Showing posts with label The Guardian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Guardian. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Hungary’s chilling plight could foreshadow Europe’s future - Owen Jones THE GUARDIAN

Illustration: Eva Bee

Hungary’s chilling plight could foreshadow Europe’s future - THE GUARDIAN  Oct. 13, 2016
Owen Jones

Rightwing populism is on the march – but the EU can’t even win enough support to impose sanctions


Thursday 13 October 2016 01.00 EDTLast modified on Thursday 13 October



Hungary’s democracy is in mortal danger – and whether it survives will help determine the future of our embattled continent. This weekend the main opposition newspaper – think of it as a Hungarian Guardian – was closed down by its owners after six decades of existence. Its digital archive vanished from the internet; its workers were shut out of their offices and left unable to access emails.

Publicly, it is presented as a commercial decision: in Hungary’s increasingly repressive society, there is widespread private cynicism about such a claim. Here was a newspaper that dared to challenge the government – whether on policy, corruption, or its onslaught against democracy.

Authoritarian rightwing populism is sweeping the western world: Hungary is an acute example. We all know history turned a corner after the 2008 financial crisis: we are beginning to see how sharp that turn was. From the Scottish independence movement to Podemos in Spain, from Donald Trump to France’s National Front and Hungary’s far right, from the rise of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn to Greece’s Syriza: a painful struggle for the west’s future has only just begun. Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán – whose rightwing party swept to victory in 2010 – recognises this. His chief lesson from 2008 is that “liberal democratic states can’t remain globally competitive”. He has committed his government to building an “illiberal democracy” – and he is remaining true to his word.


Rather than being repelled, a new generation is being attracted to rightwing extremism

Others have harsher descriptions. Hungarian dissident Gáspar Miklós Tamás accuses the government of “pissing on the liberal status quo” in favour of “post-fascism”.

Hungarian-British poet George Szirtes knows all about repression. His mother was a photographer, his father a senior ministry official, and they fled after the Soviet Union crushed Hungary’s revolution in 1956. “Hungarian democracy is imperilled,” he told me. “We’re moving towards a Putinesque situation.” As Human Right Watch’s Lydia Gall puts it: “What we’ve seen in the last six years is essentially a continued undermining or deterioration of the rule of law and human rights protection.”

In 2010 and 2011, Hungary adopted a series of laws which were damned by Amnesty International as “a threat to the right to freedom of expression”. Hungary’s media outlets had to register with a national authority. The Klubrádió station – a persistent critic of the government – became one of its victims. At the end of 2011, the authority decided not to grant Klubrádió a licence to broadcast, forcing it into a protracted battle – though the station did eventually win.

This authoritarian government has repeatedly amended the constitution: one change embedded discrimination against LGBT people by defining the family as a unit “based on the marriage of a man and a woman, or a linear blood relationship, or guardianship. Indeed, earlier this year Hungary blocked an EU-wide agreement to prevent discrimination against LGBT people.

Youngsters at a concert by nationalist band Romantic Violence, which followed a rally by far-right sympathisers. Photograph: Vadim Ghirda/AP

Other amendments have attacked judicial independence and religious freedoms. Key public institutions, such as the office of the prosecutor general and the constitutional court, have been de facto taken over by the ruling party. “These are institutions that should be independent checks and balances on the government,” says Gall. There is a growing atmosphere of intolerance in the country, with those who dissent being denounced as traitors and accomplices of terrorism. Worse still, one of the main opposition parties is Jobbik, an antisemitic neo-fascist party with a paramilitary wing.

Hungary’s role in Europe’s refugee crisis has been appalling, prompting

Luxembourg’s foreign minister to propose the country’s expulsion for treating refugees “worse than wild animals”. Last year, the country declared a state of crisis and built a fence with the intention of driving refugees back into Serbia. People who have already fled violence are reportedly being chased by dogs and beaten.

And what has the EU done? Hungary is, after all, dependent on economic assistance from the union. Article 7 of the EU constitution exists to sanction member states in violation of its norms, including the suspension of voting rights. The European commission has made it progressively harder to invoke, and last year the European parliament threw out a proposal to invoke Article 7 – or even to activate a warning mechanism.

When Hungary’s government imposed the mass early retirement of veteran judges in favour of more pliant replacements, the EU did take action – but only on the grounds of age discrimination. Hungary was fined and forced to pay financial compensation to those sacked – but it still achieved its goal. A recent government-initiated referendum to oppose EU plans to settle refugees failed because of insufficient turnout, but it stirred up inflammatory xenophobic and racist rhetoric.

Analysis Hungarian right does not want to leave the EU. It wants to subvert it
Referendum was born from similar feeling to UK’s Brexit vote, but what Viktor Orbán wants is more of a threat to EU’s future

Read more

Hungary’s plight has disturbing echoes of Europe’s past: but, horrifyingly, it could foreshadow our future too. Rather than being repelled, a new generation – including the university-educated – are increasingly attracted to rightwing extremism. Poland too is in the grip of an authoritarian right which chips away at the country’s hard-won democracy. With no meaningful consequences, such governments feel increasingly emboldened. In Austria, the far right moves ever closer to power; in France, it grows stronger; in Sweden and other countries too.

The cure to such movements is a left that offers an inspiring alternative relevant to the insecurities and ambitions of the post-2008 world. We don’t have that yet. But that’s no excuse for inaction. And we in Britain cannot smugly condemn Hungary, of course: since the Brexit vote, xenophobic nationalism has marched defiantly. Our prime minister condemns her political opponents as having disdain for patriotism; this week, both the Daily Mail and the Daily Express printed chilling front pages calling for “unpatriotic Bremoaners” to be damned for a “plot to subvert the will of the British people”, and demanding “EU exit whingers” be silenced.

It is increasingly common in modern Europe for political opponents to be portrayed as unpatriotic fifth columnists. The history of our continent tells us where this can lead. Hungary is perhaps the most extreme, undiluted form of what Europe is becoming. It is a warning we should heed.

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Ukraine army regains control of Slavyansk - The Guardian

Ukraine army regains control of Slavyansk

President Petro Poroshenko orders national flag to fly over rebel stronghold after armed pro-Russian separatists flee
A Ukrainian forces serviceman guards the
A Ukrainian forces serviceman guards their position at a checkpoint near Slavyansk, Photograph: Genya Savilov/AFP/Getty Images
Ukrainian troops have regained control of the key eastern city of Slavyansk from pro-Russian rebels in what could mark a turning point in the country's three-month battle to maintain its independence.
The city, which houses one of Ukraine's largest weapons storage facilities, fell to the insurgents on 6 April and had become a stronghold for pro-Russian separatists.
Government forces began a fresh offensive against the rebels earlier this week after the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, allowed a ceasefire agreement to lapse. The separatists lost one tank and one other armoured vehicles as they tried to break through Ukrainian lines, prompting them to flee Slavyansk to Kramatorsk, 12 miles south of the city.
A Slavyansk resident who gave his name as Alexei said he had heard bombing throughout the night. When it ended in the early morning, he left his house and found all the rebel checkpoints had been abandoned.
Poroshenko, who was elected in late May after vowing to quickly resolve Ukraine's worst crisis since independence in 1991, ordered his forces to raise the national flag over the city.
"Local residents are handing over [to government forces] the weapons abandoned by the rebels," he said. "This is the disarmament I was talking about when I unveiled my peace plan for resolving the situation in the east."
Ukraine, which has lost more than 200 soldiers since the conflict began, has focused much of its military might in and around Slavyansk, which had been home to about 130,000 people. The city has been abandoned by about half its residents since fighting broke out and is largely cut off from water and power supplies.
Clashes in the economically important border regions of Lugansk and Donetsk have also escalated since the ceasefire agreement lapsed.
Poroshenko on Friday called for immediate talks with rebel commanders and Russia aimed at stemming the violence that has killed more than 470 people.
However, the president's request has yet to be confirmed by either Moscow or mediators from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Kiev has balked at the idea of holding peace talks in Donetsk, where Russia maintains widespread influence, but the insurgents refuse to travel to Kiev or EU member countries for fear of being arrested.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Update on Scarlett Johansson and Oxfam (SodaStream)



Thank you to everyone who voted in the Guardian online poll we drew attention to yesterday, about whether Oxfam should sever its links with actress Scarlett Johansson over her advertising deal with the Israeli company SodaStream.

Our email was opened by nearly 7,000 people, and many of them must have voted as the poll - http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/poll/2014/jan/28/communications - moved from 86% critical of Ms Johansson to only 55% in just 24 hours.

However, things have taken an unexpected twist as Scarlett Johansson has pre-emptively severed her links with Oxfam over its support for the anti-Israel boycott movement rather than vice versa!

She has issued a statement saying:

“Scarlett Johansson has respectfully decided to end her ambassador role with Oxfam after eight years. She and Oxfam have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. She is very proud of her accomplishments and fundraising efforts during her tenure with Oxfam.”

An earlier statement explaining her views said:

“I remain a supporter of economic cooperation and social interaction between a democratic Israel and Palestine. SodaStream is a company that is not only committed to the environment but to building a bridge to peace between Israel and Palestine, supporting neighbours working alongside each other, receiving equal pay, equal benefits and equal rights.”

There is coverage of her decision here:

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/01/30/scarlett-johansson-cuts-ties-with-oxfam-over-groups-support-for-bds-movement/

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-the-a-list-shuns-bds/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10606240/Scarlett-Johansson-stepping-down-as-Oxfam-ambassador-over-SodaStream-deal.html

 Best wishes,


Luke Akehurst
Director, We Believe in Israel

PS, if you haven't signed out petition against Palestinian hate education and indoctrination yet, please do so here: 
 http://www.webelieveinisrael.org.uk/petition/uks-role-major-donor-palestinian-authority/

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Please vote in Guardian poll on Scarlett Johansson's links to Israeli company - UK and worldwide Jan. 29, 2014



Please vote in Guardian poll on Scarlett Johansson's
links to Israeli company.

Please can you take a few seconds to go on
online and vote "no" to this criticism of Israel

Please can you take a few seconds to go on online and vote "no" to this criticism of Israel (poll at foot of article): http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/poll/2014/jan/28/communications

You will probably be aware of the controversy in recent days because of the actress Scarlett Johansson agreeing to be the advertising face of Sodastream, the manufacturer of machines for making carbonated drinks at home. 

Sodastream is an Israeli company which has a manufacturing facility in Area C of the West Bank, at a site which may well become part of Israel in any peace deal. Because it operates in the West Bank it is the subject of intensive boycott campaigning by anti-Israel protesters, including protests at its store in Brighton, here in the UK. The company employs hundreds of Palestinian workers, with pay and conditions well above the Palestinian average. Their livelihoods are at stake if the boycott succeeds. You can read more about Sodastream's operations in the West Bank here: http://forward.com/articles/170873/boycott-israel-push-against-sodastream-could-hurt/

Scarlet Johansson is also a global ambassador for Oxfam. The boycott campaigners are calling for Oxfam to drop her from this role, in line with Oxfam's critical position towards Israel.

The Guardian website is running an unscientific online poll about whether Oxfam should break its links with Scarlett Johansson.

At the moment it is running 85% in favour of this attack on Scarlett Johansson's links to an Israeli company.

Please can you take a few seconds to go on online and vote "no" to this criticism: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/poll/2014/jan/28/communications

Please then forward this email to your friends and family and ask them to vote "no"
Best wishes,

Luke Akehurst
Director, We Believe in Israel

PS If you have been fowarded this email and want to join the "We Believe in Israel" mailing list please sign-up here: http://eepurl.com/mIh3D


#NoScarJo: should Oxfam sever ties with Scarlett Johansson?

Scarlett Johansson's deal with an Isreali company working in the West Bank could hurt Oxfam's brand. Should the NGO end its relationship with the actress? Take the poll
Scarlett Johansson
Scarlett Johansson's advertising deal with SodaStream International Ltd has caused internal tensions at Oxfam. Should she stay or should she go? Photograph: Rex
Just seven days after Oxfam was last in the news with its report on growing global inequality, the international NGO is making headlinesagain but for very different reasons.
It seems its celebrity ambassador, Scarlett Johansson, has signed an advertising deal with SodaStream International Ltd, an Isreali company operating in the West Bank. According to the blog, The Electronic Intifada, the move has caused an "internal revolt" at Oxfam and the organisation's own website alludes to the conflicted position it finds itself in:
"We are proud of our relationship with Scarlett Johansson [and] Oxfam respects the independence of our ambassadors. However Oxfam believes that businesses that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support. Oxfam is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law."
Despite the high profile of both the NGO and its celebrity ambassador, this would just be internal politics, under unique circumstances – except, of course, it isn't. Development researcher, Jonathan Glennie, tweeted as he shared the Electronic Intifada blog: "Was same when I was at @savechildrenuk."
And there are other examples of staff concerned about what affliation with a particular celebrity could mean. A Unicef officer in New Delhi isquoted in the Guardian as saying: "It's bad enough having to accommodate celebrities and their entourage in the aftermath of every major humanitarian disaster. But when most people think of the UN now they think of Angelina Jolie on a crusade, not the work that goes on in the field after humanitarian disasters or on a long-term preventive level."
While there is no doubt that celebrity endorsement yields financial dividends for NGOs and can raise the profile of a cause, it can also infuriate staff and create tensions with communities in which the organisation works. So what should Oxfam do? Take our poll and tell us your experiences or thoughts on celebrities and NGOs in the comment threads below.