen, peace processes cannot be frozen either.

A Difficult Love Story

While the people affected by conflicts want to reap the benefits of peace, there are also certain spoilers.

Director of Causeway Institute for Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution International, Kingsley Donaldson said that both the Irish and the British were dreamers but some people on both sides wanted to rock the way.

“Our peace process is like calling time out. Brexit has not helped either. The politics of both Ireland and England affect us. There is absence of violence rather than presence of peace. We live on constructive ambiguity. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” he said.

Donaldson calls for investing more in civil society in Northern Ireland.

“We were tending to our wounds. Today we are tending to our scars. We carry a grudge. However, there has been a transition in policing and justice, which are now much more reflective of society. The energy and engine of our past is shaping our future. After all, the British ran an empire without the internet and the telephones,” he said. “In Northern Ireland, we are in a very difficult love story.”

Women Power

Donaldson credits women for having stepped up and making the credible impact in the Northern Ireland peace process.

One such woman is Avila Kilmurray, the Migration and Peacebuilding Executive of the Social Change Initiative.

“Women at the grassroots in Northern Ireland refused to be sidelined and mobilised for the peace process. They had to be smart to know what happens after peace negotiations, what happens after a rollback, to ensure what happens in the implementation phase while sitting in the negotiations phase, and to tap the global network of people who could help them influence,” she said.

Like Kilmurray, Sara Cook, a social worker who worked on conflict response, peace building, and mediation in Northern Ireland, said, “When the British soldiers were in Northern Ireland, there was not much talk of peace. So, I worked with the wives of British soldiers and family members of the Irish Republican Army. We connected the families of the two together. That created an ‘I own it’ atmosphere. We also encouraged inter-generational discussions.”

The United Nations’ Resolution 1325 also calls for the role of women in peace processes.

Political and Religious Toxicity

While women played a positive role in the Northern Ireland peace process, religion and politics have often been toxic.

What do you do with the legacy of the past conflicts?

According to Reverend Gary Mason, who spent decades ministering to Protestant loyalists and Catholic nationalists during Northern Ireland’s conflict said that toxic politics and toxic religion has shaped the place for too long.

“The toxicity of memory will pass on from generation to generation. It was the words not the machines that created Auschwitz,” he said. “The state of politics actually reflects the state of our souls.”

Reverend Mason calls for addressing the structural problems leading to the killings instead of trying to stop the killings.

“Laws are important but laws can’t heal, facts are important but facts can’t heal,” he said.

Role of Media

There is a great proverb that until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.

The objectivity and partisanship of the media in reporting conflict plays an important role in how peace processes shape.

Jean Seaton in her book ‘Pinkoes and Traitors: The BBC and the nation 1974-1987’ writes about the Northern Ireland conflict and peace process.

Delving into how the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported the Northern Ireland conflict, she writes: “At the start, the BBC was unthinkingly on the side of order in Northern Ireland. Yet, the legitimacy of this order was contested and its exercise seen as unjust by the Catholic population. This was compounded by the situation the BBC faced in London. By 1976, Parliament and Labour and Conservative governments were more of less united in their approach to the crisis (although Labour was committed to a policy that Jonathan Powell, the then chief of staff for Tony Blair’s Labour government had to unpick eventually as a precondition of negotiations in the 1990s) while the ‘nation’, at least in Northern Ireland, spiraled into ever more monstrous division. The BBC was exposed because of this cross-party consensus in Westminster, which meant that any opposing views came from beyond the parliamentary system. It could look as if the BBC were encouraging them, yet was obliged to reflect the swelling disagreement on the ground in Northern Ireland. It appeared as if it was sponsoring opposition rather than reporting it. The Corporation is always in difficulty when an issue concerns the integrity of the British state, which the Troubles precisely did.”

By and large, the British media has covered the Northern Ireland conflict and peace process fairly objectively.

Laura Noonan in her article, ‘You have to be violent to be heard: Northern Ireland’s teens take to the streets’ for the Financial Times writes: “I grew up 200 miles south of Belfast. Northern Ireland’s grass is the same distinctive green as the fields of the Irish Republic where I spent my childhood. Its dramatic coastline evokes the same feeling as Connemara’s. Belfast has a zone of shiny, modern apartments and offices, the Titanic Quarter, not unlike Dublin’s Docklands. And yet, for all the familiarity, so much about Northern Ireland feels foreign.

“It’s not just the Union Jack flags that weave their way over and back across the Shankill Road, 15 minutes’ walk from Belfast’s main shopping street. It’s not the enormous murals of men in balaclavas holding automatic rifles, a sight that still unnerves me. It’s not the practicalities of a different currency, different road signs, and different speed limits. It’s more the sense of the place and my feeling of otherness within it.”

The US Role

Like the role of the media in highlighting the Northern Ireland conflict, the United States, particularly during the tenure of President Bill Clinton also played a positive role in the peace process between Northern Ireland and Britain.

Roger MacGinty in his article ‘American Influences in the Northern Ireland Peace Process’ for the Centre For Digital Scholarship’s UN Libraries Journal writes that traditionally, US government interest in Northern Ireland has been minimal, which makes the level and the extent of the interest shown during the peace process of the 1990s quite remarkable.

“A number of Irish-American entrepreneurs had become significant players in corporate America. They were also allies of Bill Clinton, and had been active in his 1992 presidential election campaign. They pressed Clinton to make a number of commitments on Ireland during his election campaign, and after his election, began briefing the White House on Ireland. In September 1993, the significance of this lobby was revealed when the IRA observed a seven day ceasefire to coincide with a fact finding visit made by a group of prominent Irish-Americans to Ireland. The most tangible sign of US interest in the peace process came with President Clinton’s visit to London, Belfast, Derry and Dublin in late November 1995. The visit was very much a celebration of the peace process,” he wrote in the journal.

Like Northern Ireland, people in Kashmir too have been craving for the US intervention for the resolution of the 77-year-old dispute. The call for US intervention in Muslim Kashmir is quite contrary to the rest of the Islamic world where the US intervention is often resented.

Navnita Chadha Behera in her report ‘Kashmir: Redefining the US role’ for the Brookings writes, “Beyond some public pronouncements addressing the popular aspirations of the Kashmiris, US policy has demonstrated little understanding of the multi-layered and complex nature of the Kashmir conflict.”

Tailpiece

Conflict sometimes is good but violence is not the solution.

In Uganda, a rebel group that fought for 30 years overthrew the government and is ruling the country now.

For peaceniks, recognising violent conflicts is more important than recognising political conflicts.

There is a need for public participation in the peace processes, a need to discourage competitive victimhood and encourage inclusive victimhood.

The different stakeholders in conflict need to be willing to waste time with each other rather than spending it.

In Kashmir, there is a realisation, “Kashmir is part of the world. The world is not part of Kashmir.”

There is a realisation that to save its next generations, its leaders need to shed the rhetorical flourish to engage the rival party in negotiations.

There is a realisation of being morally virtuous but not idealistic to head on a long-winded way to peace.

There is a realisation of learning from conflicts that were resolved or are heading toward resolutions, of taking lessons from peace processes like Northern Ireland.

However, there is also a realisation that Kashmir cannot keep waiting for the other side to make its move and that it needs to be proactive to make things happen.

Bryan Steveson in his TED Talk said, “When we get close, we hear things that can’t be heard from afar. We see things that can’t be seen. And sometimes that makes the difference between acting justly and unjustly.”

[virtue-boy]

APTN coverage of Nunavut self-gov deal. Jan '24

[okat235235]

From Epona.tv regarding a recent documentary looking into Helgstrand stables (can't watch outside of Denmark so have to rely on second hand accounts). These stables sell million-dollar horses despite Andreas's abuse being exposed by Epona back in 2015 (pictured at bottom of post)

-OK, I've watched both parts of the TV2 Helgstrand documentary, and here are my preliminary take-home points:

-Hyperflexion in draw reins (side reins on the lunge) seems totally standard at Helgstrand Dressage. No surprises there. The experts were surprised to see footage from an arena where not one or two horses were being ridden aggressively, but most or all horses at one time.

-The undercover journalist asked grooms about bleeding mouth sores and was told that happens all the time. One groom said their rider's horses always bleed from the mouth. Spur wounds were covered with shoe polish and welts and stripes from whip lashes were covered with rugs - even in high temperatures where rugs would not be beneficial. Mouth and spur wounds were not allowed to heal before bits and spurs were used again on those horses.

-Former head of barn said there was always lost of talk of not letting people see what was going on but never any talk of actual horse welfare. She corroborates the story that spur wounds are covered up with shoe polish to fool buyers.

-Grooms were underpaid, treated harshly, spoken to badly and made to sign non-disclosure agreements. They were not allowed to take photos.

-Grooms were instructed to remind riders not to use draw reins when buyers were present. One groom said on tape to the undercover journalist that this was because it would give the business a bad name if people knew they used draw reins.

... so if anyone tells you "I've been to Helgstrand and I didn't see any abuse" they are lying or they were deceived.

-The undercover journalist confronted Andreas Helgstrand with the use of draw reins and hyperflexion and the mouth sores. He said mouth sores could be "because of the horse's teeth" and "not one's fault" and he said draw reins were fine because the alternative was a bleeding mouth. "So we show the horse the way."

-Overall the program was about Helgstrand Dressage - it didn't really talk about the legal implications of what went on. The focus was on how the practice went against Danish Equestrian Federation guidelines. For me, the real story is that national and international athletic federations enable and cover up animal abuse, but the documentary was very much about it being specifically Helgstrand Dressage which is awful.

-I'll have a think about it and write something later. I was not disappointed by the program - I guess none of it should surprise anyone who has ever seen a Helgstrand horse under rider. I am happy they made it but I can't see at this point what it's going to be good for in the long run. It certainly was unpleasant to watch.

Horse names singled out as victims: Devolution (three reins and spurs, spurs the day after bloody spur wounds), Dafetti, Don Q, Floss Dance (more to follow, memory fails me)

Screenshot from the documentary:

And a previous photo of Andreas Helgstrand's riding techniques from 2015: