Herein I store essentially disparate reference material for my main blog socialistdystopia.blogspot.com CONTENTS OF THIS 'COGNATE' BLOG MAY BE REGULARLY INDEXED OR COMMENTED UPON IN THE 'DYSTOPIA" BLOG, MAKING IT EASIER TO READ.
This site could have value for casual readers: certainly context / purpose may or may not be obvious.
#################### Geoff Seidner
Tragedy has hit Haiti — again. Local officials put the death toll from Hurricane Matthew above 1000, and a cholera epidemic is likely to drive that number higher. At the centre of the devastation, in the rural western part of the country, homes have been shredded by fierce winds and crops have been wiped out. Residents, who are among the poorest people in the poorest country in the western hemisphere, have lost the little they had.
It’s an all-too-familiar scene. So too are the plane and shiploads of humanitarian aid now arriving in the country. The desperate plight of so many helpless souls — whose only mistake was being born in Haiti — has spurred a new surge of charitable giving. It is sorely needed.
Yet this is also an opportune time for introspection on the part of the aid community. If people are living in tin-roof shacks when a hurricane hits, ruin is predictable. But why are so many Haitians still living in such dire poverty in the 21st century?
Paradoxically, the answer may be tied to the way in which humanitarian aid, necessary and welcome in an emergency, easily morphs into permanent charity, which undermines local markets and spawns dependency.
That’s the lesson in the documentary Poverty, Inc, produced last year by the Grand Rapids, Michigan-based Acton Institute. As the title suggests, administering to the poor is now a big business that works to sustain itself. Less obvious are the destructive unintended consequences of its intervention. The 91-minute film should be required viewing for every church’s social justice committee.
Poverty, Inc, which won the prestigious Templeton Freedom Award last year, criticises aid brigades but not for bad motives. The trouble is their assumption, too often, that poverty is caused by a lack of money or resources. This produces the wrong solution, one that prescribes getting as much free stuff to the target economy as possible.
Developing-world poverty is partly a problem of market access, as Herman Chinery-Hesse, a Ghanaian software entrepreneur, explains in the film. “The people here are not stupid,” he says. “They’re just disconnected from global trade.” On top of that they also suffer from the curse of charity.
Haitians joke that they live in the land of 10,000 non-governmental organisations. The country has also been the recipient of billions of dollars in foreign government bilateral and multilateral aid over the past quarter century. This enormous giving has created harmful distortions in the local economy because when what would otherwise be traded or produced by Haitians is given away, it drives entrepreneurs out of business.
Haiti was a charity case long before the 2010 earthquake, but it wasn’t always so tragically helpless. The country was once self-sufficient in rice thanks to the work of rural peasants. That changed, according to the testimony of one development expert in the film, in the early 1980s. That’s when Haiti opened its rice market and the US began dumping subsidised grain in the country with the goal of ending hunger — and helping Arkansas rice growers with US taxpayer money. Most Haitian farmers could not compete with Uncle Sam’s generosity, and they lost their customers.
While it is true that a nation is made richer if a neighbour gives it free food, the Haitian economy was too rigid for farmers to adapt. The glut of local rice was not easily exported because Haitian farmers weren’t efficient enough to overcome their competitive disadvantages caused by tariffs and subsidised markets abroad. They also had to confront government corruption and red tape, especially at ports in their own country. More US rice donations after US president Bill Clinton restored Jean Bertrand Aristide to power in 1994 and after the 2010 earthquake compounded the problem.
Donations of bottled water, clothing, shoes and even solar panels destroy local businesses in the same way. Just ask Jean-Ronel Noel, who co-founded the solar panel company Enersa in his garage in the mid-2000s and expanded it to more than 60 employees. He is proud of his workforce, which, he explains in Poverty, Inc, comes mainly from Port-au-Prince’s notorious slums. One employee speaks of the sense of belonging that the work has given him.
The company was doing a robust business until the 2010 earthquake. “After the earthquake we were competing mostly against NGOs ... coming with their solar panels ... and giving them away for free. So what about local businessmen?”
As Alex Georges, Noel’s partner puts it: “The demand stopped because it’s hard to compete with free.”
Noel zeros in on another related problem: “Those NGOs are changing the mentality of the people. Now you have a generation with a dependency mentality.”
When the clean-up from Matthew finishes, aid groups should start packing their bags. The best way of showing we care is to provide emergency relief and then leave Haiti to Haitians.
At a protest in Sydney’s Hyde Park in 2012, a 14-year-old boy carried a sign that said “Behead all those who insult the Prophet”.
That same boy is alleged by police to have been on the verge of a ghastly act of terrorism last Wednesday. Together with a 16-year-old boy, he was arrested last week outside an Islamic prayer centre in Bankstown, in Sydney’s southwest.
Last week, too, we learned that a cartoon by The Australian’s Bill Leak is being investigated by the Human Rights Commission for breaching section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. These two seemingly unrelated events tell a story of how free speech has gone awry in Australia.
Under section 20D of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act, it is a crime to incite violence against others on the basis of race. Enacted in 1989, there has not been a single prosecution. Not when the spiritual leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia, Ismail al-Wahwah, called for “jihad against the Jews” and called Jews a “cancerous tumour” that had to be “uprooted” and destroyed. Or when his violent words were uploaded to YouTube, accessible to young boys such as those arrested last week.
It has been obvious for years that section 20D needs to be reformed to ensure prosecutions of those who use words to incite violence. The arrest of the two boys last week was the 11th imminent attack that has been prevented in Australia. Four of them have been in NSW. While the Turnbull government is intent on passing the fifth tranche of federal anti-terrorism laws, the NSW Baird government has done nothing to address an entirely ineffective law that is meant to prohibit words that spur young boys to buy bayonets, pledge allegiance to Islamic State and kill infidels on the streets of Sydney.
There should be no right to free expression of murder; giving a young boy a sign to behead infidels ought to be a crime.
Reforming section 20D won’t stop the radicalisation of young boys but it is a start in getting the right balance on free speech and it goes to the most central role of government to keep its citizens safe. It is incomprehensible then that promises to reform section 20D by NSW Attorney-General Gabrielle Upton stand empty.
The freedom scales will remain out of kilter so long as a NSW anti-discrimination law stands impotent against those who use words to incite violence, yet a federal anti-discrimination law swings into fast and furious action when someone decides to be insulted by a cartoon.
After Leak published a cartoon that satirised family dysfunction in indigenous communities, Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane touted for business, requested complaints and prejudiced his ability to consider complaints impartially.
Meanwhile the boss of the Australian Human Rights Commission Gillian Triggs, who could dismiss silly complaints, runs amok with a law premised on someone, somewhere, deciding that their feelings have been hurt by a picture or some words.
There is something dreadfully wrong with the application of free speech laws in this nation when young students at Queensland University of Technology are dragged into a three-year legal quagmire arising from a few words on Facebook.
After the students were evicted from an indigenous computer lab by indigenous woman Cindy Prior for not having the right skin colour, one wrote this on Facebook: “Just got kicked out of unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation.”
Prior chose to be offended by words aimed not at her but directed at QUT, claims the trauma has rendered her unable to work for three years, and the legal system condones this anti-free speech farce.
While words that incite violence go unchallenged, an edifice of opposition has built up in Western culture around words that merely offend. For thousands of years, Ovid’s narrative poem Metamorphoses has been studied as an epic tale of the creation of the world, drawing on tales from Greek mythology, exploring lust and love, violence and power. The poem inspired Chaucer, Shakespeare and more.
Now, in the 21st century, university students demand trigger warnings when Ovid is taught to protect them from “offensive material that marginalises student identities in the classroom”. No-platforming campaigns at another university stop Germaine Greer speaking.
Safe spaces are set aside for women who are offended when feminist Christina Hoff Sommers speaks on campus.
Christians are stopped from meeting in a Sydney hotel by a group of same-sex marriage activists who have no understanding of free speech. And let’s not even get started on the lunacy of cultural appropriation claims.
In Pakistan, a Christian woman and farm labourer from rural Punjab, Asia Bibi, has been on death row since 2010 awaiting an appeal against charges of blasphemy for insulting the Prophet Mohammed. Blasphemy laws and section 18C differ in two respects: the penalty is harsher and the subject of the insult is dead. But the aim, to censor speech that dares to insult or offend, is the same.
The cowering silence of our political and community leaders as the freedom scales move more and more out of kilter is an affront to our most basic freedoms.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott told The Australian this week that, compared with two years ago, it is now more obvious that section 18C is a weapon to stifle free speech.
In fact, the freedom-killing character of section 18C was clear enough two years ago to those concerned about free speech. That’s why Abbott promised to reform it, only to renege at the first whiff of political grapeshot from Muslim and Jewish community leaders. Abbott’s broken promise about free speech was not befitting of a Liberal leader and neither is Malcolm Turnbull’s determination to hide behind his predecessor’s broken promise.
Jewish community leaders need to rethink and revise their position, too. On August 10, the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies joined with more than 20 other community groups, including the Australian National Imams Council, to demand reform of the feeble incitement to violence laws in NSW. But the NSW Board of Deputies also has joined the Jewish Community Council of Victoria and the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council in opposing any change to an oppressive law that protects hurt feelings. If they want to be taken seriously about the former, they need to find a more sensible position on the latter.
Muslim leaders should reconsider their equally irrational position. Muslim migrants, like every other group of migrants, surely settle in Australia to live safe and secure lives and to enjoy Western freedoms.
That ought to mean supporting change to an inadequate law that fails to keep us safe from violent incitement and equally supporting reform of a law that wrongly protects someone from being insulted.
How many more 12-year-old boys will be radicalised by adults using words aimed to incite violence before NSW Premier Mike Baird shows some leadership and reforms 20D?
And when will the Prime Minister prevent more young students and cartoonists being hauled over the legal coals under section 18C because someone, somewhere, has claimed their feelings have been hurt?