Monday, January 25, 2016

Refugees in Denmark

Denmark to vote on seizing refugees' money, valuables

The bill is expected to pass as opponents say the seizure of money and valuables is not the most alarming part of it.

Eline SchaartSoren Lund Nielsen |  | 
Refugees who arrive at Copenhagen Central Station are welcomed in the so-called safe zone, where they can get coffee, cake and guidance.
A train from Germany will soon arrive, so Rooni Abdel Razak and his colleague Rim Walid leave the safe zone, a temporary room set up inside Copenhagen Central Station, and start walking towards platform 6.
Ever since Denmark started patrolling its borders in early January, fewer refugees have been able to enter the country, but the volunteers at the Central Station in Copenhagen still wait every time a train from either Germany or Sweden arrives, just in case there is a refugee in need of their help on board.
"After five months you learn how to spot the refugees. Most look confused and frightened. Some do not trust us, because they have been betrayed by people during their entire journey," says 22-year-old Abdel Razak as he approaches the tracks.
As the train arrives, Abdel Razak and Walid focus on the faces behind the glass. The doors open and people disembark onto the platform. The two split up so that they can walk from door to door and scan the crowd.
"Better luck next time," says Abdel Razak as they return to the middle of the platform without spotting anyone in need. 
He has been working as a volunteer almost every day for the past five months - listening to people's stories, assisting them wherever possible and providing answers to their questions about how the forthcoming new Danish asylum rules may affect them.
For the past few weeks, Denmark has faced international scrutiny after the government proposed stricter immigration laws - with some drawing comparisons between the proposals and Nazi practices during World War II.

Of particular interest has been a bill that would allow Danish authorities to seize asylum seekers' cash exceeding 10,000 kroner ($1,450), as well as any single item valued at more than 10,000 kroner. 
The government has clarified that valuables with a sentimental value - such as wedding and engagement rings, as well as watches and mobile phones - will not be taken.

Family reunification 

But, while many have focused on this, critics suggest that it is another part of the proposal - which is expected to pass a vote in the Danish Parliament on January 26 - that is most alarming.

The new law will mean that refugees will have to wait three years after being granted asylum before they can apply to be reunited with their family. The current law permits them to do this after one year.
"The right of refugees to be reunited with their family is protected by numerous international conventions ratified by Denmark. We believe the government is overstepping international law by implementing this bill," says Jonas Christoffersen, the director of the the Danish Institute for Human Rights, which says it will help refugees and institutions who wish to file a case against the state because of this law.

Despite criticism of the right-wing government of Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the bill is expected to be passed with a large majority. Even the opposition Social Democrats have said they will vote in favour. 
"We want less people to seek asylum in Denmark. We do not find all the changes in the law perfect, but we believe it is what the country needs," says Mattias Tesfaye, the Social Democrats' spokesperson on naturalisation.
However, the Social Democrats' support for the bill will not be unanimous. Three members have made it clear that they plan to vote against it.
"I cannot vote in favour of a law that will destroy the close relations between parents and their children for three years," said Daniel Toft Jakobsen, a Social Democrat who intends to vote no.
"I am afraid this will have fatal consequences for those affected. To lay awake in the night worrying about your loved ones who might be in an unsafe place will obviously impact the integration process negatively." 
'Do not apply here' 
Rooni Abdel Razak has been working as a volunteer at Copenhagen Central Station almost every day for the past five months.
Najib Allah, 24, stands in front of the safe zone with a blanket over his shoulders. He has just arrived at Copenhagen's Central Station after a long and dangerous journey from Afghanistan, via Iran and Turkey, Eastern Europe and Germany.

The safe zone has been decorated with sofas, carpets and paintings that depict classical Danish landscapes. The overall effect is cosy and welcoming, although there are sometimes more volunteers than refugees inside. The volunteers, most of whom are bilingual, greet each other warmly.  
Najib came alone. His phone and most of his money was stolen in Bulgaria. He threw the rest of his belongings away because they were too heavy to carry. Now he only has the clothes he stands in.
Najib's journey has been difficult.
"To the smugglers we are pure business," he says. "They promise and promise to help us, but those who actually need help are not getting it."
He is unsure whether he wants to stay in Denmark or try to take a train to Sweden, but he is happy for now. 
It is not unusual for refugees to arrive without any or with only a few belongings. It is for this reason that Gunnar Homann, a Danish lawyer who specialises in Danish immigration law, finds it unlikely that the new law concerning the seizure of valuables will be effective. 
"It is often a coincidence where they end up, and even if a refugee brings valuables that could be confiscated, he could easily divide these with another refugee," Homann explains.
"It is a symbolic rule, meant to say: 'do not apply here'," he continues.
Over the past few months, Denmark has cut benefits for refugees in an effort to deter them from coming.
"It is like a competition between countries to make it harder and harder to come to their country. Now that Sweden has closed its borders, Denmark had to take a step further," says Christoffersen of the Danish Institute for Human Rights.

A 'burden rather than a resource' 
The country's unwillingness to take in refugees can be traced back to the mid-19th century, says Ulf Hedetoft, a professor of International Studies at the University of Copenhagen.
"A number of lost wars and German occupation during World War II induced a sentiment of 'what we lost on the outside, we will win on the inside'," says Hedetoft. 
He believes Denmark has become economically, socially and politically homogenous, with self-sufficiency promoted while the outside world is viewed with suspicion and even anxiety. Within this model, refugees are considered a potential threat to civic society and cultural solidarity, he says.
"In the past, immigrants have mainly been seen as a burden rather than a resource," he explains.
It is a sentiment that has re-emerged with Denmark's right-wing government. "Now, immigrants are once again seen to represent a major threat to Denmark's cultural cohesion and economic prosperity, and clamours to close our borders and make refugees choose other destinations are growing day by day," Hedetoft says.
The current Danish border controls have given Abdel Razak and the other volunteers less work at the station as fewer refugees arrive. He walks outside to smoke a cigarette before the next train is due. In his phone he has pictures of people he has met over the past five months.
"People sometimes come back to the safe zone to thank us for the help they have received," he says. 
The safe zone will most likely remain open until the end of January. No matter what, Abdel Razak and the other volunteers are committed to continuing to help those who disembark there.
(Shaart, Eline) " Denmark to vote on seizing refugees money, valuables," Al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera English. 1/25/16. 1/25/16. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/01/denmark-vote-seizing-refugees-money-valuables-160125102148222.html
This article caught my attention because if this new law is implemented in Denmark, the Danish Government will basically be saying, come to our country, we'll take your stuff. This is wrong, these people are refugees, they don't have very much with them in the first place. Yet they want to take what little they have. I would say that the piece was written quite objectively, they journalist presented both the case of the refugees and case of the Danish government. The media company Al-Jazeera obviously has a pro-immigration bias. I understand that the Danish government, like any European government, wants to limit the number of immigrants entering its nation. However they are going about it the wrong way, this article feels a bit like a warning piece, don't go to Denmark, they'll take your stuff.  

Monday, January 18, 2016

Super rich

Super-rich: 62 people own as much as half the world


Report by UK charity Oxfam calls for a crackdown on tax havens as the world's wealthiest hide $7.6 trillion from taxes.

 | 
About $7.6 trillion is hidden in havens, depriving governments of $190bn in tax revenue every year 
The world's richest 62 people now own as much wealth as half of the world's population, according to a report by the charity Oxfam. 
Super-rich individuals saw an increase of 44 percent since 2010, taking their cumulative wealth to $1.76 trillion - equivalent to the total owned by 3.5 billion of the world's poorest people.  
The UK-based charity on Monday also said tax havens were helping corporations and individuals to stash away about $7.6 trillion, depriving governments of $190bn in tax revenue every year.
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Helen Szoke, Oxfam Australia's chief executive, said that there were no appropriate mechanisms to check if wealth was being shared appropriately.
"We believe there is a need for commitments from global business leaders and political leaders for major tax reform to get rid of the tax havens," Szoke said.
"There's too much leakage of what should be paid in taxation exacerbating this gap between rich and poor."
Referring to economic growth in Western countries, such as her native Australia, Szoke said little wealth was reaching the impoverished.
"The startling figure in our domestic context in Australia is that where there has been wealth generation in the past decade, none of that has actually trickled down to some of the Australians who are poor."
Lack of action
Oxfam said wealth was being concentrated in the hands of increasingly fewer people, while the world's poorest continued to get poorer. In 2010 some 388 people owned as much as the world's poorest 50 percent. 
Mark Goldring, Oxfam chief executive in the United Kingdom, said that the stated concern of world leaders over escalating inequality was not being matched with action.
"It is simply unacceptable that the poorest half of the world population owns no more than a small group of the global super-rich, so few you could fit them all on a single coach. 
"In a world where one in nine people goes to bed hungry every night, we cannot afford to carry on giving the richest an ever-bigger slice of the cake," Goldring said.
The organisation is calling on world leaders meeting for the World Economic Forum in the Swiss city of Davos later this month to crack down on tax havens, ensure fair wages, and invest in public services.
"Super rich; 62 people own as much as half the world" Al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera English. 1/18/16. 1/18/16.  http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/super-rich-62-people-world-160118033855025.html

This article was extremely eye opening for me. To think that 62 people in the world have as much money as 3.5 billion others combined is mind-blowing. Albeit that the 3.5 billion they are talking about are the poorer half of the world. This article has a pretty clear bias against these 62 super rich, and the article was probably aimed at lower to middle class readers. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being rich, what is wrong is that they don't pay tax like everybody else. They who should pay the most pay the least or nothing at all, that's pretty messed up. I really hope that organization like the world economic forum and world governments collaborate to make sure that people pay what they owe.

Monday, January 11, 2016

Guantanamo

Why Obama has not closed Guantanamo

Two days after he was sworn in as president, Obama signed an executive order for a review of the cases of all detainees.

Burhan Wazir |  | 

A detainee shields his face as he peers out through a 'bean hole', which is used to pass food and other items to detainees at the Guantanamo Bay naval base 

Obama initially promised to close Guantanamo Bay within a year of entering the White House in 2009. Two days after he was sworn in as president, he signed an executive order mandating a review of the cases of all the detainees. The order also called for the closure of the detention facility. In 2010, a task force concluded that 156 detainees were cleared to be transferred to foreign countries.
The prison, which was opened in January 2002 as Camp X-Ray and has the dubious honour of its 14th anniversary on January 11, currently holds 105 detainees. 
Yet the aims of his executive order have languished since 2009 due to the opposition of Congress, inaction at the Pentagon and other priorities. 

Who is challenging the closure of Guantanamo Bay?

Opposition to its closure involves two central issues which Obama has been unable to resolve. One is finding host countries to take in all the detainees. The other issue concerns whether some of the detainees can be moved to "supermax" facilities within the United States.
This becomes a legal mess for the White House. How would the president legally justify holding prisoners indefinitely on US soil? The US administration has not explained how they would get around US law - something it has been able to do in Guantanamo Bay.
The president’s opponents seized on reports that a transferred detainee returned to the battlefield after being released. Abdul Qayum Zakir, who, according to US intelligence, became a Taliban military commander after his release from Guantanamo Bay. In late 2010, an emboldened US Congress passed a law requiring the US secretary of defense to personally certify to Congress that a released detainee "cannot engage or re-engage in any terrorist activity" - which will prove almost impossible to police.

Are Guantanamo Bay detainees really a threat to the US?

There has also been opposition from the Pentagon. According to reports, US General John Kelly, who oversees Guantanamo Bay, has made it increasingly difficult for foreign delegations to visit the facility, slowing negotiations with third-party countries willing to take detainees.
Tariq Ba Odah, a Yemeni detainee since 2002, was cleared for release in 2009. Even after officials at the US State Department struck a deal with a foreign government to consider taking Ba Odah last year, the Pentagon stalled a request for his medical records for six weeks. Ba Odah remains at Guantanamo Bay and is reportedly severely malnourished from having been on a hunger strike for almost nine years.
Seventeen detainees who have received their final transfer approval are scheduled for release in the coming weeks. As many as an additional 30 more could be released by the summer. This would reduce the prison’s population to 60, but still the question remains: Would the remaining prisoners be moved to prisons in the US, and would their legal status finally be addressed?
(Wazir, Burhan) " Why Obama has not closed Guantanamo". Al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera English. 1/11/16. 1/11/16. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/01/obama-guantanamo-bay-160110090611945.html
This article was interesting because it reviews the promises of a president whose term is about to end. I think it is important for news media to go back and look at the promises and words of politicians to keep them accountable. The piece is slightly biased towards Obama, probably because it is written by a Muslim and an Islamic news company. You can see that they try to defend him in the article saying that the military and Congress made the process more complicated for Obama. I would agree with those statements however I also think that he could have taken a more firm stance on the issue. He could have issued an executive order. I think that the target audience for this article are Muslims and American Democrats. It was interesting, the author seemed to insinuate that the U.S Military rebelled against the President by delaying medical reports and refusing to allow other countries and transparency organization to visit the facility. That brings up a good point, why would the military block outside organizations and agencies and access if they have nothing to hide? If the facility is up to the American standards of human rights, why do they not let anyone else visit to give evidence to that fact?


Monday, January 4, 2016

Oregon Militia

'Militia' continues siege of Oregon government building

Critics accuse US authorities of double standards as police adopt wait-and-see approach to armed men in building.

 | 


The Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate US federal authority.

A group of self-described militiamen continue to occupy a federal building in the remote high desert of the US state of Oregon in protest against a prison sentence for local ranchers accused of burning government land.

Ammon Bundy told local newspaper The Oregonian on Sunday that he and two of his brothers were among "dozens of men" occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, close to the town of Burns in Harney county, to show support for the two men sentenced to prison for arson.

"I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we'll be in a position where we'll be no longer able to do so," he said.
Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, were convicted of arson three years ago and served time - the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under US federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each. 

The decision has generated controversy. In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate US federal authority.
The protest which started off as a rally on Saturday in support of the two men, quickly turned into a platform to raise issues of ongoing land-disputes in the state.
Aamon Bundy says he and others are occupying the building because "the people have been abused long enough" 
Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for "militia" members from across the country to come help him. He said "this is not a time to stand down. It's a time to stand up and come to Harney County."
Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told residents to stay away from the building as authorities work to defuse the situation, the Oregonian newspaper reported. No workers were on duty when the occupiers arrived.
"A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation," Ward said in a statement.

But the authorities' approach to the group of armed men occupying a federal building in the US has come under intense criticism.
Commentators and activists online have criticised the media for failing to cover the situation accurately, and have also accused the security services of a soft approach to the armed occupiers.
Debates have raged on social media under the #OregonUnderAttack , and newspapers have battled to reach consensus on how to describe the armed men.
"As of Sunday afternoon, The Washington Post called them "occupiers." The New York Times opted for "armed activists" and "militia men." And the Associated Press put the situation this way: "A family previously involved in a showdown with the federal government has occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon and is asking militia members to join them," The Washington Post said 
The Hammonds, who are set to turn themselves in Monday afternoon, have made it clear that they don't want help from the Bundy group.
"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organisation speak for the Hammond family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff Ward.
"Militia continues siege of Oregon government building". Al-Jazeera English. Al-Jazeera. 04/01/16. 04/01/16.
I chose this article because it talks about quite an unusual and unique event, as well it highlights a terrible double standard within the American justice system . The article really shows the information well, and since it is not an American news agency I believe that it is quite unbiased. The article is mainly aimed at adult Americans. As well, the writer brings up an interesting point that the federal government, police, or other security agencies have not taken immediate action. The point that if these people had been black or Muslim they would be dead already is quite valid. Truthfully, the American government should take decisive action against an action which is a crime and an act of terror. It is interesting that when extremist Muslims shoot people or fight for their religious cause they are labeled as terrorists, and are killed on site. When a black gunman commits a crime it is gang or drug-affiliated and are also shot on site. However if a white man shoots up a church full of old people he is "mentally ill", when he shoots up a school he was "depressed". Non-white terrorists are almost always shot by police, or locked up in some concentration camp like Guantanamo Bay. Yet white people who commit similar acts of terror are put in an institution for the mentally ill. Honestly, the United States needs to take decisive action on this self proclaimed "militia". If the federal government chooses to remain passive can they really claim that all men are equal under the law?