.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
Thailand needs a set of standards to ensure Internet good governance
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
7,128
-
0
UN Removes Genocide Advisor: She Refused To Label Israels actions as Genocide
UN Faces Backlash Over Dismissal of Genocide Advisor Alice Nderitu The United Nations, once a symbol of moral accountability, has faced growing criticism over its handling of sensitive global issues. Its recent decision to terminate Alice Wairimu Nderitu, Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, has sparked significant debate. A Kenyan mediator and expert in peacebuilding, Ms. Nderitu’s removal stems from her refusal to label Israel’s military actions in Gaza as genocide. Ms. Nderitu has held her position since 2020, bringing a thoughtful approach to what she has called humanity's gravest crime. Her work emphasized precision in applying the term "genocide," a word first coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin to describe the systematic extermination of entire ethnic groups, such as the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and the Bosnian massacres. Her office’s 2022 guidance stressed the importance of adhering to this strict definition, cautioning against its misuse due to the political and legal sensitivities it carries. In assessing Israel’s ongoing conflict with Hamas, Ms. Nderitu argued that it did not meet the definition of genocide. She acknowledged the tragic civilian toll but pointed to Israel's stated intent: dismantling a terrorist organization rather than eradicating an ethnic group. Israel, she noted, has taken significant steps to minimize civilian casualties, even as Hamas reportedly uses Palestinian civilians as shields, exploiting their deaths for propaganda. However, these views clashed with the narrative pushed by a faction within the UN. On November 14, the UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices issued a report alleging potential genocide in Gaza and apartheid in the West Bank. This report aligns with the stance of Volker Turk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who has consistently criticized Israel. Critics argue that these accusations are influenced by political bias, as evidenced by the committee's composition, which includes member states Malaysia and Senegal, countries with a history of hostility toward Israel. Ms. Nderitu’s dismissal has been framed as a contractual expiration, with a UN spokesperson asserting that genocide determinations fall under judicial bodies, not advisors. Yet, observers note that UN contracts are frequently renewed, and the Secretary-General holds the authority to extend her tenure. Her removal is widely seen as a political decision, signaling the influence of anti-Israel factions within the organization. Beyond the controversy surrounding Ms. Nderitu, the situation highlights broader concerns about the politicization of genocide accusations. As the term becomes a tool for propaganda, its moral weight diminishes, threatening its power to describe true atrocities. Ms. Nderitu’s unwavering commitment to truth, even at the cost of her position, is a testament to her integrity. Her case raises a critical question: can principled leadership survive in an increasingly polarized UN? Based on a report by WSJ 2024-11-27 -
0
Trumpworld Finds Inspiration in Argentina's Maverick President Javier Milei
Donald Trump and his allies have embraced Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, as a political role model, citing his radical efforts to slash government spending and deregulate the economy. Milei, a chainsaw-wielding populist who rose to power with unorthodox charisma, is now a celebrated figure in right-wing circles in the United States, where his approach has been touted as an example for dismantling the so-called administrative state. Shortly after Trump’s election victory, Milei appeared at a black-tie event at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, where he was warmly welcomed by Trump, tech mogul Elon Musk, and other luminaries. Known for his flamboyant persona, the Argentine leader danced to disco hits and declared, “The forces of heaven [were] on our side.” He was the first world leader to meet Trump in person after the November 5 election, underscoring their ideological camaraderie. Milei’s political style has drawn comparisons to Trump and Brazil’s former president Jair Bolsonaro. Like them, Milei has positioned himself as a disruptor, railing against perceived leftist elites and promising sweeping reforms. Since taking office, he has dramatically cut public spending, dissolved government ministries, and pushed deregulation with an intensity that has captivated Trump allies such as entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. Ramaswamy has championed “Milei-style cuts, on steroids,” advocating mass federal layoffs in the U.S. While Trump has framed his critique of American governance as a response to crises akin to Argentina’s, the realities differ significantly. Argentina’s economic dysfunction, marked by decades of hyperinflation and chronic deficits, created fertile ground for Milei’s radical agenda. Despite Trump’s claims of a comparable crisis in the U.S., such parallels lack substantive support. However, both leaders share a strategy rooted in political grievance and a commitment to upending the perceived status quo, bolstered by influential financial elites. Milei has praised Musk as “a great fighter for the ideas of freedom” and a champion against what he calls “the socialist virus.” This alignment with Musk and other Silicon Valley figures reflects the merging of libertarian ideals with populist rhetoric, a combination that resonates deeply within Trump’s orbit. The implications of this alliance could reshape U.S.-Latin America relations. Christopher Sabatini of Chatham House predicts that Trump’s ties with Milei and other nationalist populists would shift White House policy toward partisan support for such leaders, marking a departure from traditional diplomacy. Sabatini warns this could deepen divisions in the Western Hemisphere, exacerbating the ideological rift between hard-right and centrist or leftist governments. Milei’s economic policies have yielded mixed results. Inflation in Argentina has fallen from nearly 300 percent, and the country has achieved a budget surplus for the first time in years. Government bonds are recovering, and economic activity shows signs of revival. However, these gains have come at a steep cost. With state welfare cutbacks, frozen pensions, and the closure of soup kitchens, poverty has soared to its highest levels in two decades. Kirsten Sehnbruch, a Latin America expert, described the situation as “absolutely horrendous,” highlighting the disproportionate burden on the poor. Despite Milei’s efforts, skepticism persists about the sustainability of his reforms and the potential benefits of a Trump presidency for Argentina. As Benjamin Gedan of the Wilson Center noted, U.S. businesses remain wary of Argentina’s volatile economy, and Trump’s protectionist tariffs could undermine Milei’s free-market agenda. Based on a report by WP News 2024-11-27 -
0
Iran's Supreme Leader Demands Execution for Netanyahu and Israeli Leaders
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a stark demand for the execution of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other prominent leaders in response to recent developments at the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Supreme Leader's remarks came during a Monday gathering with members of the Basij, a volunteer force associated with Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Speaking to the group, Khamenei addressed the ICC's decision to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. He criticized their actions in recent conflicts, declaring, "What the Zionist regime did in Gaza and Lebanon is not a victory, it is a war crime. Now they have issued a warrant for their arrest. This is not enough!" His comments, as reported by the state-run IRNA news agency, escalated the call for accountability, stating, "Netanyahu and the criminal leaders of this regime must be sentenced to death." It is important to note that while the ICC in The Hague has issued these arrest warrants, it does not have the authority to impose death sentences, a fact underscoring the rhetoric's divergence from international legal norms. Khamenei also took the opportunity to bolster Iran's regional allies within the "Axis of Resistance," which includes groups such as the Palestinian militant organization Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah. Referring to the ongoing hostilities, he expressed confidence in their resilience and future strength. "The idiots should not think that bombing houses and hospitals in Gaza and Lebanon is a victory," he declared. "The enemy has not become winner in Gaza and Lebanon, and it will not be winner." Khamenei's fiery statements reflect the heightened tensions and deep divisions in the region, with both rhetoric and actions fueling ongoing conflict. Based on a report by Newsweek 2024-11-27 -
0
Government Revamps Non-Hate Crime Guidelines Amid Rising Controversy
The Home Office is introducing "common sense" reforms to the management of non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) after a series of scandals and public outcry. These reforms, overseen by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, aim to reduce confusion, restore public confidence in policing, and address concerns about free speech. Under the proposed changes, officers will only record NCHIs when there is a "clear risk" to community tensions, a significant shift from existing practices. The current system, initially designed to gather intelligence on incidents falling short of criminal behavior, has faced criticism for being overly expansive, diverting resources from essential police work, and stifling lawful expression. The issue recently made headlines when Essex Police investigated journalist Allison Pearson over a year-old tweet she had quickly deleted. Officers visited her home on Remembrance Day, informing her of an investigation into alleged racial hatred but failing to specify the offending post. The inquiry, which was dropped following advice from Crown Prosecution Service lawyers, underscored the system's flaws. Ms. Pearson described the experience as devastating, asserting that her tweet was not racist and expressing frustration over the lack of clarity surrounding the investigation. Policy Exchange, a think tank, has highlighted the inefficiency of the NCHI system, estimating that police spend over 60,000 hours annually on such incidents. Their report called for either the abolition of the system or a substantial reduction in recorded cases, emphasizing that policing should focus on addressing crimes like burglary, drug offenses, and violence. Lord Hogan-Howe, former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, supported the report, criticizing the subjective nature of NCHIs and calling for legislative oversight. Essex Police was singled out for logging a disproportionately high number of NCHIs—21.5 per 100 officers in a year compared to a national average of 8.9. Over 13,000 such incidents were recorded across the UK last year, with examples ranging from personal disputes to trivial insults, sparking public frustration. The updated guidance will emphasize that only incidents motivated by intentional hostility and posing a real risk of harm or criminal escalation should warrant scrutiny. Home Office sources affirmed that trivial complaints should not be recorded but noted the utility of NCHIs in tracking community tensions to prevent potential conflicts. Ms. Cooper acknowledged inconsistency in how the 43 police forces in England and Wales apply the current guidance, with some missing cases of antisemitism and Islamophobia. Alongside the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Home Office is drafting the revised guidelines to balance free expression with community safety. Critics argue that the system unfairly targets lawful opinions, undermining trust in the police. As Ms. Pearson remarked, “Normal people want police to come round when they have been burgled… not this madness.” The Policy Exchange report reiterated the need for reform, concluding that the NCHI regime distracts officers from their core mission of tackling serious crime and damages public perception of policing priorities. This overhaul reflects a commitment to ensuring that policing remains impartial and effective, focusing on genuine threats to public safety while protecting the fundamental right to free speech. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-11-27 -
0
Elon Musk Sparks Controversy, Calling the UK a ‘Tyrannical Police State’
Elon Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter) and adviser to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, has reignited tensions with the British government, labeling the United Kingdom a “tyrannical police state” in a weekend tirade. Musk, who commands an audience of over 200 million on X, also shared a controversial documentary by far-right activist Tommy Robinson, raising fresh questions about his political stance and influence. Musk’s remarks come amid an ongoing feud with Britain’s new Labour government, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. He criticized the administration’s policies and posted a graph highlighting Starmer’s declining approval ratings, captioning it with: “The voice of the people is a great antidote.” Musk has consistently painted Britain under Starmer as a nation struggling with authoritarianism and inequities in its justice system. Over the summer, Musk became particularly vocal about the UK after the tragic killing of three schoolgirls in Southport. He criticized the police response, accused Starmer of presiding over a “two-tier” justice system biased against white citizens, and spread unverified claims about the incident. His rhetoric escalated, with Musk predicting “civil war is inevitable” in Britain. Downing Street dismissed his claims but notably excluded him from a high-profile investment summit in the fall. Efforts to repair relations between Musk and British officials have since been reported, though tensions remain. This weekend, Musk reignited controversy by questioning the imprisonment of Tommy Robinson, a British far-right figurehead jailed earlier this year for breaching a court order. Robinson had admitted to spreading false and defamatory claims about a Syrian refugee schoolboy in a documentary. Musk not only voiced skepticism about Robinson’s imprisonment but also shared the activist’s documentary with his followers, amplifying its reach significantly. Prime Minister Starmer’s office responded diplomatically to the uproar. A spokesperson stated that Starmer “looks forward to working with President Trump and his whole team, including Elon Musk,” to strengthen the UK-U.S. relationship. The statement sidestepped Musk’s direct criticisms and emphasized the importance of collaboration between the two nations. Musk’s increasingly combative stance toward Britain has raised eyebrows on both sides of the Atlantic. Critics argue that his comments risk inflaming social divisions and undermining international relations. His amplification of far-right narratives, in particular, has drawn condemnation, with many questioning the implications of his platform ownership on global discourse. As Musk continues to leverage his influence in the realms of politics and media, his remarks about the UK highlight the complex interplay between technology, power, and international diplomacy. For Britain, managing its relationship with Musk—a figure whose opinions can ripple across millions—presents a unique challenge amid shifting political dynamics. Based on a report by Politico 2024-11-27 -
0
The President’s Dilemma: Weighing Justice, Hunter, and Legacy
President Joe Biden faces an unprecedented and deeply personal decision: whether to pardon or commute the sentences of his son, Hunter Biden, who is set to be sentenced in two separate criminal cases this December. These cases—one involving a 2018 gun purchase while struggling with drug addiction and the other for tax fraud—pose not just legal and familial challenges but also political and historical ones. On December 12, Hunter Biden will appear in federal court in Delaware for sentencing on the gun charge, a case that has drawn scrutiny for its unusual nature. A few days later, he faces sentencing in Los Angeles for tax fraud, having pleaded guilty to failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes. Sentencing guidelines suggest Hunter could face over a year in prison for the gun charge and two to three years for tax fraud, though these recommendations are not binding. The possibility of President Biden intervening has been the subject of speculation for months. While he has publicly stated that he would not pardon his son—a stance reiterated by the White House following Donald Trump’s electoral victory—circumstances may prompt a reassessment. A commutation, which would reduce or eliminate prison time without erasing the conviction, could be a middle ground. Such an act would not absolve Hunter Biden but could spare him and the Biden family significant anguish. The cases against Hunter Biden have drawn criticism for their selective nature. Legal experts note that the gun charge is almost without precedent, and tax disputes are often resolved through fines or repayment rather than criminal prosecution. Many argue that political pressures, particularly from Trump and his allies, were instrumental in bringing these charges forward. The president may view this context as a justification for leniency. If Hunter Biden receives a probation sentence in Delaware, a presidential pardon or commutation might not be necessary. However, the tax fraud case in Los Angeles poses greater risks, as the financial sums involved and the more serious guidelines increase the likelihood of a prison term. President Biden’s decision will have profound implications for his legacy, the Democratic Party, and the broader perception of justice. His political standing has already taken a hit with Trump’s return to the White House, and many Democrats have blamed him for the party’s struggles in the 2024 election. But Biden may ultimately prioritize his role as a father over the political fallout. “This is his son,” underscores the core of the dilemma. Whether the president chooses to act or abstain, the decision will carry weighty consequences. A commutation, if issued, would demonstrate mercy in the face of familial hardship while avoiding the full implications of a pardon. Yet even this measured act would invite criticism, given the political climate and the scrutiny surrounding the Biden family. As sentencing dates approach, the president’s choice remains unclear, but it will undoubtedly stand as one of the most consequential and personal decisions of his career. Based on a report by Politico 2024-11-27 -
0
The Rise of Life-Extending Pills: A Billionaire-Fueled Quest and Its Grim Implications
Billionaires are pouring vast amounts of money into the development of life-extending pills, sparking both hope and deep ethical concerns about the societal consequences. While the promise of delaying aging and extending lifespans may seem like a scientific marvel, some critics warn that such advancements could create a dystopian future dominated by "posh, privileged zombies" among the wealthy elite. Prominent figures such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, and ChatGPT’s creator Sam Altman are at the forefront of this anti-aging revolution. Bezos has reportedly invested $3 billion into Altos Labs, a biotechnology startup launched in 2021 alongside Russian-born billionaire Yuri Milner. Altos Labs is focused on biological reprogramming technology—a process that seeks to rejuvenate human cells in laboratories and potentially reverse aging. The endeavor has drawn comparisons to Calico Labs, another longevity-focused company launched by Google co-founder Larry Page in 2013. Thiel has invested in the Methuselah Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to extending human lifespans through cutting-edge medical innovations. Methuselah aims to develop technologies for creating new organs, blood vessels, and bones, while also eliminating harmful biological structures and restoring cognitive and physical abilities in aging individuals. Meanwhile, Altman has channeled $180 million into Retro BioScience, a biotech firm committed to cellular reprogramming with a goal of extending human life by at least a decade. Retro BioScience claims it is less than four years away from proving its concept in clinical settings. The scientific community has made promising strides toward these goals. Researchers at Imperial College London and Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore recently developed a drug that increased the lifespan of laboratory mice by nearly 25%. Their aim is to create treatments that keep cells younger and healthier for longer, potentially slowing down the aging process in humans. Despite the breakthroughs, many critics, including Phil Cleary, CEO of SmartWater Group, are deeply concerned about the implications of such advancements. Cleary warns that life-extending drugs could exacerbate global inequalities, leading to a world where only the wealthy can afford these treatments, effectively transforming the rich into "posh, privileged zombies." “Silicon Valley’s dogged pursuit of the fountain of youth is a fear-led, ego-driven folly that comes at a terrible humanitarian cost to the planet and to its most vulnerable inhabitants,” Cleary argues. He suggests that the billions invested in anti-aging technologies would be better spent addressing global issues such as child hunger and preventable diseases. According to Cleary, approximately 5 million children die each year from causes that could be treated or prevented with adequate funding and resources. He further criticizes the billionaires’ quest to conquer death, calling it a dangerous overreach: “A pill that keeps people alive, even by a few decades, would create an unjust, inequitable world packed with posh, privileged zombies—predominantly white, middle-class folk who could afford to buy the drugs in the first place.” Cleary, who authored the novel *Elixir* about the societal dangers of life-extending drugs, urges these moguls to "quit playing God" and redefine what it means to contribute meaningfully to humanity. The stakes are undeniably high. While the World Health Organization estimates that 100,000 people die from age-related diseases daily, scientists remain divided on whether aging can truly be slowed or reversed. As life-extending technologies edge closer to reality, the debate over their ethical and societal implications grows ever more urgent. Will they usher in a new era of medical marvels or deepen the chasm of inequality, leaving a trail of unintended consequences? Only time will tell. Based on a report by NYP 2024-11-27
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now