#is the judicial branch of the ministry separate from other branches?

[niteshade925]

April 14, Xi'an, China, Shaanxi History Museum, Qin and Han Dynasties Branch (Part 1 - Political Structure, Laws, and Military):

This was the final museum I went to while in Xi'an, and despite its name, it is not the Shaanxi History Museum/陕西历史博物馆. It is a new branch that's in a separate location from the main museum, so it's also referred to as the "Qin/Han Branch"/秦汉馆 (ugh I wish I could've gone to the main branch), and the museum building and its gates were supposed to imitate the look of Qin/Han-era palaces. It was raining cats and dogs the night before, so the ground still bear traces of that. I had fun though.

This museum doesn't have a lot of unique artifacts that other museums don't have, but instead focuses on the political structure, thought, life, and technologies from Qin and Han dynasties, so there were a lot of tables, maps, and diagrams in the museum. I will only be giving a brief summary of each thing here so these posts won't get too long (and take too much effort to make). If you understand Chinese though, these may be helpful worldbuilding references.

First is a rough timeline of the history Qin dynasty (221 - 207 BC) to Han dynasty (202 BC - 220 AD) (right side of timeline) and how it fits within the overall ancient world history (left side of timeline) in the same time frame, just as a general reference so museum visitors can have an idea of when these dynasties and events took place. The timeline included events starting from when Qin was still a state (Warring States period, 476 - 221 BC) until after the end of Han dynasty (Three Kingdoms period, 220 - 280 AD; and Western Jin dynasty, 265 - 317 AD). Here, 公元元年 means 1 CE/AD, so 公元前 means BCE/BC, and 公元 means CE/AD. Also I know the left side is hard to read, sorry about that, it was easier to read in person. There is a key at the bottom though:

A diagram of the Three Lords and Nine Ministers system (三公九卿制) that was used as the central political structure of ancient China during Qin and Han dynasties, which was replaced by the Three Departments and Six Ministries system (三省六部制) in Sui dynasty (581 - 618 AD). There are many translations for the same positions, here I used what I think fits best for each position.

The Three Lords/三公 are (left to right on chart) : the Imperial Secretary/御史大夫 (handles the audit system and helps the chancellor), the Chancellor/丞相 (helps emperor handle national political affairs), and the Grand Commandant/太尉 (helps emperor handle military affairs).

The Nine Ministers/九卿 are (left to right): the Minister of Finance/治粟内史 (oversees public finance and tax system), the Minister of the Imperial Clan/宗正 (handles affairs within imperial clan), the Grand Herald/典客 (handles foreign policy), the Minister of the Guards/卫尉 (controls imperial guards), the Minister of Justice/廷尉 (oversees judicial system), the Minister of Attendants/郎中令 (controls palace guards, oversees imperial household, serves as imperial advisor, etc.), the Minister Coachman/太仆 (oversees the care, training, use, and purchase of horses; horses were an important resource in ancient times), the Lesser Treasurer/少府 (oversees the emperor's personal finances and some taxes), and the Minister of Ceremonies/奉常 (handles official ceremonies, worship, and rituals, oversees court astrologers and court scribes/historians).

Qin and Han dynasty bureacratic systems. Right is Qin dynasty's system of commanderies/郡, counties/县, townships/乡, and villages/里 (levels of local government from highest to lowest). Left is Han dynasty's central government system, which designated the Three Lords and Nine Ministers system as the Outer Court/外朝 (executes policies), and added a Central Court/中朝 (decides policies).

A list of the 48 commanderies during Qin dynasty and their locations today, grouped by where they were located before Qin dynasty (for example 7 of these groups were states during the Warring States period). A few of the names of these commanderies continue to be place names today, and some others often make appearances in modern novels.

The Recommendatory System/察举制 of Han dynasty, which was how officials were selected. Basically this process consists of a few steps: first the emperor would set what categories of talents are needed, then local government would recommend people to the central government accordingly. The emperor would ask the recommendees how they would deal with current issues, and then gave them positions based on how good their policy ideas were. Ideally the local officials would be impartial with recommendations, but in reality the local officials often belonged to powerful local clans, so these recommendations gradually became a way for the powerful clans to stay in power. This system was replaced by the Imperial Examination System/科举制 in later dynasties, which put more emphasis on exams as a way to select talents.

The locations of Qin and Han dynasty national temples, sacred mountains, and sacred bodies of water on a modern map. Of these, the temples marked in yellow were the temples dedicated to eight deities worshipped by the state of Qi, so they are collectively called the Eight Deities of Qi/齐地八神. Although the state of Qin eventually defeated the state of Qi, worship of these deities continued through Qin dynasty into Han dynasty. The temples marked in red were dedicated to deities worshipped by the state of Qin. The temples marked in purple were temples built in Han dynasty. The sacred waters are marked with wavy lines. The sacred mountains are marked in light blue-gray (a few are outside of this picture). MDZS fans may recognize Qishan/岐山 on this map, and Three Kingdoms enthusiasts may recognize jieshishan/碣石山 as the place Cao Cao visited when he wrote the line "东临碣石，以观沧海" in his famous poem.

Replicas of a small part of the Qin-era bamboo texts found in a tomb of a Qin dynasty official at Shuihudi (睡虎地秦简). The originals are at Hubei Provincial Museum/湖北省博物馆. Many of these texts concern laws and decrees of Qin dynasty, and in another tomb in the same area there were also the oldest letters ever found in China (link goes to the full digitized text). These bamboo slips are meant to read from top to bottom, right to left, and the construction of bamboo scrolls are actually the very reason why Chinese texts read this way traditionally even on printed texts during later dynasties.

This was something I'd written about in the MDZS posts a few years ago, and now I've finally seen the real thing with my own eyes: the Tiger Tally/虎符 (I translated it as "Tiger Amulet" in that post but in fact "Tally" is the correct translation). Tiger tallys have two halves, each with gilded gold text upon them. This particular artifact is the left half of a tiger tally from late Warring States period (state of Qin), and reads:

"This is a tally of the armed forces, right half goes to the ruler of Qin, left half goes to (the official of) Du county. When the need to dispatch armored troops of over 50 soldiers arises, this half must find the other half held by the ruler in order to authorize this military activity. In case of emergency, there is no need to wait for this authorization." (“兵甲之符，右才君，左才杜。凡兴士披甲用兵五十人以上，必会君符，乃敢行之。燔燧之事，虽毋会符，行殹。”)

The different currencies (coins) of the states of Warring States period:

The different coins and coin molds during Qin and Han dynasties:

Left: Han dynasty disk-shaped gold ingots; these were rare currencies at the time and were mainly exchanged between the imperial family and nobility as gifts. Right: a standard weight from Qin dynasty that reads "weighs 30 jin/斤". Since Qin dynasty unified systems of measurements, and this weight is known to weigh 7.5 kg, we can easily convert the Qin-era jin to the modern kg (1 Qin-era jin = 0.25 kg).

Terra cotta soldier and horse from Qin Shihuang's mausoleum. As some people have pointed out, these terra cotta soldiers were fully painted and colorful when they were first excavated, but when exposed to air, the paint quickly peeled and the colors faded, leaving the sculptures in their familiar clay-color. Few of these sculptures still have their original colors intact, thanks to preservation efforts. The immense difficulty of preservation is also a reason why modern Chinese archaeology has that rule of "don't excavate unless absolutely necessary".

A Qin-era bronze jian/剑 (double-edged straight sword) from Qin Shihuang's mausoleum:

Left: Qin-era bronze spear heads and a pi/铍 head (on the right; pi is a type of ancient Chinese polearm). Right: Han-era ring-pommel dao/环首刀 (dao is a single-edged sword that can be straight or curved; interestingly, many ring-pommel dao artifacts exhibit a forward curve). Ring-pommel dao continued to be used in the military after Han dynasty.

A suit of armor made out of stone from Qin Shihuang's mausoleum. These armor sets weigh about 18 kg or 39.7 lbs each, which is........actually not too bad. There are specialized armor sets in later dynasties that can weigh 30 kg or 66 lbs.

[swiftsnowmane]

Since 2022, when the Woman, Life, Freedom protests against the Islamic Republic’s leadership erupted across Iran, the authorities have dramatically intensified their clampdown on members of the Baha'is faith.

Many Baha'is have been arrested, prosecuted and handed stiff sentences, with multiple observers drawing parallels with the persecution they endured in the 1980s.

Baha'i women have borne a disproportionate brunt of the government’s repressive measures. 

Yekta Fohandej Sa'adi, who has been in custody for 48 days, is among them.

Her family remains uninformed of her health condition and the details of her case.

Fohandej had previously been arrested and tried on four separate occasions.

Initial Arrest and Trial

On February 3, 2012, agents from the Shiraz Intelligence Department simultaneously searched 30 Baha'i homes in the city, resulting in the arrest of Fohandej and 10 other people.

She was released on bail after spending 82 days in a detention center.

During her trial at the Shiraz Revolutionary Court, Fohandej faced charges of "propaganda activities against the Islamic Republic" and "formation and membership in illegal Baha'i organizations.” 

She was initially sentenced to five years of suspended imprisonment, but a court of appeals later acquitted her of all charges.

Second and Third Arrests and Trials

On March 16, 2014, two years after the first trial, Fohandej was apprehended at her residence in Shiraz during a raid by Ministry of Intelligence agents. 

Following 56 days of solitary confinement, she was released after posting another bail. 

Three years later, she faced a new case on similar charges, which resulted in a five-year prison sentence. 

After she filed an appeal, the sentence was changed to two years in prison and five years of suspended imprisonment.

Fohandej’s judicial saga continued, and on March 18, 2017, on the eve of the Persian New Year, she was arrested a third time when law enforcement officers raided her home. They did not present any warrant.

She was subsequently transferred to Adel Abad prison in Shiraz to serve her sentence.

But Branch 36 of the Supreme Court overturned Fohandej's sentence, leading to her release from prison after serving 74 days. 

The case against Fohandej was handled by the Second Branch of the Shiraz Revolutionary Court.

The first trial took place on October 6 of the same year, and the date of the second trial was postponed to allow the defendant to present her final defense. 

A year later, she discovered through a text message from the authorities she had been sentenced to 11 years in prison.

According to the verdict, Fohandej's received a one-year prison sentence for "propaganda against the Islamic Republic” and a 10-year prison sentence for "forming and being a member of illegal Baha'i organizations." 

The verdict was delivered without Fohandej's awareness of the court proceedings, and she had not been given a chance to present her defense in court.

Once again, Branch 26 of the Court of Appeals of Fars province acquitted Fohandej of all charges.

The Fourth Arrest and Trial

On July 16, 2016, agents from the Shiraz Intelligence Department arrested six individuals, including Fohandej, who were engaged in a discussion about the environment at a friend's house. 

The group was known for participating in nature-cleaning activities around Shiraz during holidays.

Following 81 days of interrogation and solitary confinement, she was released on October 13 after posting bail amounting to 250 million tomans.

Six years later, in April 2022, Branch 1 of the Shiraz Revolutionary Court sentenced Fohandej and 25 other Baha'is to a combined 85 years of imprisonment on the charge of "assembly and collusion with the intention of disrupting the domestic and foreign security of the country." The defendants were also sentenced to exile and banned from traveling.

The court session occurred despite one of the defendants revealing that the presiding judge had declared the case defective multiple times over the previous six years. 

According to the court's decision, Fohandej received a five-year prison sentence and a two-year travel ban. 

In a subsequent judicial investigation, Fohandej was acquitted of the charges in this case.

Who is Yekta Fohandej Sa'adi?

Fohandej, a 39-year-old resident of Shiraz, is married and part of a family that belongs to the Baha'i faith in Shiraz. 

In 1979, her family was displaced during an attack on Baha'i homes in the village of Saadiyeh, Shiraz.

She encountered educational discrimination due to her religious affiliation. Despite studying English language and literature for seven semesters at Shiraz’s Payam Noor University, she was expelled from the university simply because she was a Baha'i.

Fohandej's Current Detention Status

Fohandej was apprehended on the streets of Shiraz by Ministry of Intelligence agents on December 18, 2023, and taken to her home. 

The officers seized books and photographs related to the Baha'i faith and personal items, including children's toys and drawing books, gold and silver items adorned with Baha'i symbols and approximately $1,500 in cash.

For 48 days, Fohandej has been held at the detention center No. 100 of the Shiraz Intelligence Department. 

Despite ongoing efforts by her family to obtain information, there has been no response from the relevant authorities regarding the accusations against her, the status of her case or her well-being.

Fohandej has so far managed to have two brief phone conversations with her family.

[xhxhxhx]

JERUSALEM (AP) — Hundreds of people defied restrictions on large gatherings to protest outside parliament Thursday, while scores of others were blocked by police from reaching the area as they accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government of exploiting the coronavirus crisis to solidify his power and undermine Israel’s democratic foundations.

In recent days, Netanyahu and his surrogates have shut down the Israel’s court system just ahead of his trial on corruption charges, have begun using phone-surveillance technology on the public and adjourned parliament until next week.

Netanyahu has defended most of these moves as unpleasant but necessary steps to deal with the coronavirus pandemic. But opponents say he is more interested in staying in power as Netanyahu governs in a caretaker role after a third consecutive inconclusive election in under a year.

Outside the Knesset, or parliament, hundreds protested the government’s moves, hoisting banners that said “No to dictatorship,” “Democracy in danger,” and calling Netanyahu the “crime minister.”

Police said they arrested three people for violating a ban on gatherings of more than 10 people. They also blocked a convoy of dozens of cars from entering Jerusalem and prevented dozens of other cars inside Jerusalem from approaching the Knesset building. Many of the cars honked and hung black flags out their windows.

Israel is a “good country, good people and we need to remember the foundation upon which this country was built,” said protester Michal Levi. “We have only one country. That’s it. Don’t give up on it.”

Police rejected accusations that they were carrying out Netanyahu’s bidding, saying they were following Health Ministry orders meant to curb the spread of the virus. “No one is above the law or above public health orders released by the ministry of health,” it said.

At the nearby Supreme Court, justices heard separate challenges to the new mobile-phone tracking edict and the shutdown of the Knesset. Civil rights groups and the opposition Blue and White party filed the cases.

Netanyahu announced this week that Israel’s Shin Bet security agency would begin deploying its phone surveillance technology to help curb the spread of the coronavirus in Israel by tracking the moves of those infected. The order went into effect late Wednesday when the government said it had notified about 400 people that they had come into contact with infected people and should immediately quarantine themselves.

Israel uses phone surveillance in the occupied Palestinian territories, saying it’s an important tool to prevent attacks on Israelis, but critics say it’s also aimed at maintaining tight control. The surveillance in Israel has sparked widespread criticism from lawmakers and civil rights groups.

The virus has spread to more than 100 countries, infected more than 220,000 people worldwide and killed nearly 10,000. For most people, it causes only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia. The vast majority of people recover from the new virus.

Israeli health officials have diagnosed over 500 infections, with a sharp spike of positive tests in the past two days. There have been no deaths.

With the numbers quickly rising, authorities have issued tough guidelines that have brought Israel to a standstill. Many of the measures have been seen elsewhere. People have been instructed to stay home, tens of thousands are in preventive home quarantine and the borders have been virtually sealed.

Netanyahu has thrived in the crisis, delivering stern televised addresses nearly every evening.

Presenting himself as the responsible adult steering the country through an unprecedented emergency, he has defended the tough steps, including the electronic surveillance, as measures he has reluctantly been forced to impose in order to save lives, while his opponents are focused on petty politics.

In a televised interview Wednesday, Netanyahu said that during his 11 years as prime minister, he had always refused to use surveillance on Israeli citizens. He said there would be “maximum oversight” to protect privacy concerns.

“The last thing I will do is harm democracy,” he said.

But critics say that is exactly what he has done by allowing Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, a member of his Likud party, to suspend parliamentary proceedings. Edelstein has cited technical reasons, but political opponents accuse him of stonewalling on behalf of the prime minister to prevent them from pushing forward with legislation that could bring Netanyahu’s time in office to an end.

After the March 2 election, Netanyahu’s opponents hold a slim majority and are planning on presenting proposals that would impose term limits and block an indicted politician, like Netanyahu, from leading or forming a government.

The leaders of the Israel Democracy Institute, a prominent think tank that often conducts research for the government, sent an “urgent” appeal to Edelstein to allow the Knesset to resume operations and allow its committees to begin work.

Their letter expressed “grave concern” over his moves.

“The outcome of this decision is that at this critical period – during which Israel is in the midst of an unprecedented health crisis that has dramatically affected all areas of life including the public health and safety, personal freedom and the economy – the most important democratic institution in our country, the Knesset, is effectively incapacitated,” they wrote.

President Reuven Rivlin, a figurehead leader who serves as a moral compass for the country, appeared to side with the opposition Blue and White party, calling for an end to deadlock and for the Knesset to resume work.

Following the election, Netanyahu has the support of only 58 lawmakers, leaving him three short of a majority in the 120-seat Knesset.

Sixty-one lawmakers have come out in support of his opponent, Blue and White party leader Benny Gantz, while one refuses to endorse either side.

Backed by a narrow majority, Gantz, a former military chief, was tasked by Rivlin this week to try to form a new government.

In the meantime, Netanyahu has used a series of executive orders and other tactics to push forward his agenda while preventing parliament from convening.

The phone-surveillance plan was approved by the Cabinet in the middle of the night, without the traditional parliamentary oversight that is customary for such decisions.

Likewise, the courts shutdown also was approved in the middle of the night by Netanyahu’s hand-picked justice minister, just a day before the prime minister’s criminal trial was to begin. The decree, citing the coronavirus, postponed the trial until May.

In a video statement, Yair Lapid, a senior figure in Blue and White, told Israeli citizens that they “no longer live in a democracy.”

“There is no judicial branch in Israel. There is no legislative branch in Israel. There is only an unelected government that is headed by a person who lost the election. You can call that by a lot of names. It isn’t a democracy,” he said in a recorded video.

[lifeaftermeteor]

So You Want to Build a Preventers Organization...

@kirinjaegeste​ asked about this in the GW Discord Channel and I thought it would maybe be useful for other Gundam Wing writers too.  Keep in mind that nothing—and I mean nothing—is universal, and because canon material is so amorphous there's really no wrong way to do this.  But this is how I did it, and figured I'd share.

Also, although this particular write-up is Gundam Wing specific, the things addressed here I think would help anyone who's looking to build an organization from the ground-up for their story.

What is the Charter?

First thing to ask yourself is what is this organization supposed to do because that will guide the size, the missions, the "concept of operations" (i.e. how it all works together), and any conflict that stems from these aspects down the line in your story. 

If the Preventers in your story is primarily a peacekeeping operation, forward-deployed into high-risk countries (or orbital colonies) that need a non-partisan, unbiased presence, that is one kind of charter.  If it's an elite entity that operates outside the bounds of standard legal, political, or military operations and is meant to suppress or defuse crises before they arise, that's a very different charter.  Are they glorified bodyguards for the ESUN political elite?  Different charter.  Are they a liaison entity, bridging the judicial gaps between Earth and space?  Yet another charter. 

So to reiterate: Step #1 = what is it supposed to do?

And now add the finer details...

How many people are in its ranks?  Managing an elite force of ~30 people is very different from a multi-million person enterprise with global operations.  For LAM, I gave the Preventers an expanded charter—after the Barton Insurrection—to include a multi-faceted operational responsibility: liaison, advisory, peacekeeping, intel, crisis-prevention and mitigation.  I thus took a page out of the DoD's book and gave it a couple million people to manage (DoD at present, if you include service members, reservists, and civilians, is at about 2.8 million people…more if you add in contractors).  That leads you to the next question...

What is the structure of the organization?  Again, depending on the size of the organization, how you herd cats differs.  Some options to consider: 

Hub-n-Spokes Model: There is a strong centralized presence with smaller field offices/teams spread out across different regions.  Although the field offices retain autonomy, the hub serves as the primary authority and connects the various operations to ensure coordination.

Diffuse (Mission-Oriented): There are multiple offices, all of which are separate entities responsible for certain missions or duties - e.g., you have one office stationed in New York that is responsible for XX mission, another in Brussels that handles YY mission.  There is likely an "HQ" or "Office of the Director," but they are focused more on administrative or overarching support/coordination and the individual, geographical, mission-focused offices themselves retain a lot of independent authority to do their jobs with minimal coordination with and oversight from a centralized entity.

De-centralized: No "HQ" for all intents and purposes.  Leadership sets broad mission, vision, and goal, but personnel have authority to act on their own accord with little-to-no oversight or direction.  Think about how terrorist cells are constructed—you get rid of the leadership, the entity keeps on truckin'.  The cells are likewise disconnected from one another, so if you take one out, there are others that will continue the mission unimpeded.

HQ + Branch Offices (not mission-oriented): The model used for LAM, Headquarters is the arm and the power and the authority; the branch offices are mini-HQs with multi-functional teams that serve as liaisons and first line of defense for regionally focused Preventers work.  Think of it in terms of diplomacy: if the Preventers HQ is the equivalent of the State Department (or Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc.), then the Branch Offices are the Embassies and Consulates.  This provides some autonomy for day-to-day operations, but the staff at the Branches constantly go back and forth with regional or functional teams at HQ and derive their mandate (i.e. their authority to do something) from HQ itself.

Clandestine or Not?  Another element to consider is whether or not the general populace knows about the Preventers.  Are they a shadowy, super secret organization staffed entirely by ghosts?  Or are they a household name?  Or are they somewhere in between—known of but not necessarily understood.  I've seen all of these manifest in the fandom at various points and it really depends on what role you need them to play in your story.  If you need Duo to go and off someone in a situation that Une can disavow all knowledge if things go sideways on him, that's one kind of entity.  Alternatively, if—like in LAM—you need them to serve as a bridge between Earth and the colonies, a voice for former combatants, and a symbol of the future (i.e., "drop your past affiliations so we can protect the peace together"), then that's a different kind of organization entirely.

What support do they need and how do they get it?  Now that you've figured out the mission, the size, and the structure, what are the operational requirements for the Preventers to do their job?  No one works in a vacuum, so based on their job duties, who supports them?  Lethal or non-lethal?  Private industry involved or in-house only?  Black market and black budgets?  Or are all acquisitions recorded on triplicate?  Do agents get a stipend to do with as they please in order to get the mission done, or are supplies provided by a central authority?  Do they work with local authorities and law enforcement or do they operate under the radar?

Who's in charge and what does their job entail?  Information relay and duty tasking are important parts of any organization, big and small, but what that looks like is influenced by the questions you've answered above.  For the AC universe, it's generally accepted that Lady Une becomes the Preventers Director at some point during AC 196.  But what does that role entail?  Does she personally task actions to lower ranks or has she delegated that authority down to Deputy Directors and Deputy Assistant Directors and so on?  What are the limits of her authority?  Does she have to report to anyone?  That brings us to the next question to ask yourself...

Who retains oversight of the organization? Or more bluntly, who goes to jail when shit gets fucked up?  Constraints on power and influence are part of life—whether you're talking about governments, non-profits, militaries, businesses, etc.  There are rules and regulations that dictate how institutions can and should act.  There are checks and balances, both within and external to an organization.  Based on the world you're constructing, who is checking the Preventers' homework? In LAM!verse, I opted to create an Oversight Committee within the ESUN specifically to retain ESUN visibility into Preventers operations.  This committee has Preventers leadership brief them on things that matter to them or that impact their constituencies, provide reports on everything from budget numbers to personnel (including past affiliations) to acquisition needs for operational support.  They also retain the right to remove the Preventers Director through a vote of no-confidence.  So while the Director is all-important within the Preventers itself, they are still beholden to the ESUN through the Committee.

Relationship with Other Entities?  Regardless of the question of "oversight" above, there is this separate question of, "Who does the organization interact with and what does that look like?"  Depending on the role, missions, size, structure, and function of the Preventers in your story, their relationship to other national or international organizations could change.  We know from Endless Waltz that (1) the President was an elected official and knew about the Preventers, and (2) the President or the ESUN was funding them.  Obviously this sets some expectations on all sides.  Is there tension inherent in interactions due to structural or institutional characteristics?  Are there "champions" of the Preventers outside of the organization that support what they're trying to do?  Are there naysayers?  Are those supporters/detractors at the institutional level (i.e. from national, international, or ESUN itself) or at the individual level (representatives, senators, national leaders, the ESUN President)?  What are the "atmospherics" as we call it here—i.e., what is the emotional space in which this organization is operating?

On or Off the Rails?

Now that you've built the Preventers CONOPs and other structural and legal matters, time to think about what RIGHT looks like.  When this entity is doing its job in accordance with its Charter and its mandate, what is happening (or not happening if that’s easier to answer)?  Obviously in the case of Preventers you could say "crises are averted" but that's a surface-level assessment.  What are people inside the organization happy about?  What are people outside the organization happy about?  How is it impacting the world around them?  What are they contributing?

Now that you know, next is to determine what WRONG looks like and what kind of wrong you’re looking for.

Out of Bounds: the organization has breached its Charter and gone above and beyond what they’re technically supposed to be doing.  This can be willful/intentional or unintentional, the latter occurring when a sudden need arose and either (a) no one came forward to handle it, or (b) the organization was thrust forward by outside/oversight forces in a “this is now your job, fix it!” sense.

Scope Creep: related to the “out of bounds” possibility is what’s called “scope creep” wherein an organization starts doing stuff that it wasn’t originally intended or tasked to do.  However, I separate it out here to capture a separate factor: what they’re doing is still technically within bounds of the Charter.  This happens when a Charter either (a) is too broad to effectively eliminate things from the “acceptable duties” list, or (b) someone of authority decided to reinterpret the legal limitations the Charter imposes.  Sometimes (b) is followed by actual legislative change to make the new interpretation a reality (see Constitutional Amendments).  A note on this one: reinterpretation of the right and left limits of what is “okay” is not inherently a bad thing.  It’s how that’s perceived and the nature of the execution itself that matters.  

Failure of Checks and Balances: often related to “out of bounds” and/or “scope creep” is a more generalized lack of oversight and checks/balances on your organization.  When no entity can rival or counter-balance an organization, they can get an inflated sense of authority and power.  This can lead to lead to them doing what they want because either “No one can stop me,” or “Who else is going to do it.”

Crisis of Leadership: the organization needs a strong leader who can effectively provide vision/direction/tasking and no longer as one (leaving the organization direction-less), or the organization can handle a weak leader but suddenly has a megalomaniac at the helm. Both of these are problems that arise at the top and have trickle-down effects on everyone below them, making the institution ineffective at best and dangerous because the people who should be in charge aren’t anymore.

Crisis of Personnel: aka, “the peasants are revolting!”  Your staff have gone off on their own and are doing their own thing, either belligerently against orders/tasking/guidance or due to general ignorance of what leadership is aiming to do.  Sometimes this will come about in conjunction with Crisis of Leadership, often in response to something wrong happening at the top.

What Kind of Conflict Do You Need?

I won’t delve into this one too much because it goes beyond the scope—LOL!—of this post, but I think it’s important to note all the same. Depending on what kind of conflict you need to drive your plot forward, here are some things to think about:

Rapid on-set, mission-based: the organization took on a sudden role or expanded its authorities to respond to a specific crisis or need at hand. The change happened quickly and was because of this crisis, rather than some internal driver.

Slow burn, can’t-stop-a-moving-train: the organization gradually evolves over time, does not raise alarm bells from people either outside or inside the institution. It’s only well after a new status quo has been established after a time that someone stops and says, “Wait a minute. What the hell…?”

Surprise, bitch: aka, the ‘military coup’ option wherein the entity takes power, often by force (bloodless or otherwise) and no one can stop them

[crimethinc]

Riders on the Storm: A Blow-by-Blow Report from May Day 2018 in Paris

In Paris, on May Day 2018, nearly 15,000 people joined a confrontational march rejecting capitalism and the state, including a black bloc of 1200 people. Intense clashes immediately broke out with the police. This is the story of the events leading up to May Day, what we experienced that afternoon in Paris, and what comes next.

Tension has been building in France for years now, from the street confrontations of 2016 against the Loi Travail to the defense of la ZAD at Notre-Dame-des-Landes. Here, we offer firsthand reports from the events of May 1, 2018 in Paris and discuss the aftermath of this day in order to participate in the critical analyses that have emerged within our radical circles for several days now.

To hear reports from other May Day actions worldwide, listen to the May Day 2018 roundup episode of our podcast, the Hotwire. To learn more about the origins of May Day, read “The incomplete, true, authentic and wonderful history of May Day” here, or read our timeline charting its legacy.

Fire on the streets of Paris.

Background: 127 Years of History

May Day is observed as International Workers’ Day in France, as it is in many other countries. For more than a century, workers, trade unionists, traditional leftists, and anarchists have demonstrated together or separately to pay tribute to the struggles of the late 19th century and the introduction of the eight-hour workday.

Yet May Day has never been limited to legal demonstrations. On May 1, 1891, in Fourmies, soldiers shot at striking workers, killing nine people—including four under the age of 18—and injuring 35 more. Afterwards, a crowd took the streets of Clichy brandishing a red flag. At the end of the demonstration, police attempted to seize the revolutionary emblem, provoking a riot. Gunshots echoed in the streets and some policemen were injured. Three anarchists were arrested and detained. Tried in August 1891, the defendants were sentenced to up to 5 years in prison. These events awoke the convictions of many future radicals, including the notorious anarchist François Koënigstein, better known by his nickname, Ravachol.

In France, May Day also has other connotations. In 1941, aiming to force a rupture with socialism, Marshal Pétain—fervent anti-Semite, head of the French government during the occupation, and among those chiefly responsible for state collaboration with the Nazis—passed legislation declaring that May Day would be called la Fête du Travail et de la Concorde Sociale (“the day of labor and social harmony”). Since then, Labor Day in France continues to bear the name “Fête du Travail,” paying tribute to Pétain’s maxim ”Travail, Famille, Patrie” (“Work, Family, Fatherland”).

During the 1950s and 1960s, Labor Day disappeared in France. During the war in Indochina (1946-1954) and the Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962), successive French governments seeking to preserve their colonial holdings instituted a State of Emergency (1955-1958-1961). The state used this “exceptional” law granting special powers to the executive branch to forbid demonstrations of all kinds in France. It was only on May 1, 1968 that people in France were once again able to take the streets to celebrate Labor Day.

More recently, in 2016 and 2017, anarchists and other autonomous rebels succeeded in taking the front of the afternoon May Day demonstration, relegating trade unions and political parties to the end of the procession. By adopting an offensive strategy—attacking every single potential target on our route—we brought new life to the demonstration, interrupting the ritual it had become.

As we approached May Day 2018, we faced a new challenge. Once again, we had to rewrite the story.

For a world without hierarchy or oppression.

Barricades open up space in hopes that other relations may arise, other affects circulate.

The Storm Approaches

“We are the birds of the coming storm.” –August Spies

This year, May Day took place in the context of France celebrating the 50-year anniversary of the uprising of May 1968. This event had a massive impact on the collective imagination—not only in France, but also worldwide, as evidenced by the slogans, artwork, and images of rioters throwing cobblestones it summons to mind. The so-called “revolution of 1968” saw massive demonstrations, general strikes, wildcat strikes, and occupations of universities and factories throughout France. Initiated by Parisian students, the revolt spread to working class milieux and then to many other demographics. What began as a local struggle became a national upheaval. According to historians, May 1968 represented a new form of cultural and social movement that emerged outside of traditional parties and trade unions. This movement challenged consumer society by critiquing its ideology of productivity and profit, but it also questioned the authoritarian political model of the time and put the notions of individuality and personal subjectivity at the center of the struggle.

From traditional leftist activists to career politicians and reactionaries of all stripes, everyone has something to say about May ’68. The struggles of May 1968 became yet another component of the society of the spectacle. Since the beginning of 2018, the French government, politicians of every party, the corporate media, and the Ministry of Cultural affairs have all been commemorating this long-past social and cultural upheaval that supposedly marked a turning point in French history. The museum exhibitions serve to fix the possibility of revolutionary change in a long-concluded past, but they are not even the worst part. For example, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a former student activist who became the self-proclaimed heir of the revolution of May ’68, took up a career in journalism and politics and finally came to support President Macron and his neoliberal policies. We can appreciate the irony of the situation and the hypocrisy of the French government as it actively strives to suppress any contemporary form of experimentation—see, for example, the recent evictions at la ZAD and of several occupied universities.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leading figure of the student movement of May 1968, embracing President Emmanuel Macron.

In response to this political farce, some radicals published a call announcing that “instead of commemorating May 1968, we could try organizing a beautiful month of May 2018.” You can read translations of this call here. The authors invited people to converge in Paris in order to dethrone the myth of May 1968 and precipitate the fall of Macron and his government. This can only be understood in the context of the social, economic, and political situation in France today. As some have argued, the growing anger against President Macron and his reforms could become a serious threat for the government. For months now, railroad workers, airplane company employees, civil servants, students, professors, postal employees, hospital employees, and many others have been out on strike or protesting government policies. If all of these groups joined forces against the authorities, the impact would be considerable.

Two days before May Day, the Police Prefecture of Paris published a press statement in which Michel Delpuech, the Police Commissioner, announced that he would receive the trade union leaders and other organizers of the demonstration to warn them about the potential for public disorder that threatened the smooth functioning of the march. Amid typical redundant gibberish, the communiqué stated that:

“During the traditional May Day demonstration, activists of protest groups belonging to extremist movements are planning to violently attack law enforcement and capitalist symbols. […] Thus, in the continuity of May 1, 2017, and accentuated by the 50-year anniversary of the events of May ’68, activists want to take advantage of this demonstration to engage in multiple attacks and destruction against street furniture, banks, real estate or insurance agencies, car dealerships… and violently attack police forces. It appears that incendiary devices could be used.”

In view of this threat, the Prefecture deployed some 1500 policemen and gendarmes in order to insure order during the march. Regarding the risks of violence, the communiqué added that:

Under the order of the public prosecutor, numerous checks and searches will be implemented upstream and on the outskirts of the demonstration, as well as at nearby public transport access points.

A particular vigilance and attention will be brought to the detection of all objects considered to be potential weapons.

Any individual breaking the law will be subject to immediate arrest in anticipation of a judicial procedure.

Video-protection in real-time will be used to identify individuals trying to blend in the crowd in order to commit acts of violence.

Any material item will be collected for the purposes of judicial exploitation [sic].”

With such statements, the authorities sought to set the tone for May Day in advance. Anyone who wished to do anything to express discontent beyond marching passively would face uncompromising repression. The Police Prefecture of Paris also sought to increase its control over the May Day demonstration by imposing a shorter route than usual. Instead of the classic route linking Place de la République to Place de la Nation, the 2018 march was only authorized a two-mile walk between Place de la Bastille and Place d’Italie, a route that seemed to offer fewer potential targets for rioters. It was obvious that authorities hoped to lead us into a trap.

In response, some radicals of the “cortège de tête” (“the leading procession”) published their own communiqué on May Day morning. Regarding the threats and injunctions made against them, they answered:

“We, members of the leading procession, announce for May 1 that we are going on renewable strike concerning the role assigned to us by authorities in the demonstration. We are making the call to retaliate by invading the Latin Quarter as soon as the demonstration has been dissolved.”

Joking aside, many of us were determined to break the spell of May ’68 once and for all by invading the streets of Paris for May Day and letting our dreams, inventiveness, and rage speak for themselves.

Prepared to attack.

The Storm Rages

“Fuck May ’68, fight now!” –Unknown

On May Day morning, as is customary, several small morning gatherings occurred before the classic massive demonstration in the afternoon. That morning, no fewer than five different actions were planned. Around 10 am, traditional unions and organizations (including the CGT, FO, FSU, Solidaires, and UNEF) gathered at the Père Lachaise cemetery in front of the “Mur des Fédérés”—the wall where many of the last participants in the Paris Commune were executed. (Although the Communards died fighting as revolutionaries, they have been dead long enough that these legalistic organizations can risk keeping company with them.) At 10:30 am, a morning demonstration took place in Saint-Denis, a northern suburban city. At 11 am, after leaving their own traditional morning procession, some people gathered in downtown Paris in memory of Brahim Bouarram, a 29-year-old man killed on May 1, 1995 by supporters of the French National Front after they left the National Front May Day morning procession. At noon, as usual, the traditional annual anarcho-syndicalist march left Place des Fêtes to walk to the departure point of the afternoon procession. Finally, around 1 pm, people were supposed to meet at Place de la Bastille for a lively gathering to support the ZAD.

In view of the threats of the authorities, we decided to play it safe and joined the anarcho-syndicalist march to get a sense of the situation in the field. Once we reached Place des Fêtes, some of us decided to redecorate the police station with personal messages and posters about the Haymarket affair and the origins of May Day. As more and more people arrived, it was already apparent that a lot of autonomists, anarchists, and other radicals had decided to join the morning festivities before the afternoon march. Throughout the crowd, we could hear people speaking in French, Italian, German, and English. International call or not, some comrades had decided to visit France and spend May Day in Paris with us.

The morning march finally started. Everything went smoothly; trade unionists and families walked alongside autonomists and newer generations of anarchists while police remained almost invisible the entire time. Some of us took this opportunity to take action: banks and insurance companies saw their front windows smashed and colorful messages appeared on the walls. As we were approaching Place de la Bastille, the departure point of the afternoon procession, tension and apprehension were palpable. Would the police actually stop and search everyone attempting to join the May Day demonstration? Not at all! As the anarchist procession passed a group of policemen in plainclothes (members of the anti-criminality brigade, the BAC) and insulted them, we reached the Place de la Bastille. We had entered the belly of the beast without a hitch!

The diversity of the leading procession.

When we arrived, the Place de la Bastille was packed. Thousands of people already thronged the streets, making their way through the numerous food trucks, traditional organizations, political stands, and balloons. As in 2017, we decided to leave traditional organizations behind us and hurried to catch up with the front of the procession. Along the bassin de l’Arsenal, hidden by the blossoming trees, the colorful crowd progressively changed color. Waves of black appeared among the leading procession. Once everyone was properly changed and equipped, we all moved forward to reach the first lines of the march, already located on the Austerlitz bridge. Once on the bridge, we realized that we would not be at the front of this May Day demonstration, as another crowd of activists was already walking ahead of us.

The beginning of the demonstration was quite strange. While we waited on the bridge, a line of journalists separated us from the front of the procession. All the corporate media outlets wanted to have their own footage of the impressive bloc that was occupying the bridge. For long minutes, we remained completely static; several smoke bombs and torches were lit and the banners at the front formed a perfect line. To us, this entire situation was unproductive and somehow narcissistic, as it seemed that part of the bloc was completely at ease with having their pictures taken by photographers. We felt that they were actively participating in the political spectacle of May Day by playing their role and posing so the media could broadcast their sensational images. In the end, when people were tired of waiting, fireworks and large firecrackers were thrown at journalists to push them back. After several unsuccessful attempts, the bloc charged them and thus finally managed to cross the bridge.

The front of the march.

Once we reached the other riverbank, we found police forces and water cannons waiting on both sides. This created confusion in our ranks. For several more minutes, no one knew what to do or what we were waiting for. Would police forces try to split the procession and carry out an enormous mass arrest before the march even started? While the bloc paused again, indecisive about what to do next, the journalists recreated their line in front of us, taking more shots of the famous “black bloc” while preventing us from reaching the other group of demonstrators ahead of us.

Then things began to accelerate. Someone climbed a post and started to smash a city camera with a rock. As the journalists continued filming us unrelentingly, we were finally compelled to respond by smashing or spray painting every single camera in our path. It was time to put out the eyes of the state; in such a situation, rather than being neutral tools, cameras are connected directly to the apparatus of repression. Then the first advertisement billboards were smashed, along with some bus shelters. It seemed that we had finally found our pace.

We entered the boulevard de l’Hôpital, passing the Jardin des Plantes (a large public park) and the rue Buffon, where additional police units were already blocking the street, until we reached a McDonald’s. The storm broke. Activists took out all the front windows of the fast food restaurant while others enthusiastically decorated the walls. As the windows fell to the ground, others entered the restaurant, destroying and looting everything inside. At the end, someone threw a Molotov cocktail inside. Other activists extinguished the flames, as inhabitants living in flats above the restaurant started appearing at their windows.

Police protecting the ruins of McDonald’s.

From this point on, nearly every window display was smashed and every wall spray-painted. The march continued thus, destroying everything in its path, until it reached two car dealerships. Again, some activists ran to the front windows and shattered them. Others entered the premises of one car dealership, wrecking everything inside. Finally, they pulled two cars out onto the sidewalk and set them on fire.

On the other side of the street, not far past the Austerlitz train station, several activists were breaking down the barriers around a construction site. Behind the fencing, they found an excavator. This, too, was set on fire. As the flames consumed the machine, someone took the time to spray-paint “ZAD everywhere” on it. Whatever happens at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, the ZAD will survive! Perhaps not in its current form—as the process of normalization seems to leave fewer and fewer breaches open for experimentation—but its spirit continues to inspire us in other struggles, as this tribute action demonstrates.

At this point, we looked ahead and saw that we couldn’t go any further: police forces were waiting with anti-riot fences and water cannon trucks. They were blocking the route of the demonstration, probably to prevent us from reaching the district police station located a little further ahead on our right. At the same time, confrontations with police broke out at the construction site near the train station. It seemed that police were located inside or near the station, behind additional fences. Law enforcement units answered our projectiles with showers of tear gas canisters, which created a great degree of confusion. As reported by lundimatin:

“Then, we witnessed the most absurd scenes of the day. Dozens of activists in black threw hundreds of stones over the fences at an enemy that was completely out of reach. Others threw stones at a machine in flame, others at a McDonald’s that would no longer cause any harm to anyone. Actions that showed that the static but overwhelming and ubiquitous police presence was about to win, that is to say, to diffuse powerlessness. There was certainly a lot of will and determination during these events, but it ended being compressed in a restricted space where in reality frustration and fear prevailed.”

The storm.

An improvised rampart.

Police advancing on our position.

Little by little, the police trap was closing. While we were distracted by the confrontations near the construction site, the police lines blocking the boulevard ahead of us took the opportunity to move forward with their water cannon trucks, then filled the streets with tear gas. Our only option was to retreat. We were pushed back near the ruins of the McDonald’s. There, we were blocked between the thick clouds of tear gas, the closed fences of the park, and a disoriented and panicking crowd. Facing the jets of water cannons and uninterrupted showers of tear gas canisters, some of us tried to resist with Molotov cocktails and stones, but without any real success. As the intensity of confrontations escalated, people began to escape by climbing over the fences of the public park. Eventually, realizing that the increasing panic could lead to a potential tragedy, firemen decided to open the gates of the park. A breach was opened, and some of us took this opportunity to exit the confrontations. Shortly after, police units fanned out to attempt to arrest people inside the park.

Those who stayed on the boulevard de l’Hôpital continued retreating as the water cannons were now in full use. They ended up crossing the bridge we had departed from and then tried to start several actions by taking other routes. Some joined the march of the CGT, others went back to the bassin de l’Arsenal in order to bypass police lines and harass them. For the occasion, a huge barricade was built to slow the police while others were attacking another car dealership and several stores. Then, as police reinforcements arrived, activists dispersed into the nearby streets, only to gather again a bit further away to begin another spontaneous demonstration. Several Autolibs—electric car sharing vehicles owned by the Bolloré industrial group—were set on fire during the action. Later, the Place de la Bastille was occupied by police, who repeatedly tried to surround people in order to carry out additional arrests, while other small groups of activists were blocked in a nearby boulevard by other law enforcement units. The authorities cleared the entire square of any potential activists.

Confrontations near the train station.

Police slowed by barricading.

Police carrying out arrests.

Once the afternoon demonstration was definitely over, people began to converge around a bar located at Place de la Contrescarpe, in the Latin Quarter, the same district where most of the confrontations of May 1968 had taken place half a century earlier. The main objective of this event was to gather people from different political horizons in order to meet, debate, and create new connections. Unfortunately, police forces were already on site when the first groups of people showed up at the square. As more and more people arrived, police left the square so people could occupy it, but not without stopping and controlling some groups that wanted to join the gathering. Clashes erupted, with police repeatedly beating and pepper-spraying the crowd. The rest of the night witnessed an ongoing cat-and-mouse game between activists and police forces, involving several reoccupations of the Place de la Contrescarpe.

During these events, several spontaneous demonstrations took place. In one case, activists succeeded in escaping police units by entering an already occupied building of the EHESS, the School of Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences. Fascists and neo-Nazis armed with gulf clubs were patrolling the Latin Quarter at the same time. They assaulted several activists who were on their way to the gathering, injuring at least one individual.

After the Storm

May Day 2018 was a special day on several different levels. First, fully 14,500 people joined the non-affiliated march, demonstrating behind or alongside a black bloc of 1200. These are the figures provided by authorities. That means that about half the people who attended the May Day demonstration decided to abandon the traditional political marches. We saw the first signs of this in 2016. It reveals a deep change in terms of political traditions. It seems that more and more people are searching for something more in their activism while losing faith in trade unions and political parties. We are glad to see that this is continuing to spread. To illustrate this phenomenon, here is a translated extract of a personal account written after May Day 2018. The authors explain why they decided to join the leading procession despite their “non-violent” moral stand:

“[…] We recognize that we might have come to the head of the procession because we are attracted by the smell of powder, with the feeling that ‘this is where things happen.’ All this precisely because elsewhere, there is not much going on. The rest of the march is nothing but a deadly boredom, both politically and philosophically. The trade union processions are saturated with trucks, sound systems, a technical power that crushes all life and reduces demonstrations to, at best, a nice walk, at worst, a funeral march. These regulated parades do not disturb anyone and always end with the ritual discussions about figures. The human reduced to numbers: beautiful result!”

The great number of radicals present during May Day—the largest black bloc constituted in Paris so far—along with the intensity of the attacks (31 stores attacked and 16 cars damaged) and our mobility and determination not to be separated from the rest of the leading procession: together, these created difficulties for the authorities. Because the police decided to avoid direct confrontations with demonstrators in favor of maintaining a security perimeter from a distance, they were not able to contain us or track all of our movements once we had no option other than to retreat. Because of the chaotic situation, the Police Prefecture of Paris, with the agreement of trade union leaders, decided to simply cancel the May Day procession. A surprising decision, when we bear in mind that beforehand, the Prefecture had discussed an alternative route with trade union leaders in case violence occurred during the march. It is always instructive to see the masks of trade union leaders fall, revealing how superficial their convictions are.

Later that night, authorities, politicians, trade union leaders, journalists, and “specialists” of all kinds continued to argue over the events of the day and the tactics used by police against the black bloc. Journalists and politicians are still having a great deal of trouble understanding that the “black bloc” is not a specific entity but a street tactic; the black bloc was blamed not only for the cancellation of the May Day procession, but also for all the evils of our modern world. As usual, the same old patronizing discourse distinguishing “good demonstrators” from “violent thugs” returned to center stage in these debates. What irony, to see self-proclaimed leaders celebrating May 1968 one day, then denouncing demonstrators the next day on account of some of the same confrontational tactics.

Due to intensifying polemics regarding the tactics used by law enforcement during the afternoon, the Prefect of Paris had to improvise a press conference to explain why the police did not simply charge the crowd to put a stop to the vandalism. The Prefect explained that the results of the day were extremely positive in that, despite the property damage, only one policeman had been lightly injured and the police had carried out numerous arrests. On our side, we don’t know how many people were injured during the confrontations.

The real T-rex in Paris.

The trap the authorities had set for May Day 2018 ended up being more effective than we expected: afterwards, we learned that over 250 people had been arrested during the day. That night, the authorities announced that more than 100 had been taken into custody, and that the first court appearances were already scheduled for the end of the week.

On Thursday, May 3, six individuals went to court; all of them refused immediate appearance. Their trials will be held at the end of May and in mid-June. In the meantime, two friends were put in pre-trial custody and three under judicial control. On May 4, seven individuals were indicted, two were convoked later, and thirteen just received reminders of the law. Three defendants accepted immediate appearances: two were discharged, and the last one received a 1000-euro fine for carrying a smoke bomb and spray-paint cans. The others will be tried later. Two more people were put in pre-trial custody and others under judicial control. We send our love and support to everyone arrested on May Day—not only in Paris, but everywhere. For those seeking more details about the several days of hearings concerning the events of May Day in Paris, we recommend this report by the Parisian legal team.

Beneath the paving stones…

…the riot.

Even if this massive wave of arrests ends up being simply a symbolic gesture orchestrated by the government and the Police Prefecture of Paris, the number of individuals held in custody shows their determination to increase repression towards anyone suspected of belonging to the leading procession—even simply on account of clothes, accessories, or medical supplies. By spreading fear of being arrested for “participating in a group formed in order to commit vandalism or violence,” the authorities aim to discourage demonstrators from the practices of the leading procession, and to compel everyone else to dissociate from us. History will show whether we can avoid this trap.

Reflections

The storm of May Day 2018 is over. It’s time for us to reflect on the events of that day, the strategies and decisions on the field, and some attitudes and postures within the leading procession that, in our eyes, are becoming problematic. Many personal essays and reflections have already appeared online on the subject, indicating that everyone feels there is room for improvement.

The mercenaries of the state.

A burning barricade.

Deserting Social Media, Keeping a Low Profile

As anarchists, we are all aware of the risks that new technologies can involve. It is no surprise that our phones and computers can be tapped and that our favorite websites and social media platforms are monitored by the authorities. This is why, for strategic reasons, we believe that we should minimize our dependence on social media and new technologies in general. How many times has online information—statements, posts, pictures, friendships, events—been used against us in court to add more charges to our cases? We need to be more cautious with these tools in order to protect others and ourselves. As younger generations of activists are joining us for actions like those of May Day, we have to find ways to pass on proper security practices to new participants before they get themselves into trouble.

A Facebook event entitled “May Day 2018: A Day in Hell” and a call for a “revolutionary, determined, and fighting procession” were posted online before the eyes of the world. Our point here is not to attack the authors of this call, but to consider the use of social media as a platform to announce actions. What is the goal of advertising such an event online? Publicity, certainly. It is true that we need to announce events in order to draw people to them who are not already involved in our circles, but perhaps there could be a way to do this that would not also forewarn the authorities as to the character of our plans. When we do so, it enables them to prepare strategies for media narrative and repression in advance. Of course, the authorities already suspected that we intended to join the traditional procession and unleash hell, as we did in the past; but we should not make it easy for them to predict where and how we will strike, nor to identify the most confrontational elements. Regarding such press statements from our side, they may sometimes be necessary, but we should avoid publicity stunts of all kinds, and we also have to consider what the process is by which it is determined which actions are announced and how. These announcements can make things possible, but they can also make things impossible. One of the greatest structural challenges of organizing in the 21st century is how to resist the dictatorship of those who have the most media access.

Because we openly announced our intention to carry out a frontal assault, the authorities had plenty of time to prepare a trap for us. They used this call to warn trade union leaders and to stir up the tensions that exist between them and some individuals in the leading procession. We should take care not to use rhetoric or publicity strategies that will leave us more isolated and vulnerable in the end. There is no doubt that the government is increasing its pressure on us, and an approach that works once may not work so well the next time. Michel Delpuech, the Police Commissioner of Paris, reported that the police and government officials were generally pleased with the results of the law enforcement strategy they used on May Day, and that they already knew in advance what our main targets were: the train station and the district police station.

All this raises a lot of questions regarding our discretion, our capacity of staying under the radar while getting organized until the day of the action, and also our capacity of remaining unpredictable. We should not depend on social media to communicate among ourselves, and we should be intentional in determining which information we share in different venues. There have to be other safer ways to reach out to others—especially newer generations—without having to rely on social media or voluntarily drawing attention to ourselves before an action. For us, the solution lies deeper underground, in our informal assemblies, gatherings, meetings, and parties, where real human interactions and affinities can flourish. It is there, and through meeting new people in the streets or during actions, that we can develop and extend new informal connections and solidarity while escaping as much as possible from the constantly increasing state surveillance.

The battlefield is not an image, but a terrain.

Down with Radical Rituals, Postures, and the Cult of Images

Another concerning issue is that since its first appearance in 2016, the head of the leading procession—the “black bloc”—is becoming more and more ritualized, at the risk of becoming a caricature of itself. When at first, groups of students, anarchists, autonomists, and other radicals decided to take the head of the demonstration at the expense of trade unions, it was to open up new horizons for activism in France. This strategy worked: new forms of action and solidarity emerged as people decided to secede from the trade union processions. The leading procession became an uncontrollable body for which diversity, mobility, and spontaneity were the watchwords.

Two years later, the situation has changed. Of course, we are happy to see that the leading procession still exists and keeps attracting more and more people. Nevertheless, when we decide to take part in an action, everything follows a familiar pattern: we join the demonstration, we reach the front of the procession, we change our clothes for anonymity, we create a bloc at the head of the leading procession, we pose with our banners and smoke bombs for photographers, we march, we shout the same slogans, we attack some targets, we confront police forces, we escape and disband. Once again, we have reached a plateau, and we find ourselves fulfilling a role in an orchestrated spectacle. What used to be an unpredictable spark, a way of outflanking specific demonstrations, is now becoming an expected form of action. In ritualizing our strategies, we end up integrating them into others’ expectations and facilitating the task of the police at the same time. We have to create a new momentum in our actions. Only our creativity and originality can add new subversive, spontaneous, and chaotic elements to the “black bloc” strategy.

As a starting point, we could start by refusing the cult of images, an integral part of the “society of spectacle.” It seems that there is a lot of work to be done in this regard among the monochrome bloc of the leading procession. For us, it is clear that images of all kinds are nothing more than invisible chains that tie us to the narcissistic and materialistic aspects of the prevailing order. We should not be imitating popular images of struggle; we should seek to interrupt a way of living based on emulating images. While the autonomous bloc was waiting on the Austerlitz bridge, we witnessed a strange scene in which dozens of photographers captured footage of the autonomous procession, while some of us proudly posed with banners and smoke bombs. It took the crowd a long time to show the first signs of irritation against journalists, even though they repeatedly blocked our path.

Regardless of the intentions of journalists, their profession endangers us. They record us before, during, and after actions; often, they are positioned between us and our targets, or our comrades, or the police. Their presence can distract us from other important objectives, obstruct our movements, and incriminate us afterwards if police utilize their footage for investigations. After May Day, discussing this subject with comrades, we all agreed that some of the newer generations in the leading procession probably decided to join us only because they saw images online of the confrontations during the movement against the Loi Travail. Unfortunately, the power of images is a double-edged sword: on one side, it can make people choose to join us, but on the other side, they might remain fascinated by this warrior posture and the production of spectacular images.

As the government tries to intensify control and repression, we have to be especially careful regarding the presence of cameras during actions. Once, the only cameras we had to be worried about were police or city cameras. Today, they are everywhere. But this should not make us accept them as inevitable: we need to keep journalists and cameras out of our procession, without any exceptions. What is more important, the dissemination of images flattering our egos, or making it possible to act freely during demonstrations?

For more information about the issue of cameras in our radical processions, you can read the zine “Dialogue imaginaire avec un-e défenseur-euse de l’image photographique d’individus.”

Trying to open up a space of possibility.

Consumer politics in action.

Improving Our Organization, Strategies, and Solidarity

Rather than taking for granted the simplistic dichotomy of “victory” versus “defeat,” we would like to discuss several points that could be improved for future actions. Some decisions taken on May Day raise questions that we must confront if we want to move forward.

First, when we passed the Austerlitz bridge to enter the boulevard de l’Hôpital, we all realized that police forces were waiting for us on both side of the procession. This clearly made us uneasy for some time. Then, when we finally decided to move forward and reached the McDonald’s, we realized again that police forces we blocking the nearby street rue Buffon. In our view, as soon as we ravaged the McDonald’s, we were already within the trap of police forces, as anti-riot fences and water cannon trucks were blocking us from progressing further. In other words, starting at that specific moment, we had no options except to retreat via the park, to return across the bridge we had just crossed, or to endure the police attacks. Next time, we need to be more aware of our surroundings, to anticipate the movements of law enforcement, and to think ahead of time about possible escape routes in order to avoid the moments of panic that we saw on May Day. We are fortunate to be able to say that we succeeded—for the most part—in escaping and outflanking the massive police presence, at least for a moment. But we could certainly do better.

We also should revisit individual decisions, such as the choice to throw a Molotov cocktail inside the McDonald’s when people were living above the restaurant, or to set cars on fire on the sidewalk so that flames threatened the apartments above them. The point is not to criticize the use of Molotov cocktails, but to consider when and where to use them. We should never risk collateral victims because of our decisions. Let’s avoid another tragedy like the one that took place in Greece several years ago in the Marfin bank fire. A tragedy like that would affect all of us on several different levels.

Improvised munitions seized by police.

Kicking back the tear gas.

Also, we need to take better care of each other during actions. On May Day 2018, many people were not equipped to endure the showers of tear gas. Many people experienced panic attacks or respiratory issues while caught in a middle of a large confused crowd. We saw at least one person with a head injury receiving medical attention from firemen. It is obvious that we need to bring more medical supplies with us to these actions.

Finally, let us recall that solidarity is one of our greatest assets. Today, about 50 arrestees await trial. Several gatherings took place in front of the police stations in which individuals were incarcerated. These actions need to intensify, and not only because friends known to us personally are detained. Solidarity is for everyone, friends or not. One idea for future actions could be to find new tactics to protect each other from being arrested, or to respond to arrests.

We have to strategize in order to avoid containment.

Our Rage Must Not Be Contained

It is now apparent that the autonomous procession, in all its diversity, needs to use creativity to break out of the current stalemate. To accomplish this, we need to free ourselves from the defeatist rhetoric that tends to crop up in our discussions, to accept criticism, and to abandon the ritualized framework of the leading procession. We need to become unpredictable again.

Regarding the argument currently circulating to the effect that we should join forces once more with trade unions, we have some reservations. Let’s not forget that trade union leaders are the ones who negotiate with every successive government to determine the length of the chains with which we are all bound. We don’t need longer chains, but to be rid of chains once and for all! And what about the trade union service personnel who attacked students and radicals on several occasions during the demonstrations of 2016?

Let’s make it clear that we don’t want to join forces with trade unions—with an authoritarian and hierarchical political apparatus. Rather, we want to create connections with everyone—unionized or not—who is disillusioned with the presiding political hierarchies. We can form these connections during blockades, in spontaneous actions, or in the leading processions.

Here are some closing thoughts that we could discuss in hopes of opening new breaches in our struggles:

First, why not take law enforcement by surprise during major events like May Day? Instead of converging for the afternoon demonstration as we usually do, we could desert the demonstration. As police units would be positioned along the official route, we could seize this opportunity to carry out actions everywhere else, outside the official route of the demonstration. Certainly, such action requires a lot of preparation and organization. The goal would be that every single affinity group that would otherwise have constituted the head of the leading procession should attack a specific target, all at the same time. It might not work, of course—calls for “autonomous actions” often fall flat, and this strategy (branded as “Plan B” for the 2007 G8 summit in Germany) has failed before. People usually need to experience a certain amount of concentration to gain the morale necessary to take transformative action. But if we could decentralize our efforts, we could outmaneuver the police and draw more people into the confrontations.

Another solution could be to dissolve the autonomous bloc at the head of the leading procession, as the latter is now becoming too predictable and somehow too slow. In doing so, we might be able to use to our advantage the fact that the majority of the crowd in the leading procession supports our actions, so as to move through the crowd like free electrons, attacking one target after another. If they had to control the entirety of the leading procession, police forces would constantly being harassed or overtaken by events. As mentioned earlier, traditional trade unions are still eroding, and more people are joining the leading procession; therefore, we can expect more and more people on our side. Strategically, it would be a nightmare for law enforcement. How would they carry out arrests amidst thousands of uncooperative individuals? If they sought to divide the procession, they would risk being surrounded by demonstrators as they were on May Day 2016; if they charged the crowd, it would be a public image nightmare for the government. The Police Commissioner of Paris made it clear that the current strategy of the police is to avoid direct confrontations; if this continues, it means that sending undercover officers into the crowd to arrest specific individuals is not an option. Our mobility and agility would be a precious asset. Finally, distributing the confrontational black bloc throughout the rest of the leading procession would dissolve the dividing lines of identity, creating confusion for the authorities as to who to target and opening up the possibility that people who had not previously expected it of themselves might cross the threshold into action.

One thing is certain: the present situation cannot continue. As the authors of an article entitled “Ce sera tout?” (“That will be all?”) put it:

“The self-satisfied ‘leading procession’ has now been instituted as a norm of superficial radicalism to the detriment of inventiveness, effervescence, and riotous joy, thus removing all its subversive significance and opposing the savage and uncontrollable aspects that no longer find a place to express themselves within it.”

It is vital to consider every single criticism made of the leading procession, in order to find solutions to escape from this dangerous stalemate. We need to rethink everything and begin acting according to a different logic.

All of that being said, the events of that afternoon continue to fill our hearts with warmth, joy, and passion. Count on us to continue smashing every single symbol of the prevailing order until we reach its very foundations.

Appendix

This is a short list of French-language texts about May Day 2018 in Paris. You can find a more complete collection here.

L’impasse en action

Réflexions sur la casse en manif et les évènements du 1er Mai à Paris

Appel aux convainc(e)s: une critique anti-autoritaire du Black Bloc

1er Mai 2018: Vers l’infini et l’au delà

Manifestation du 1er Mai à Paris: la nécessité de s’organiser

Ce sera tout?

1er Mai: La manifestation, pendant, après

L’Etat ne nous brisera pas avec ses barreaux

Manif du 1er mai: compte-rendu de la Legal Team Paris

“Zadists of all countries, unite!”

“Risks of public disorder.”

“Macron fills us with black rage.”

“Get out of the pack and bite the master.”

“Act like a primitive, plan like a strategist.”

[vietnamexpat]

Taxing times for the internet icon

Social media giants and major tech enterprises are coming under fire from multiple sides as governments are managing to collect their dues, and business partners and users are decrying the unregulated and oftentimes harmful content. Kim Huong reportsLast week, Google has been accused of manipulating users to track their activities in the Czech Republic, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, and Sweden. AFP reported that seven European consumer groups filed complaints against Google with national regulators, accusing it of covertly tracking users’ movements in violation of EU data protection regulations.The complaints stated that Google used “deceptive design and misleading information, which results in users accepting to be constantly tracked.”Council official Gro Mette Moen charged, “Google uses extremely detailed and comprehensive personal data without an appropriate judicial basis, and the data is acquired by means of manipulative techniques.”Social media contains risksOver the last years, the emergence of the Internet and social media has brought about quite the information revolution in Vietnam. Social media has become a key channel for young people to browse news. Thanks to the constantly updated functions and tools, social media has encroached into news reporting, which used to be the turf of press agencies.Social media brought a great deal of issues. Fake news on social media elicited a great deal of public distress. Leading examples include stories about a number of luxury cars with blue license plates which imply political or police affiliation in the Mekong Delta city of Can Tho, a student’s letter to her father assigned to a far-reaching island, or the story of the 11-year-old boy killing himself for not getting a new school uniform. Information streams on social networks are heavily personalised and the selection of articles is controlled by simple algorithms, allowing distorted or straight-out fraudulent information to reach users.“Fake news has become a global crisis. In the past, people relied on newspapers and television, which selected and verified information very carefully. Today, breaking news on social media can reach billions in a single day. This makes readers suspicious about the veracity of each claim, yet 70-80 per cent of readers fall for fake news,” said deputy general director of Vietnam News Agency Le Quoc Minh.“People are duped into sharing fake news, contributing to the viral spread of unauthenticated or completely false news. There are even fake websites, fanpages, and accounts for official press agencies, authorities, politicians, and celebrities,” he added.According to Minh, fake news is like a terrible disease, and social media networks like Facebook are a very accommodating environment for it.In addition to fake news, information security is also a challenge on social networks. In early-November, private messages from 81,000 Facebook accounts were hacked to be sold. The hackers told BBC that they had details from a total of 120 million accounts, which they were attempting to sell. Facebook said its security had not been compromised and the data had probably been obtained through malicious browser extensions.However, this is not the first time Facebook has disclosed users’ information. In last April, the corporation was shaken by a crisis as a number of user data issues were exposed. Some 87 million Facebook accounts were compromised, including 427,446 accounts from Vietnam.Huge wave of boycottsThe Facebook data leak scandal was followed by a boycott. #DeleteFacebook was the most shared hashtag on Twitter and other social media. Even Brian Acton, co-founder of WhatsApp which Facebook acquired for $19 billion, urged his friends to delete Facebook.Since then, numerous big advertisers and agencies have been boycotting the social network. Industry giants like ISBA, WPP, M&C Saatchi, Commerzbank, Mozilla, and Sonos decided to withdraw or considered discontinuing advertising on Facebook.In Vietnam last year, leading enterprises like Vinamilk and Vingroup decided to pull their ads from Facebook and YouTube after they were linked to vulgar content. Similarly, Vietjet also threatened Google to cut their communications co-operation.Also in 2017, brands like Lidl, Mars, Cadbury, Adidas, Deutsche Bank, and Hewlett-Packard flat out stopped advertising on YouTube, following a slew of other brands which suspended advertisements on YouTube after their logos or ads were showed during clips containing slanderous or anti-government content.Authorised agencies have received official dispatches from Vietnam Airlines, Mead Johnson Nutrition Vietnam, and Vinamilk complaining that their brands appeared in clips with pornographic, slanderous or anti-government content on YouTube.Ninh Thi Thu Huong, director of the Basic Cultural Department under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, said that malicious information on the social networks is poisoning the souls and personality of millions and cause many types of crime. Besides, enterprises’ pulling their ads is not enough to prevent the dissemination of clips with poor content, necessitating the government to issue appropriate penalties in the Penal Code.Giants being chasedNot only being boycotted by users and businesses, social networks like Facebook and Google have been beset by the authorities of numerous countries for tax arrears and evasion. Dozens of countries are stepping up efforts to levy new taxes on technology giants, hoping to capture revenue from digital services as economic activity increasingly goes online.In Italy, Facebook has agreed last week to make a payment of more than €100 million ($113.17 million) to end a fiscal fraud dispute, according to thelocal.it. This will “end the disagreement relating to tax enquiries undertaken by the financial police (GdF) at the behest of the Milan prosecutor for the period 2010-2016,” the Italian tax authority said in a statement.Italy has already drawn similar agreements from Amazon, Apple, and Google, joining EU neighbours seeking a bigger tax take from multinationals previously able to use loopholes allowing the booking of profits in countries with more favourable tax regimes. In last May, Google agreed to pay €306 million ($346.3 million) to end a dispute related primarily to 2009-2013 profits booked in Ireland.Meanwhile, the government of the UK also announced a drastic change to the way Silicon Valley tech giants would be taxed. Businessinsider.com stated that the UK will issue a 2 per cent tax rate on the revenue tech giants make from UK users, estimating that it could raise up to £400 million ($510 million) a year starting from 2020.In every country, these cross-border platforms are the real challenge for the sustainability and fairness of the national tax system. The rules have not kept pace with changing business models, and it is clearly not sustainable or fair that digital platform businesses can generate substantial value in the UK without paying tax.According to the Wall Street Journal, inspired by European Union proposals to collect tax based on the revenue of tech companies rather than their profit, South Korea, India, and at least seven other Asia-Pacific countries are exploring new taxes. Mexico, Chile, and other Latin American countries are also contemplating new taxes aimed at boosting receipts from foreign tech firms.Such taxes, which are separate from the corporate income tax many companies already pay, are broadly known as digital taxes and could add billions of dollars to companies’ tax bills. They seek to impose levies on digital services sold by global companies in a given country from units based outside that country. In some cases, the proposed taxes target services involving the collection of local residents’ data like targeted online advertising.In Vietnam, the government is revising the Law on Tax Administration to strengthen solutions and co-operation between ministries and agencies to ask foreign suppliers like Facebook and Google to declare and pay contractor tax after the services supplied for Vietnamese organisations or individuals.Additionally, the Law on Cybersecurity approved five months ago also stipulates that cross-border platforms have to establish branches or representative offices in Vietnam.Opening official branches would mean that the two giants’ operations will be under the Vietnamese authorities’ supervision and will have to comply with Vietnamese regulations, such as paying taxes to the Vietnamese government via domestic bank accounts.Telling VIR about Vietnam’s tightening management of tech giants, lawyer Lai Ngoc Thanh from Basico Law Firm said, “These policies, along with the co-operation with other countries to jointly deal with tax issues, creating one global taxation platform, are expected to be strong enough for Vietnamese authorities to manage and supervise these cross-border giants, developing an equal and transparent business climate as well as reducing acts of fraud, tax evasion, and their negative impacts on socio-economic development.”Warrick Cleine, Chairman and CEO, KPMG Vietnam and CambodiaVietnamese authorities should manage and supervise cross-border transactions.Whenever somebody in Vietnam buys advertising and services from one of these platforms, the transaction can be used as a point for Vietnam to identify and collect taxes. A lot of countries are doing it this way, but they also recognised that this is not a viable long-term solution.This is why many countries are working through the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to tax business platforms.In the short term, we need to collect taxes through banks, but in the long term, tax policymakers around the world, including Vietnam, should look at a single tax law.Kenneth Atkinson, Executive chairman, Grant ThorntonWhen the Law on Cybersecurity comes into force, offshore companies will be required to store data locally, open local offices, and remove offensive content. From a tax perspective, the above-mentioned requirements will lead to the creation of a permanent establishment (PE) in Vietnam by the offshore companies, and under the tax regulations, the offshore companies’ profits attributable to the PE will be taxed by domestic tax authorities.The management of tax obligations is far more difficult when the buyers are offshore individuals. Accordingly, the best approach for the tax authorities would be to rely on tax treaties signed between Vietnam and other countries which should have clear guidance on the tax implications of e-commerce transactions.Besides, there should be sufficient and efficient data exchange between competent authorities of Vietnam and those of other countries, and between Vietnamese tax authorities and competent authorities and organisations.Thanh Son Dang, Partner, Baker McKenzie VietnamTax regulators in Vietnam have recently been targeting online service providers because this is a new form of business and it changes very quickly, requiring constant and heightened attention from the authorities.Specifically, in the past, business in Vietnam took place offline with concrete and physical proof of activities such as office or warehouse space, making it easier for tax collectors to determine the amount of taxable income.Nowadays, in the 4.0 age, new business models, especially those that use the Internet, can develop overnight and do cross-border business with a simple click. This has proven to be confusing for tax collectors in Vietnam who have to constantly update and make sense of these models.Many times, tax collectors can lag behind the breakneck development rate of online businesses, which explains why their understanding can be different from what’s happening in the market – this applies to revenue streams, costs, and taxable income. This is why there is a lot of controversy and disagreement.I would emphasise that this problem is not unique to Vietnam. Elsewhere in the world, the authorities are also fighting a legal battle against Internet companies. VIR Read the full article

[venezuelablog]

Q&A: Venezuela’s Push for a Constituent Assembly

Geoff Ramsey and David Smilde

On July 30, the Venezuelan government intends to hold a public vote to select delegates to a National Constituent Assembly, which would begin rewriting the country’s Constitution. As local human rights organizations, Venezuelan judicial experts, opposition figures and Chavista dissidents have pointed out, this effort is clearly unconstitutional and threatens to disempower Venezuelan citizens for years to come.

Why is the government of President Nicolas Maduro pushing to rewrite the 1999 Constitution, which was supported by his predecessor, the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez?

The current Constitution came out one of Chavez’s first promises upon taking office: to create a new magna carta that reflected the needs of a long-ignored majority in the country. Chávez took the proposal to the people by referendum and it was approved by over 80 percent of voters in April 1999. Members of the Constituent Assembly were selected in July and the Constitutional Assembly was seated in August. The resulting document was ratified by roughly 72 percent of voters in December of that same year. Although abstention rates in these votes were high (between roughly 50 and 60 percent of the electorate failed to vote), the 1999 Constitution was embraced by Chávez and his governing United Socialist Party (PSUV) as the founding document for the creation of a new national project.

By contrast, Maduro’s May 1 convocation of a National Constituent Assembly contained none of the democratic legitimacy of his predecessor’s effort. It is not the initiative of a newly elected leader riding a fresh societal consensus. Rather it is the initiative of an unpopular leader avoiding fair elections at all cost. In 2016 the Maduro government used its control over the National Electoral Council to indefinitely suspend a presidential recall referendum and postpone elections for governors. The Constituent Assembly is clearly and effort to change the rules to avoid being voted out.

Even though the National Electoral Council has announced that state elections will be held in December 2017, the fact that the government is moving forward with an effort to create a new Constitution that could potentially override all other powers renders assurances of a post-July 30 electoral calendar essentially meaningless.

How exactly does the Maduro government’s convocation of a National Constituent Assembly violate the current Venezuelan Constitution?

The initiative is fundamentally unconstitutional and undemocratic from its inception, which has been highlighted by Venezuelan legal scholars like José Ignacio Hernández as well as international human rights organizations like WOLA. Put simply, it conflates two separate steps: initiating the call for such an assembly and actually convoking it. According to Article 348 of the 1999 Constitution, the President has the right to initiate a call for a Constituent Assembly. However, Article 347 says it is the people who exclusively have the right to convoke a Constituent Assembly.

During the 1999 debate, the current head of the presidential commission on the Constituent Assembly, Elias Jaua, explicitly recognized the distinction between the initiation of a call for a new constitution and the importance of holding a referendum on this proposal. In a 2008 speech, Chavez appeared to make reference to this difference as well.

Essentially, Venezuelan voters are not being empowered to say whether or not they want to rewrite the Constitution, only who they want to do it. While Maduro has suggested that this Constitution would be submitted to voter for approval, the fact that the entire initiative has not been put before voters in the first place raises doubts about the ability of the electorate to reject a new national charter once configured.  

How have the criteria for the selection of members to the Constituent Assembly “stacked the deck” in favor of the government?

On July 30, the National Electoral Council (CNE) has announced that Venezuelans will be electing 545 members of the Constituent Assembly. Of these, 181 positions will be “sectoral,” which the government has portrayed as representatives of all walks of Venezuelan life, and 364 positions will be reserved for “territorial” representatives of each of Venezuela’s municipalities.

The 181 sectoral members of this body will come from eight broad sectors: indigenous constituents (with 8 representatives), students (24), peasants and fishermen (8), entrepreneurs (5), people with disabilities (5), pensioners (28), community councils (24) and workers (79). However, the fact that many of these will come from government-affiliated organizations that make up the PSUV base gives Chavismo a clear advantage.

The division of territorial representatives to the Constituent Assembly provides a similar advantage to Chavismo. Instead of apportioning representatives according to population size, each municipality will receive at least one representative, while the 23 municipalities that are state capitals—as well as the Capital District of Caracas—will each get two. This gives outsized weight to rural municipalities with low populations, and minimizes the say of voters in populated urban areas.

Eugenio Martínez, a leading Venezuelan electoral analyst, writes that if municipalities voted the way they did in the legislative election that resulted in an opposition landslide in December 2015, Chavismo would win a majority (54 percent) of representatives to the Constituent Assembly on July 30. But economist Francisco Rodriguez has argued that while that is true, if the opposition over performed their 2015 result by a couple of percentage points, they would win the majority of the delegates. And if they were to get two thirds of the vote, they would win over 70% of the Constituent Assembly.

In any case, all of this is moot now because the opposition has declined to participate in the Constituent Assembly. That means Chavismo, which is now the minority political block in Venezuela, will have free reign to rewrite the Constitution.

What kind of Constitution would the government propose in the likely event that its supporters obtain a majority of the National Constituent Assembly on July 30? 

Assuming the Maduro government is successful in rewriting the constitution, the exact nature of the new document remains an open question. However, there is substantial evidence to suggest that a new constitution could see Venezuela adopt a system radically different from the federal system and representative democracy it has known heretofore.

Maduro has often claimed that one of the last instructions given to him by Chávez on his deathbed was to advance the “communal project,” a reference to a process that began in 2006 and involved the creation and integration of “communal councils” into the state apparatus. The number of these councils, which began as an experiment in participatory democracy and facilitating community organizing to meet local needs, is claimed to be over 45,000. Their administration falls under the Ministry of the Communes and Social Movements, a fact that opponents have pointed to as evidence of an effort to create a parallel state. The plan to create a “communal state” would involve a pyramid-like structure that begins with communal councils, which are aggregated into communes, then communal cities and every larger structures with the executive branch at the top.

Voting would likely take places through consensual procedures in assemblies, rather than direct, universal and secret voting.

(See here for Maduro’s repeated references to “re-founding Venezuela” and his vows that the Constituent Assembly would be “profoundly communal.” See here for past assertions that “new democracy is communal democracy.”)

What is the opposition planning in response? What are dissident Chavistas saying?

Ever since Maduro first announced a plan to convene a National Assembly, the opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) coalition has loudly rejected the proposal, and vowed to refrain from participating in it. Instead, the MUD has continued organizing rallies, marches, and demonstrations against the Maduro government, and has insisted that the Constituent Assembly be abandoned.

As the scheduled vote approaches, the MUD is stepping up its attempts to highlight the Constituent Assembly’s lack of democratic legitimacy. On Sunday, July 16, the MUD will hold a nationwide referendum on the issue that, while not endorsed by electoral authorities, the opposition will hold as evidence that Venezuelans reject Maduro’s initiative.  

If such pressure fails and the July 30 vote goes ahead as planned, the opposition’s next move is unclear.  A number of opposition lawmakers have supported the idea of mass mobilizations on July 30, and National Assembly President Julio Borges has said the MUD has a “well-prepared plan for national protests to prevent it.”

The MUD has not been alone in rejecting the initiative. Independent Attorney General Luisa Ortega has been a vocal challenger of the Constituent Assembly, and she has been joined by other voices within the growing faction of “dissident” Chavistas, like former Interior Minister Miguel Rodriguez Torres, former Ombudswoman Gabriela Ramírez Pérez, and two high court justices.

[juudgeblog]

Legal Framework regulating the Banking sector in India

In this article, Varsha Jhavar, pursuing Diploma in Entrepreneurship Administration and Business Laws from NUJS, Kolkata discusses on the legal framework regulating the banking sector in India

Introduction

Legal Framework

The Indian banking system is primarily governed by Banking Regulation Act, 1949.  The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 empowers the RBI (Reserve Bank of India) to act on a wide range of issues including rules, regulations, directions and guidelines with respect to banking and financial services. The RBI is the central bank of India.

Besides the above, the FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999) regulates with respect to cross-border transactions.

Reserve Bank of India (RBI)

The primary regulator for banks in India is RBI. The functions of RBI include:

Making norms for opening up and licensing banks (including foreign bank branches in India)

Corporate governance and organization

Norms for various products and services

Finalizing monetary policy

Regulation of foreign exchange, government securities markets and financial derivatives

Government debt and cash management

Overseeing payment and settlement systems

Currency Management

To liaise with other financial sector regulators like SEBI, IRDAI etc. RBI needs to regulate banking activities which overlap or have an interaction with financial activities under the domain of other financial sector regulators.

Supervision and legislation on the functioning of banks and financial institutions is also done by the Ministry of Finance (under Central Government) through the Department of Financial Services. The Department of Financial Services does:

Monitoring of banking operations

Prescribes norms for the operation of public sector banks.

Looks into the recovery of bank debts by way of examining legislative measures and establishing judicial mechanisms for the same.

Forms of Banks

There could be different form of banks as distinguished by the regulator:

State-owned banks

State Bank of India (SBI) is the largest state-owned bank and has been established under a special statute, the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Additionally, between the years 1969 to 1980, the government nationalized several banks by a legislative mandate.

Universal banks, commercial and retail banks

Universal banks are full-service banks and offer almost an entire range of financial products. They can be differentiated as private sector banks (non-state owned), public sector banks (state-owned) and foreign banks. As mentioned earlier licensing and operations of these banks fall under Banking Regulation Act.

Investment Banks

These banks give investment advisory and related services. Investment banks are governed by the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The license is also issued by SEBI.

Other Banks

For the purpose of providing banking services to underdeveloped and non-urban sectors, the banking sector has introduced special purpose banks – Cooperative Banks which cater to rural populace and small borrowers. They are formed on a co-operative basis and governed by cooperative laws formed by the state government and central banking laws. Additionally, regional rural banks were incorporated under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 to develop the rural economy.

To promote financial inclusion, the Reserve Bank of India also introduced Payments Banks and Small Finance Banks. These offer basic and limited services like deposits, issuing payment instruments, savings vehicles and credit.

Banking License

Any entity that wants to do banking business has to obtain the license from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The license also entails the licensee to conduct ancillary business like guarantee and indemnity business, financial leasing, hire purchase business, securitization, trade finance besides borrowing and lending.

However, for dealing in foreign exchange, a separate license is required to be obtained under the Foreign Exchange Management Act.

Application Process for a banking license

Form for application of banking license is as per the Banking Regulation Rules, 1949. Different forms are applicable based on nature of applicant or whether it is a domestic or foreign company.

The application form for the license has to be submitted with the company’s constitutional documents and balance sheet & profit & loss statements for last 5 years (for an existing company).

This is beside a host of information as mentioned in the form like information on ultimate individual promoters, information on various entities which are part of the promoter group, information on the persons/entities subscribing to or more than 5% of the paid-up equity capital, proposed management of the bank.

Also, a project report has to be submitted showing business potential, financial services proposed, plan for various compliances, plan for financial inclusion.

Corporate Governance

The Companies Act 2013, prescribes the corporate governance rules for banks in the country. However, for listed banking companies SEBI Regulations, 2015 are also applicable. SEBI regulations are primarily listing obligations and disclosures.

Organizational & Supervisory Requirement

Under the Banking Regulation Act, banking business must be conducted by a company. Government-owned banks are normally incorporated under specific statutes. Private Banks need to be incorporated as companies and are governed by the Companies Act. Documents required for their constitution are – Memorandum of association, Articles of association, Certificate of incorporation & Certificate for the commencement of business.

Foreign banks can operate through a branch in India and are not required to form a separate company. In some situations, the Reserve Bank of India may prescribe the foreign bank to set up its banking business in India through a wholly owned subsidiary.

The Banking Regulation Act requires an audit of the balance sheet and profit and loss statements for all banks in India. The Reserve Bank of India has powers to order a special audit if it believes it is necessary in public interest.

Guidelines have also been prescribed for role and constitution of the board of directors. Key parameters for appointing directors include – The directors should have professional experience with 51% to have specific domain knowledge in prescribed fields. There are several other parameters prescribed by Reserve Bank of India, which need to be adhered to whilst appointing a director.

The Banking Regulation Act empowers RBI to remove the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Director or for that matter any other officer on grounds of public interest, improper management or if the banks functioning is being conducted in a manner which could be detrimental to the interests of the depositors.

Various risk management guidelines have also been prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. The primary responsibility for understanding and managing risks is with the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors can appoint a risk management committee, which reports to the Board directly.

Liquidity and Capital Adequacy

Capital adequacy is having sufficient own funds to absorb losses for a limited amount of time during which it would be hoped the business can be returned to profit; liquidity is having sufficient cash to satisfy all current and expected demands by customers.

The Basel III capital regulations are being implemented in India (to be fully implemented by 31st March 2019). Banks are required to comply with the requirements as per Basel III norms. The Basel III frameworks main thrust has been enhancing the banking sector’s safety and stability emphasizes on the need to improve the quality and quantity of capital components, leverage ratio, liquidity standards, and enhance disclosures. 

Besides the above banks need to maintain – Cash reserve ratio (CRR), which is the average daily balance that a bank needs to maintain with the RBI. Currently, the CRR is 4% of NDTL. Besides CRR, banks are required to maintain statutory liquidity ratio (SLR ), which is currently 19.5% of NDTL.

Liquidation of Banks

The High Court is the authority for winding up or liquidation of the bank. The location of the registered office of the bank decides the jurisdiction of the respective High Court in case of liquidation matters. As per the Banking Regulation Act, as and when the order for winding up of a bank is passed by the High Court, a liquidator is appointed by the High Court to supervise the liquidation. RBI can also act as liquidator subject to Court approval.

Regulatory Development in recent times

To reinforce the ability of the lender to deal with distressed assets, the Reserve Bank of India has issued guidelines and norms on distressed asset resolution by lenders. The RBI has issued a notification on “Guidelines on Sale of Stressed Assets by Banks” as a part of the already existing “Framework for Revitalising Distressed Assets in the Economy”. The framework and guideline have been created as a part of the enforcement of and regulations under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) seeks to consolidate the existing framework by creating a single law for insolvency and bankruptcy. The bankruptcy code is a one-stop solution for resolving insolvencies which at present is a long drawn process and fails to offer an economically viable solution.

Conclusion

The Indian banking system is primarily governed by Banking Regulation Act, 1949.  The RBI is the central bank of India and also the primary regulator of banks. There are various types of banks, like state-owned, commercial, investment, co-operative banks. Any entity that wants to do banking business has to obtain a license from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) seeks to consolidate the existing framework by creating a single law for insolvency and bankruptcy. Regulation of a country’s banking sector is a reflection of its priorities and financial landscape. In India’s case, the Reserve Bank of India’s approach has been to prioritize stability and achieve financial inclusiveness.

The post Legal Framework regulating the Banking sector in India appeared first on iPleaders.

Legal Framework regulating the Banking sector in India syndicated from https://namechangersmumbai.wordpress.com/

[meekspaceng]

History

Main article: History of Jehovah's Witnesses

Background (1870–1916)

See also: Bible Student movement

Pastor Russell, founder of the Watch Tower Society

In 1870, Charles Taze Russell and others formed a group in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to study the Bible.[29] During the course of his ministry, Russell disputed many beliefs of mainstream Christianity including immortality of the soul, hellfire, predestination, the fleshly return of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and the burning up of the world.[30] In 1876, Russell met Nelson H. Barbour; later that year they jointly produced the book Three Worlds, which combined restitutionist views with end time prophecy. The book taught that God's dealings with humanity were divided dispensationally, each ending with a "harvest," that Christ had returned as an invisible spirit being in 1874[30] inaugurating the "harvest of the Gospel age," and that 1914 would mark the end of a 2520-year period called "the Gentile Times,"[31] at which time world society would be replaced by the full establishment of God's kingdom on earth.[32][33][34]Beginning in 1878 Russell and Barbour jointly edited a religious journal, Herald of the Morning.[35] In June 1879 the two split over doctrinal differences, and in July, Russell began publishing the magazine Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence,[36] stating that its purpose was to demonstrate that the world was in "the last days," and that a new age of earthly and human restitution under the reign of Christ was imminent.[37]

From 1879, Watch Tower supporters gathered as autonomous congregations to study the Bible topically. Thirty congregations were founded, and during 1879 and 1880, Russell visited each to provide the format he recommended for conducting meetings.[38][39][40] In 1881, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society was presided over by William Henry Conley, and in 1884, Russell incorporated the society as a non-profit business to distribute tracts and Bibles.[41][42][43] By about 1900, Russell had organized thousands of part- and full-time colporteurs,[36] and was appointing foreign missionaries and establishing branch offices. By the 1910s, Russell's organization maintained nearly a hundred "pilgrims," or traveling preachers.[44] Russell engaged in significant global publishing efforts during his ministry,[45][46] and by 1912, he was the most distributed Christian author in the United States.[47][48]

Russell moved the Watch Tower Society's headquarters to Brooklyn, New York, in 1909, combining printing and corporate offices with a house of worship; volunteers were housed in a nearby residence he named Bethel. He identified the religious movement as "Bible Students," and more formally as the International Bible Students Association.[49] By 1910, about 50,000 people worldwide were associated with the movement[50] and congregations re-elected him annually as their "pastor."[51]Russell died October 31, 1916, at the age of 64 while returning from a ministerial speaking tour.[52]

Reorganization (1917–1942)

Joseph F. Rutherford, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses

In January 1917, the Watch Tower Society's legal representative, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, was elected as its next president. His election was disputed, and members of the Board of Directors accused him of acting in an autocratic and secretive manner.[53][54] The divisions between his supporters and opponents triggered a major turnover of members over the next decade.[55][7] In June 1917, he released The Finished Mystery as a seventh volume of Russell's Studies in the Scriptures series. The book, published as the posthumous work of Russell, was a compilation of his commentaries on the Bible books of Ezekiel and Revelation, plus numerous additions by Bible Students Clayton Woodworth and George Fisher.[56][57][58][59] It strongly criticized Catholic and Protestant clergy and Christian involvement in the Great War.[60] As a result, Watch Tower Society directors were jailed for sedition under the Espionage Act in 1918 and members were subjected to mob violence; the directors were released in March 1919 and charges against them were dropped in 1920.[61]

Rutherford centralized organizational control of the Watch Tower Society. In 1919, he instituted the appointment of a director in each congregation, and a year later all members were instructed to report their weekly preaching activity to the Brooklyn headquarters.[62] At an international convention held at Cedar Point, Ohio, in September 1922, a new emphasis was made on house-to-house preaching.[63] Significant changes in doctrine and administration were regularly introduced during Rutherford's twenty-five years as president, including the 1920 announcement that the Hebrew patriarchs (such as Abraham and Isaac) would be resurrected in 1925, marking the beginning of Christ's thousand-year earthly Kingdom.[64][65][66][67] Because of disappointment over the changes and unfulfilled predictions, tens of thousands of defections occurred during the first half of Rutherford's tenure, leading to the formation of several Bible Student organizations independent of the Watch Tower Society,[68][69][70][71] most of which still exist.[72] By mid-1919, as many as one in seven of Russell-era Bible Students had ceased their association with the Society, and as many as three-quarters by the end of the 1920s.[73][74][75][70][76]

On July 26, 1931, at a convention in Columbus, Ohio, Rutherford introduced the new name – Jehovah's witnesses – based on Isaiah 43:10: "'You are my witnesses,' declares Jehovah, 'Yes, my servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and have faith in me And understand that I am the same One. Before me no God was formed, And after me there has been none.'" (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures 2013 Edition) —which was adopted by resolution. The name was chosen to distinguish his group of Bible Students from other independent groups that had severed ties with the Society, as well as symbolize the instigation of new outlooks and the promotion of fresh evangelizing methods.[10][11][12] In 1932, Rutherford eliminated the system of locally elected elders and in 1938, introduced what he called a "theocratic" (literally, God-ruled) organizational system, under which appointments in congregations worldwide were made from the Brooklyn headquarters.[62]

From 1932, it was taught that the "little flock" of 144,000 would not be the only people to survive Armageddon. Rutherford explained that in addition to the 144,000 "anointed" who would be resurrected—or transferred at death—to live in heaven to rule over earth with Christ, a separate class of members, the "great multitude," would live in a paradise restored on earth; from 1935, new converts to the movement were considered part of that class.[77][78] By the mid-1930s, the timing of the beginning of Christ's presence (Greek: parousía), his enthronement as king, and the start of the "last days" were each moved to 1914.[79]

Nathan H. Knorr, the third president of the Watch Tower Society

As their interpretations of the Bible evolved, Witness publications decreed that saluting national flags is a form of idolatry, which led to a new outbreak of mob violence and government opposition in the United States, Canada, Germany, and other countries.[80][81]

Worldwide membership of Jehovah's Witnesses reached 113,624 in 5,323 congregations by the time of Rutherford's death in January 1942.[82][83]

Continued development (1942–present)

See also: Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Nathan Knorr was appointed as third president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1942. Knorr commissioned a new translation of the Bible, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the full version of which was released in 1961. He organized large international assemblies, instituted new training programs for members, and expanded missionary activity and branch offices throughout the world.[84] Knorr's presidency was also marked by an increasing use of explicit instructions guiding Witnesses in their lifestyle and conduct, and a greater use of congregational judicial procedures to enforce a strict moral code.[85][86]

From 1966, Witness publications and convention talks built anticipation of the possibility that Christ's thousand-year reign might begin in late 1975[87][88] or shortly thereafter.[89][90][91][92] The number of baptisms increased significantly, from about 59,000 in 1966 to more than 297,000 in 1974. By 1975, the number of active members exceeded two million. Membership declined during the late 1970s after expectations for 1975 were proved wrong.[93][94][95][96] Watch Tower Society literature did not state dogmatically that 1975 would definitely mark the end,[89] but in 1980 the Watch Tower Society admitted its responsibility in building up hope regarding that year.[97][98]

The offices of elder and ministerial servant were restored to Witness congregations in 1972, with appointments made from headquarters[99] (and later, also by branch committees). It was announced that, starting in September 2014, appointments would be made by traveling overseers. In a major organizational overhaul in 1976, the power of the Watch Tower Society president was diminished, with authority for doctrinal and organizational decisions passed to the Governing Body.[100]Since Knorr's death in 1977, the position of president has been occupied by Frederick Franz (1977–1992) and Milton Henschel (1992–2000), both members of the Governing Body, and since 2000 by others who are not Governing Body members. In 1995, Jehovah's Witnesses abandoned the idea that Armageddon must occur during the lives of the generation that was alive in 1914 and in 2010 changed their teaching on the "generation".[101][102][103][104]

Organization

Main article: Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses are organized hierarchically, in what the leadership calls a "theocratic organization", reflecting their belief that it is God's "visible organization" on earth.[105][106][107] The organization is led by the Governing Body—an all-male group that varies in size, but since January 2018 has comprised eight members,[108] all of whom profess to be of the "anointed" class with a hope of heavenly life—based in the Watch Tower Society's Warwick headquarters.[109][110] There is no election for membership; new members are selected by the existing body.[111] Until late 2012, the Governing Body described itself as the representative[112][113] and "spokesman" for God's "faithful and discreet slave class" (then approximately 10,000 self-professed "anointed" Jehovah's Witnesses).[114][115] At the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Watch Tower Society, the "faithful and discreet slave" was defined as referring to the Governing Body only.[116] The Governing Body directs several committees that are responsible for administrative functions, including publishing, assembly programs and evangelizing activities.[107] It appoints all branch committee members and traveling overseers, after they have been recommended by local branches, with traveling overseers supervising circuits of congregations within their jurisdictions. Traveling overseers appoint local elders and ministerial servants, and while branch offices may appoint regional committees for matters such as Kingdom Hall construction or disaster relief.[117] The leadership and supporting staff lives in properties owned by the organization worldwide referred to as "Bethel" where they operate as a religious community and administrative unit.[118] Their living expenses and those of other full-time volunteers are covered by the organization along with a basic monthly stipend.[119][120][121]

Each congregation has a body of appointed unpaid male elders and ministerial servants. Elders maintain general responsibility for congregational governance, setting meeting times, selecting speakers and conducting meetings, directing the public preaching work, and creating "judicial committees" to investigate and decide disciplinary action for cases involving sexual misconduct or doctrinal breaches.[122] New elders are appointed by a traveling overseer after recommendation by the existing body of elders. Ministerial servants—appointed in a similar manner to elders—fulfill clerical and attendant duties, but may also teach and conduct meetings.[107] Witnesses do not use elder as a title to signify a formal clergy-laity division,[123] though elders may employ ecclesiastical privilege regarding confession of sins.[124][125]

Baptism is a requirement for being considered a member of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses do not practice infant baptism,[126] and previous baptisms performed by other denominations are not considered valid.[127] Individuals undergoing baptism must affirm publicly that dedication and baptism identify them "as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization,"[127] though Witness publications say baptism symbolizes personal dedication to God and not "to a man, work or organization."[128][129] Their literature emphasizes the need for members to be obedient and loyal to Jehovah and to "his organization,"[130][131][note 2] stating that individuals must remain part of it to receive God's favor and to survive Armageddon.[132][133][134]

Publishing

The organization produces a significant amount of literature as part of its evangelism activities.[135] The Watch Tower Society has produced over 220 million copies of the New World Translation in whole or in part in over 160 languages.[136]The Watchtower and Awake! are the most widely distributed magazines in the world.[137] Translation of Witness publications is done by over 2000 volunteers worldwide, producing literature in several hundred languages.[138] Publications are also available online at the organization's official website.

Funding

Much of their funding is provided by donations, primarily from members. There is no tithing or collection.[97] In 2001 Newsday listed the Watch Tower Society as one of New York's forty richest corporations, with revenues exceeding $950 million.[135][139] The organization reported for the same year that it "spent over $70.9 million in caring for special pioneers, missionaries, and traveling overseers in their field service assignments."[140][note 3]

Beliefs

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs

Sources of doctrine

Jehovah's Witnesses believe their denomination is a restoration of first-century Christianity.[141] Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, which assumes responsibility for interpreting and applying scripture.[7][142][143] The Governing Body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", but prefers to express its doctrinal position in a variety of ways through publications published by the Watch Tower Society.[144] Their publications teach that doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation, in which God gradually reveals his will and purpose,[145][146][147][148] and that such enlightenment or "new light"[149] results from the application of reason and study,[150] the guidance of the holy spirit, and direction from Jesus Christ and angels.[151] The Society also teaches that members of the Governing Body are helped by the holy spirit to discern "deep truths", which are then considered by the entire Governing Body before it makes doctrinal decisions.[152] The group's leadership, while disclaiming divine inspiration and infallibility,[153] is said to provide "divine guidance"[154] through its teachings described as "based on God's Word thus ... not from men, but from Jehovah."[155][156]

The entire Protestant canon of scripture is considered the inspired, inerrant word of God.[157] Jehovah's Witnesses consider the Bible to be scientifically and historically accurate and reliable[158] and interpret much of it literally, but accept parts of it as symbolic.[159] They consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs,[160] although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the group concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible.[161] Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature.[162][163][164]Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught in the Watch Tower Society's literature, and "not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding."[165][166][167][168] The organization makes no provision for members to criticize or contribute to official teachings[169] and all Witnesses must abide by its doctrines and organizational requirements.[170]

Jehovah and Jesus

The Tetragrammaton

Jehovah's Witnesses emphasize the use of God's name, and they prefer the form Jehovah—a vocalization of God's name based on the Tetragrammaton.[171][172][173] They believe that Jehovah is the only true God, the creator of all things, and the "Universal Sovereign". They believe that all worship should be directed toward him, and that he is not part of a Trinity;[174] consequently, the group places more emphasis on God than on Christ.[175][176] They believe that the Holy Spirit is God's applied power or "active force", rather than a person.[177][178]

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God's only direct creation, that everything else was created through Christ by means of God's power, and that the initial unassisted act of creation uniquely identifies Jesus as God's "only-begotten Son".[179] Jesus served as a redeemer and a ransom sacrifice to pay for the sins of humanity.[180] They believe Jesus died on a single upright post rather than the traditional cross.[181] Biblical references to the Archangel Michael, Abaddon(Apollyon), and the Word are interpreted as names for Jesus in various roles.[182] Jesus is considered to be the only intercessor and high priest between God and humanity, and appointed by God as the king and judge of his kingdom.[183] His role as a mediator (referred to in 1 Timothy 2:5) is applied to the 'anointed' class, though the 'other sheep' are said to also benefit from the arrangement.[184]

Satan

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Satan was originally a perfect angel who developed feelings of self-importance and craved worship. Satan influenced Adam and Eve to disobey God, and humanity subsequently became participants in a challenge involving the competing claims of Jehovah and Satan to universal sovereignty.[185] Other angels who sided with Satan became demons.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Satan and his demons were cast down to earth from heaven after October 1, 1914,[186] at which point the end times began. They believe that Satan is the ruler of the current world order,[185] that human society is influenced and misled by Satan and his demons, and that they are a cause of human suffering. They also believe that human governments are controlled by Satan,[187] but that he does not directly control each human ruler.[188]

Life after death

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation

Jehovah's Witnesses believe death is a state of non-existence with no consciousness. There is no Hell of fiery torment; Hades and Sheol are understood to refer to the condition of death, termed the common grave.[189] Jehovah's Witnesses consider the soul to be a life or a living body that can die.[190] Jehovah's Witnesses believe that humanity is in a sinfulstate,[190] from which release is only possible by means of Jesus' shed blood as a ransom, or atonement, for the sins of humankind.[191]

Witnesses believe that a "little flock" of 144,000 selected humans go to heaven, but that the majority (the "other sheep") are to be resurrected by God to a cleansed earth after Armageddon. They interpret Revelation 14:1–5 to mean that the number of Christians going to heaven is limited to exactly 144,000, who will rule with Jesus as kings and priests over earth.[192]They believe that baptism as one of Jehovah's Witnesses is vital for salvation[193] and that only they meet scriptural requirements for surviving Armageddon, but that God is the final judge.[194][195][196] During Christ's millennial reign, most people who died prior to Armageddon will be resurrected with the prospect of living forever; they will be taught the proper way to worship God to prepare them for their final test at the end of the millennium.[197][198]

God's Kingdom

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's Kingdom is a literal government in heaven, ruled by Jesus Christ and 144,000 "spirit-anointed" Christians drawn from the earth, which they associate with Jesus' reference to a "new covenant".[199][200]The kingdom is viewed as the means by which God will accomplish his original purpose for the earth, transforming it into a paradise without sickness or death.[201] It is said to have been the focal point of Jesus' ministry on earth.[202] They believe the kingdom was established in heaven in 1914,[203] and that Jehovah's Witnesses serve as representatives of the kingdom on earth.[204][205]

Eschatology

Main article: Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses

A central teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses is that the current world era, or "system of things", entered the "last days" in 1914 and faces imminent destruction through intervention by God and Jesus Christ, leading to deliverance for those who worship God acceptably.[206] They consider all other present-day religions to be false, identifying them with "Babylon the Great", or the "harlot", of Revelation 17,[207] and believe that they will soon be destroyed by the United Nations, which they believe is represented in scripture by the scarlet-colored wild beast of Revelation chapter 17. This development will mark the beginning of the "great tribulation".[208][209] Satan will subsequently use world governments to attack Jehovah's Witnesses, an action that will prompt God to begin the war of Armageddon, during which all forms of government and all people not counted as Christ's "sheep" will be destroyed. After Armageddon, God will extend his heavenly kingdom to include earth, which will be transformed into a paradise similar to the Garden of Eden.[210] Most of those who had died before God's intervention will gradually be resurrected during the thousand year "judgment day". This judgment will be based on their actions after resurrection rather than past deeds. At the end of the thousand years, Christ will hand all authority back to God. Then a final test will take place when Satan is released to mislead perfect mankind. Those who fail will be destroyed, along with Satan and his demons. The end result will be a fully tested, glorified human race on earth.[211][212]

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ began to rule in heaven as king of God's kingdom in October 1914, and that Satan was subsequently ousted from heaven to the earth, resulting in "woe" to humanity. They believe that Jesus rules invisibly, from heaven, perceived only as a series of "signs". They base this belief on a rendering of the Greek word parousia—usually translated as "coming" when referring to Christ—as "presence". They believe Jesus' presence includes an unknown period beginning with his inauguration as king in heaven in 1914, and ending when he comes to bring a final judgment against humans on earth. They thus depart from the mainstream Christian belief that the "second coming" of Matthew 24 refers to a single moment of arrival on earth to judge humans.[213][214]

Practices

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses practices

Worship

Worship at a Kingdom Hall

Meetings for worship and study are held at Kingdom Halls, which are typically functional in character, and do not contain religious symbols.[215] Witnesses are assigned to a congregation in whose "territory" they usually reside and attend weekly services they refer to as "meetings" as scheduled by congregation elders. The meetings are largely devoted to study of Watch Tower Society literature and the Bible. The format of the meetings is established by the group's headquarters, and the subject matter for most meetings is the same worldwide.[215] Congregations meet for two sessions each week comprising four distinct meetings that total about three-and-a-half hours, typically gathering mid-week (two meetings) and on the weekend (two meetings). Prior to 2009, congregations met three times each week; these meetings were condensed, with the intention that members dedicate an evening for "family worship".[216][217]Gatherings are opened and closed with kingdom songs (hymns) and brief prayers. Twice each year, Witnesses from a number of congregations that form a "circuit" gather for a one-day assembly. Larger groups of congregations meet once a year for a three-day "regional convention", usually at rented stadiums or auditoriums.[218] Their most important and solemn event is the commemoration of the "Lord's Evening Meal", or "Memorial of Christ's Death" on the date of the Jewish Passover.[219]

[maxwellyjordan]

Symposium: Hiding elephants in mouseholes: The original meaning of “discrimination on the basis of sex”

Stephanie N. Taub is Senior Counsel and Michael Berry is Chief of Staff for First Liberty Institute.

It would be difficult to imagine, in 1964, when Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sex, that Congress understood those words to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. At the time, the commonly understood meaning of the term “sex” simply referred to male and female.

Why does it matter what “sex” meant 55 years ago?

First, the Supreme Court has shown a renewed willingness to interpret statutes according to the original meaning of the text. As the justices are contemplating the proper interpretation of the Civil Rights Act in three upcoming cases, Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, Altitude Express v. Zarda, and Bostock v. Clayton County, it is likely they will begin with the text of the statute and its original public meaning. After all, as Justice Elena Kagan has quipped about the practice of statutory interpretation, “we are all textualists now.”

Second, there are sound policy reasons to embrace the original meaning of statutory text. Left, right, or center, we should all be more comfortable with judges who interpret the law as it is rather than how they would like it to be. One of the cornerstones of our system of separation of powers is that the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, makes law. Ultimately, it is Congress’ responsibility to decide whether to include certain classes of persons under federal law. Moreover, if Congress at any time believes it was over- or under-inclusive, it is free to amend the law.

Finally, both parties’ merits briefs focus heavily on original meaning. The key dispute is whether the employment actions taken in these cases constitute discrimination on the basis of “sex,” assuming the original public meaning in 1964.

The Department of Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom, on behalf of Harris Funeral Homes, argue that the statute prohibits employers from discriminating against women in favor of men, and vice versa. They argue that the Civil Rights Act has always been interpreted to allow separate dress codes and restrooms for males and females. Consequently, employers are free to take employment actions against individuals who do not adhere to the dress code that corresponds with their biological sex, whether or not those individuals identify as transgender.

Conversely, the ACLU, on behalf of Aimee Stephens, argues that it is sex discrimination to consider sex at all when making employment decisions. The brief invokes a classic test for determining sex discrimination: “whether the evidence shows treatment of a person in a manner which, but for that person’s sex, would be different.” It argues the employer’s actions meet this test because Harris Funeral Homes would not have fired Stephens for identifying and dressing as a woman had Stephens been born female.

In response, Harris Funeral Homes argues that the ACLU misidentifies the proper comparator for Aimee Stephens. Because Harris would have taken the same action against anyone who does not wish to follow the dress code of that person’s biological sex, whether male or female, there is no discrimination on the basis of sex.

The second key issue discussed by the briefs is what to make of the Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.

According to the ACLU, Price Waterhouse prohibits sex stereotyping, barring adverse employment decisions based upon a person not acting in accordance with common or perceived stereotypes about how people of their sex ought to behave. Just as Ann Hopkins was denied a promotion for being too masculine, Aimee Stephens cannot be fired for being perceived as too masculine for a female or too feminine for a male.

The DOJ responds that Price Waterhouse did not bar sex stereotyping per se. It is not unlawful to make distinctions based on sex, such as sex-specific dress codes and restrooms, provided they do not operate to the disadvantage of one sex over another. Instead, the opinion merely established that sex stereotyping can constitute evidence that an employment decision was improperly motivated by an individual’s sex. But it is not sex discrimination to enforce a dress code.

Needless to say, it would be a paradigmatic shift to interpret Title VII’s bar on sex discrimination to functionally bar discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation as well. Generally, the Supreme Court is cautious to yield a statutory interpretation that constitutes a significant policy change. As the maxim goes, Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes. All things considered, it seems likely that this Supreme Court will continue to leave such large policy shifts to the discretion of Congress.

Our firm, First Liberty Institute, submitted an amicus curiae brief in these cases, focusing narrowly on potential religious-freedom implications for many religious denominations. We asked the court, regardless of how it rules on the primary issue of the scope of Title VII, to consider the impact on religious houses of worship, charities, nonprofits, schools and other ministries.

Religious ministries, including houses of worship, are not categorically excluded from the reach of Title VII. As the Supreme Court unanimously held in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the First Amendment’s ministerial exception protects those organizations’ ability to choose their own ministers or religious leaders, regardless of whether such decisions might otherwise violate federal employment discrimination law. However, religious ministries still could be held liable based on unlawful employment decisions related to nonministerial positions.

People of faith often seek to operate in communities that share a common commitment to their religious tenets. Many religious denominations in America hold sincere religious beliefs about the nature of marriage and gender. If Title VII is interpreted to functionally include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes, a question will arise as to whether these religious ministries may continue to apply faith-based employment standards related to sexual conduct and gender expression.

Our amicus brief argues that Congress, through Title VII’s statutory religious-employer exemption, has already provided an answer. Properly interpreted, the exemption allows religious ministries to maintain faith-based hiring standards — to employ only persons whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with the employer’s religious precepts. We asked the Supreme Court to resolve the present ambiguity in the lower courts and hold that the religious-employer exemption protects the freedom of religious ministries to maintain faith-based codes of employee conduct. In a future case, this solution would allow, for example, a Catholic school to continue being Catholic.

Interpreting the statutory religious-employer exemption in this way would not only best align with the original meaning of the statutory text, but it would also prevent the government from encroaching on the internal affairs of religious ministries, limit the courts from unconstitutionally entangling themselves with religion, and safeguard First Amendment rights for Americans of all faiths.

The post Symposium: Hiding elephants in mouseholes: The original meaning of “discrimination on the basis of sex” appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/09/symposium-hiding-elephants-in-mouseholes-the-original-meaning-of-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[loyallogic]

Legal Framework regulating the Banking sector in India

In this article, Varsha Jhavar, pursuing Diploma in Entrepreneurship Administration and Business Laws from NUJS, Kolkata discusses on the legal framework regulating the banking sector in India

Introduction

Legal Framework

The Indian banking system is primarily governed by Banking Regulation Act, 1949.  The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 empowers the RBI (Reserve Bank of India) to act on a wide range of issues including rules, regulations, directions and guidelines with respect to banking and financial services. The RBI is the central bank of India.

Besides the above, the FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999) regulates with respect to cross-border transactions.

Reserve Bank of India (RBI)

The primary regulator for banks in India is RBI. The functions of RBI include:

Making norms for opening up and licensing banks (including foreign bank branches in India)

Corporate governance and organization

Norms for various products and services

Finalizing monetary policy

Regulation of foreign exchange, government securities markets and financial derivatives

Government debt and cash management

Overseeing payment and settlement systems

Currency Management

To liaise with other financial sector regulators like SEBI, IRDAI etc. RBI needs to regulate banking activities which overlap or have an interaction with financial activities under the domain of other financial sector regulators.

Supervision and legislation on the functioning of banks and financial institutions is also done by the Ministry of Finance (under Central Government) through the Department of Financial Services. The Department of Financial Services does:

Monitoring of banking operations

Prescribes norms for the operation of public sector banks.

Looks into the recovery of bank debts by way of examining legislative measures and establishing judicial mechanisms for the same.

Forms of Banks

There could be different form of banks as distinguished by the regulator:

State-owned banks

State Bank of India (SBI) is the largest state-owned bank and has been established under a special statute, the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Additionally, between the years 1969 to 1980, the government nationalized several banks by a legislative mandate.

Universal banks, commercial and retail banks

Universal banks are full-service banks and offer almost an entire range of financial products. They can be differentiated as private sector banks (non-state owned), public sector banks (state-owned) and foreign banks. As mentioned earlier licensing and operations of these banks fall under Banking Regulation Act.

Investment Banks

These banks give investment advisory and related services. Investment banks are governed by the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The license is also issued by SEBI.

Other Banks

For the purpose of providing banking services to underdeveloped and non-urban sectors, the banking sector has introduced special purpose banks – Cooperative Banks which cater to rural populace and small borrowers. They are formed on a co-operative basis and governed by cooperative laws formed by the state government and central banking laws. Additionally, regional rural banks were incorporated under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 to develop the rural economy.

To promote financial inclusion, the Reserve Bank of India also introduced Payments Banks and Small Finance Banks. These offer basic and limited services like deposits, issuing payment instruments, savings vehicles and credit.

Banking License

Any entity that wants to do banking business has to obtain the license from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The license also entails the licensee to conduct ancillary business like guarantee and indemnity business, financial leasing, hire purchase business, securitization, trade finance besides borrowing and lending.

However, for dealing in foreign exchange, a separate license is required to be obtained under the Foreign Exchange Management Act.

Application Process for a banking license

Form for application of banking license is as per the Banking Regulation Rules, 1949. Different forms are applicable based on nature of applicant or whether it is a domestic or foreign company.

The application form for the license has to be submitted with the company’s constitutional documents and balance sheet & profit & loss statements for last 5 years (for an existing company).

This is beside a host of information as mentioned in the form like information on ultimate individual promoters, information on various entities which are part of the promoter group, information on the persons/entities subscribing to or more than 5% of the paid-up equity capital, proposed management of the bank.

Also, a project report has to be submitted showing business potential, financial services proposed, plan for various compliances, plan for financial inclusion.

Corporate Governance

The Companies Act 2013, prescribes the corporate governance rules for banks in the country. However, for listed banking companies SEBI Regulations, 2015 are also applicable. SEBI regulations are primarily listing obligations and disclosures.

Organizational & Supervisory Requirement

Under the Banking Regulation Act, banking business must be conducted by a company. Government-owned banks are normally incorporated under specific statutes. Private Banks need to be incorporated as companies and are governed by the Companies Act. Documents required for their constitution are – Memorandum of association, Articles of association, Certificate of incorporation & Certificate for the commencement of business.

Foreign banks can operate through a branch in India and are not required to form a separate company. In some situations, the Reserve Bank of India may prescribe the foreign bank to set up its banking business in India through a wholly owned subsidiary.

The Banking Regulation Act requires an audit of the balance sheet and profit and loss statements for all banks in India. The Reserve Bank of India has powers to order a special audit if it believes it is necessary in public interest.

Guidelines have also been prescribed for role and constitution of the board of directors. Key parameters for appointing directors include – The directors should have professional experience with 51% to have specific domain knowledge in prescribed fields. There are several other parameters prescribed by Reserve Bank of India, which need to be adhered to whilst appointing a director.

The Banking Regulation Act empowers RBI to remove the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Director or for that matter any other officer on grounds of public interest, improper management or if the banks functioning is being conducted in a manner which could be detrimental to the interests of the depositors.

Various risk management guidelines have also been prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. The primary responsibility for understanding and managing risks is with the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors can appoint a risk management committee, which reports to the Board directly.

Liquidity and Capital Adequacy

Capital adequacy is having sufficient own funds to absorb losses for a limited amount of time during which it would be hoped the business can be returned to profit; liquidity is having sufficient cash to satisfy all current and expected demands by customers.

The Basel III capital regulations are being implemented in India (to be fully implemented by 31st March 2019). Banks are required to comply with the requirements as per Basel III norms. The Basel III frameworks main thrust has been enhancing the banking sector’s safety and stability emphasizes on the need to improve the quality and quantity of capital components, leverage ratio, liquidity standards, and enhance disclosures. 

Besides the above banks need to maintain – Cash reserve ratio (CRR), which is the average daily balance that a bank needs to maintain with the RBI. Currently, the CRR is 4% of NDTL. Besides CRR, banks are required to maintain statutory liquidity ratio (SLR ), which is currently 19.5% of NDTL.

Liquidation of Banks

The High Court is the authority for winding up or liquidation of the bank. The location of the registered office of the bank decides the jurisdiction of the respective High Court in case of liquidation matters. As per the Banking Regulation Act, as and when the order for winding up of a bank is passed by the High Court, a liquidator is appointed by the High Court to supervise the liquidation. RBI can also act as liquidator subject to Court approval.

Regulatory Development in recent times

To reinforce the ability of the lender to deal with distressed assets, the Reserve Bank of India has issued guidelines and norms on distressed asset resolution by lenders. The RBI has issued a notification on “Guidelines on Sale of Stressed Assets by Banks” as a part of the already existing “Framework for Revitalising Distressed Assets in the Economy”. The framework and guideline have been created as a part of the enforcement of and regulations under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) seeks to consolidate the existing framework by creating a single law for insolvency and bankruptcy. The bankruptcy code is a one-stop solution for resolving insolvencies which at present is a long drawn process and fails to offer an economically viable solution.

Conclusion

The Indian banking system is primarily governed by Banking Regulation Act, 1949.  The RBI is the central bank of India and also the primary regulator of banks. There are various types of banks, like state-owned, commercial, investment, co-operative banks. Any entity that wants to do banking business has to obtain a license from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) seeks to consolidate the existing framework by creating a single law for insolvency and bankruptcy. Regulation of a country’s banking sector is a reflection of its priorities and financial landscape. In India’s case, the Reserve Bank of India’s approach has been to prioritize stability and achieve financial inclusiveness.

The post Legal Framework regulating the Banking sector in India appeared first on iPleaders.

Legal Framework regulating the Banking sector in India published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

[ezra0204]

Flush me, Flush-Me-Not: this global company is helping India save 90pc of water in toilets through its waterless urinal system by Diversey

At present, India is facing the worst-ever water crisis with over 600 million people - nearly half the country’s population - suffering from extreme water stress according to a report by NITI Aayog. It also claims that 75 percent of Indian households do not have clean drinking water and 84 percent of rural households do not have access to safe piped water.

 India ranks 120 out of 122 countries on the water quality index since 70 percent of its water is contaminated, which is causing the death of two lakh people each year.

Although depletion of water resources is a major issue, flushing toilets is not typically recognised as a cause. But, each flush uses at least 1.6 litres of water according to Conserve H2O, a Water Providers Consortium. The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation recently stated that 89 percent (107 crore) of the Indian population has access to toilets. Considering that an average individual uses the toilet seven times a day, we’re flushing out a whopping 118 crore litres of water on a daily basis.

 Diversey, a global cleaning and hygiene company, is attempting to save this water through an innovative solution Flush-Me-Not, which serves as a comprehensive waterless urinal system. Not only does it reduce the usage of water in toilets, but it also helps control odour. Launched in 2014, Flush-Me-Not is already being used across 15,000 urinals in Indiaincluding the ones at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport in Mumbai, public restrooms around the Vaishno Devi temple in Kashmir, across multiple outlets of fast food chain McDonald's, and also in some branches of Delhi Public School.

Promoting judicious use of water

 Today, water is one of the most stressed resources in India with mismanagement, over usage, and pollution. Flush-Me-Not system wants to promote the judicious use of water.

 “Places like hotels, airports, and public toilets have many visitors every day and therefore the usage of water is also very high. A single flush drains one and a half liters of water. Our solution helps save 90 percent of this water,” Himanshu Jain, President (APAC Region) Diversey tells YourStory.

 The Delhi Public School in Pune has been using this solution for over three years. Besides saving water, they have spread the word among students.

“We are implementing Diversey’s solution across all the 54 urinals within the campus. Over 1,500 boys are pursuing their academics here. Even if we assume they use the restroom once a day, we would land up saving about 2,000 litres a day, which is a lot. To spread awareness about conserving water through Flush-Me-Not, the administration even conducted various sensitisation programmes for students,” says Sumati Arora, Facility Manager, Delhi Public School.

 Flush-Me-Not is also being implemented in the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport in Mumbai. According to a report by the Association of Private Airport Operators, the passenger traffic in this airport is 4,850 crore. Hence, the amount of water saved is equally mind boggling. “We introduced Flush-Me-Not to the management team and began saving all the water, which would have otherwise gone down the drain. Our janitors and house keeping staff were trained to use the package and maintain the cleanliness of urinals,” a spokesperson from Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai who did not wish to be named tells YourStory.

How does Flush-Me-Not function?

 The Flush-Me-Not package consists of 12 urinal screens made out of recycled polymer as well as four litres of concentrated odor eliminator.

“Before installation, the urinal needs to be cleaned with diluted descaling solution and a toilet sanitiser. This can be rinsed with water after a few minutes. The water supply to the urinal must be disconnected before placing the screen on the urinal drain. Finally, the odor eliminator should be sprayed on the surface. This can last for 30 days after which the screen and odor eliminator have to be replaced,” explains Aurodeepa Rath, Marketing and Assistant Manager, Diversey India.

 While all the bacteria, sodium, urea, and other components gets deposited in the urinal screen, the odor eliminator uses non-pathogenic bacteria and enzymes to remove foul smell, urinal stains, prevent clogging, and releases a pleasant fragrance.

 Each Flush-Me-Not package costs Rs 6,000 and if used as per the standard procedure, can last for a month after using it in 12 urinals.

Other initiatives by Diversey

 Diversey also works in employee volunteerism, disaster relief, and product donations as part of its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives.

Its initiative ‘Soap for Hope’ turns leftover soaps used in hotels into new soap bars to be distributed to those in need. “Every year, a typical 400-room hotel generates 3.5 tons of soapwaste. This waste either gets dumped in a landfill or is shipped to a global recycling facility that charges a hefty amount. We went ahead with the Soap for Hope drive to promote hygiene, reduce waste, and provide livelihood to marginalised communities through processing and recycling soap,” says Aurodeepa.

 Since 2016, over 2.5 lakh soaps have been distributed across several slums in the cities of Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, and Patna.

 ‘Linens for Life’, also launched in 2016, empowers local communities to earn a living by converting linens discarded by hotels into useful items that they can later sell. To achieve this, the organisation trains people to sew and stitch linen to make products like pillow cases and tote bags. Some of the products are also given away to refugee camps and to families affected by natural disasters.

 About 142 hotels across India, including the Taj, and Marriot groups, are working with Diversey as part of these two initiatives.

The company also launched Garima, a skill development programme to enable people to promote sanitation and cleanliness.

 “We train unemployed rural youth and women in scientific methods of cleaning, safe use of vacuum cleaners and other equipment, as well as application of chemicals. After completing the course, they are provided with employment opportunities in the housekeeping and hospitality industry,” Himanshu explains.

 The organisation has helped 9,000 people in a span of two years as part of this programme.

 The founding story

 Founded in 1923 by August Kochs and his son, Herbert Kochs, in Chicago, USA, Diversey is a subsidiary of Victor Chemical Works. In 1950, it began operations as a separate entity after a public offering of its shares. Later, brewing company Molson acquired it after which Herbert Kochs retired as the Chairman.

  Over the years, Diversey’s goal of creating clean, safe, and healthy spaces did not change. The company continued to deliver effective cleaning and hygiene solutions across the globe.  

https://diversey.com/

[bettiejohnsonmbayo]

Liberia: House of Representatives to Continue with Justice Ja’neh’s Impeachment

Monrovia – Three of the five justices including Ad-hoc Justice Boima Kontoe, have said that the Writ of Prohibition prayed for by lawyers representing Associate Justice Kabineh Ja’neh could not be granted because the House of Representatives was not in error in initiating the proceeding.

Report by Bettie K. Johnson-Mbayo, bettie.mbayo@frontpageafricaonline.com

Chief Justice Francis Korkpor, Associate Justice Joseph Nagbe, and Judge Kontoe, forming the majority opinion, said under the facts and circumstances of this case, the extraordinary Writ of Prohibition will not be granted because the act complained of is not wrong or illegal and is within the scope of the House.

According to the nation’s highest court, the writ will not lie because where it is shown that it is intended to prevent, prohibit or obstruct an administrative agency of government from exercising its lawful duties.

The Court said the House of Representatives is empowered by the Constitution of Liberia to initiate impeachment proceedings.

Therefore, they hold that the mere act of receiving a petition from two members of the House and referring the said petition to an ad-hoc committee to review and report to the House of Representatives does not in their view constitute a ground for granting the Writ of Prohibition.

“We further hold that as at the time of the filing of this Writ of Prohibition, the HOR had done nothing in violation of due process right of the petitioner to warrant the granting of the Writ of Prohibition.”

The high court further said the laws of Liberia including the rule of the Supreme Court require that hearing be conducted to establish proof of the complaint, notwithstanding the refusal of the party defendant /respondent to appear even though duly cited.

Related Posts

Liberia: Astute Lawyer Hints Security Repercussions over…

Dec 3, 2018

Liberia National Police Investigates Secret Burial by…

Dec 3, 2018

Amid Strains, Ex-Vice President Calls on Pres. Weah, VP…

Dec 3, 2018

The high court also said that the statutory and decisional laws allow the Ministry of Justice to prosecute or defend all suits and proceeding in which the HOR is a party or may be interested.

The majority opinion said though the HOR was required to obey the orders of the Justice in Chambers and to file its responsive pleading setting forth whatever defense it had to the Writ of Prohibition.

Chief Justice Korkpor further reading the opinion stated that the response by the HOR would have allowed the Court to decide the case but not to refuse to formally appear in the case because it disagreed with the discretion of the Justice in Chambers who ordered the writ.

He cited Article 66 of the 1986 Constitution, which gives the high court the authority to exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts of records, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or any other authority that given the facts and circumstances in the instant case.

“The HOR is amenable and answerable to judicial process, notwithstanding the doctrine of Separation of Powers of the branches of government in Article 3 of the constitution and the immunity clause for the legislators in Article 42 of the Constitution,” Chief Justice indicated.

Furthermore, the only two female Associate Justices on the Bench, Sie-A-Nyene Yuoh and Jamesetta Howard Wolokolie, dissented stating that prohibition should lie to prohibit the ongoing acts and threats of future acts, which are ultra vires citing the case Mary Broh Vs HOR.

According to the duo, prohibition will lie because where there is an infringement on the judicial privilege of a judicial officer.

Their signatures were not on the majority opinion on grounds that the high court raised issues that were not raised by the HOR.

Meanwhile, former and retired Associate Justice Philip A. Z. Banks said he was disappointed in the opinion by the majority.

Justice Banks, however, said if the dissenting could have been done by him, he would have done it a different way to show errors in the opinion by the majority.

[carlosnicholson-blog]

DeVry POLI330 ( Political Science ) Final Exam

https://homeworklance.com/downloads/devry-poli330-political-science-final-exam/

   DeVry POLI330 ( Political Science ) Final Exam

 1. (TCO 1) Which best explains the differences    between historians and political scientists? (Points : 2)

Historians look for  generalizations, and political scientists are reluctant to generalize.  Historians are reluctant to generalize, and political scientists look for  generalizations.  Historians are more likely to look for comparisons than political scientists.  Historians tend to focus on nature-based explanations, and political  scientists focus on nurture-based explanations.

 Question 2. 2. (TCO 1) The    notion that politicians think practically and political scientists think    abstractly is indicative of which of the following? (Points : 2)

Political scientists  often train politicians.  Politicians often train political scientists.  Political scientists and politicians are different in that the former studies  the latter.  Political scientists and politicians are often indistinguishable.

 Question 3. 3. (TCO 1) When    people base their views on beliefs that may not be based in reality, they    are behaving _____. (Points : 2)

irrationally  rationally  politically  legitimately

 Question 4. 4. (TCO 1) A    political leader’s ability to command respect and exercise power is known    as _____. (Points : 2)

sovereignty  corruption  authority  legitimacy

 Question 5. 5. (TCO 1)    Despite a disputed 2000 presidential election, once President George W.    Bush took office, few people doubted his _____. (Points : 2)

charisma  control  legitimacy  sovereignty

 Question 6. 6. (TCO 1)    Relating concepts in a way that connects them in an empirical manner is the    basis of _____ building. (Points : 2)

scholarship  theory  power  culture

 Question 7. 7. (TCO 1) A(n)    _____ is an initial theory a researcher starts with to be proved with    evidence. (Points : 2)

quantification  hypothesis  qualification  empirical

 Question 8. 8. (TCO 4)    Unlike natural law, positive law uses _____. (Points : 2)

the spirit of the  law to make determinations  books to reach conclusions  judicial sentencing to determine case outcomes  jury selection to manipulate judgment

 Question 9. 9. (TCO 4)    Under which of the following circumstances might a case be pursued as both    a criminal and a civil case? (Points : 2)

The federal  government accuses investment houses of wrongdoing and investors who lost  money sue them.  Drug traffickers violate property and federal law by moving drugs across  state borders.  Burglars violate federal property and the state sues them for damages.  A state accuses banks of mortgage fraud in mortgages sold to investors  elsewhere in the nation.

 Question 10. 10. (TCO 4)    Describe the significance of Marbury v. Madison. (Points :    2)

The ruling laid  precedent for judicial review.  The ruling stated that the president is subject to the court’s decisions.  The ruling decreed that current administrations must honor the appointments  of previous administrations.  The ruling claimed that federal taxes could not be levied on the states.

 Question 11. 11. (TCO 4)    What legal agency in the United States generates reputation-based ratings    of prospective federal judges? (Points : 2)

Judicial Ratings  Bureau  Federal Bureau of Judicial Review  American Bar Association  Office of Legal Assessment

 Question 12. 12. (TCO 4)    When was judicial review granted to the Supreme Court within the United    States? (Points : 2)

It was granted  during the Constitution Convention of 1787.  It was granted in the Bill of Rights.  It was the result of the Marbury v. Madison decision  of 1803.  It was never officially adopted but is an unofficial practice.   

 Question 13. 13. (TCO 4)    Which of the following best articulates the stance of judicial restraint    advocates? (Points : 2)

Judicial review is  the best and only true method of checking legislative power.  The court should practice restraint in cases in which legislative acts are  presented for interpretation.  Only the executive branch can restrain the court, keeping the power of  judicial review in balance with the other governing branches.  Only Congress should make public policy and, unless a legislative act clearly  violates the Constitution, the law should stand.

 Question 14. 14. (TCO 4)    The Supreme Court’s decision in _____ (1954) triggered a revolution in    American race relations, an area Congress had been unwilling to touch.    (Points : 2)

Miranda v. Arizona  Dred Scott v. Sandford  Brown v. Board of Education  Gibbons v. Ogden

 Question 15. 15. (TCO 5)    Which systems demonstrate the clearest separation of power between the    executive and legislative branches? (Points : 2)

Parliamentary  Presidential  Monarchies  Ministerial

 Question 16. 16. (TCO 5)    How often does the cabinet change in a parliamentary system? (Points : 2)

Every 4 years  Every 6 years  Every 8 years  When the cabinet is voted out or resigns

 Question 17. 17. (TCO 5)    Voters receive the most direct representation in which system? (Points : 2)

Parliamentary  Presidential

Electoral  Coalition

 Question 18. 18. (TCO 5)    The head of ministry is equivalent to the _____ in the United States.    (Points : 2)

chief of government  head of state  departmental secretary  premier

1. (TCO 5) The only    political system that could guarantee the cooperation between the    legislative and executive branches is _____. (Points : 2)

a monarchy  a dictatorship  a democracy  an oligarchy

  Question 3. 3. (TCO 5)    Explain which type of candidate parliamentary systems seek out to become    ministers. (Points : 2)

Those who have  experience winning elections and serving on a parliamentary committee  Newcomers who can bring in a fresh perspective to the ministry  Individuals who possess a great knowledge of the specific ministry’s area  Those who have political experience regardless of whether or not they have  been elected in the past

     Question 7. 7. (TCO 7)    Which of the following is an increasing financial concern of the Medicare    program? (Points : 2)

The proportion of  older people in American society is increasing steadily.  Every American citizen on reaching 65 obtains Medicare, regardless of class.  Economic inequality renders Medicare more necessary for some than for others.  Wealthy Americans are taking advantage of the Medicare system.

 Question 8. 8. (TCO 7) Why    are many politicians wary about limiting Social Security and Medicare    expenses? (Points : 2)

Many would be left  without enough to support them.  Caps to these programs would undermine the welfare state.  It can cost them votes.  Both are primary social safety nets.   

 Question 9. 9. (TCO 7) How    does the American welfare state compare to those of other industrialized    nations? (Points : 2)

Much less is  allocated to welfare in the United States.  Other nations allocate less to welfare than the United States.  The United States allocates about the same to welfare.  Few nations besides the United States maintain funds for welfare.

 Question 10. 10. (TCO 7)    Theoretically, what are the consequences if the government assumes the    burden of bad loans? (Points : 2)

Citizens will  default on their mortgages.  Banks will learn from their mistakes and pay back the burden with interest.  Ultimately, the government will profit.  Firms will be encouraged to continue their risky behavior.

 Question 11. 11. (TCO 9)    _____ is a small or moderate change that essentially leaves the system    intact. (Points : 2)

Mass discontent  Reform  Dramatic system change  A coup d’etat

 Question 12. 12. (TCO 9)    Describe what can often happen in a changing society when, during times of    prosperity, some people get rich faster than others. (Points : 2)

Jealousy is aroused.  Politicians pay more attention to poverty.  The very poor revolt.  Economists become confused.

 Question 13. 13. (TCO 9)    What is likely to happen if the people are unhappy and there is no    organization to focus their discontent? (Points : 2)

They will almost  surely turn to violence.  Not much will happen.  The people will organize themselves, regardless.  They will eventually find other means of achieving contentedness.

 Question 14. 14. (TCO 9)    What about U.S. agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the    FBI, and the CIA make them so ill prepared to fight terrorism? (Points : 2)

They have extremely  different missions when it comes to terrorism.  They are poorly funded.  They have a great deal of red tape to get through in order to be able to  communicate.  They are often unwilling to communicate with each other.

  Question 16. 16. (TCO 9)    Does terrorism work? (Points : 2)

Rarely, and seldom  without political and/or economic pressure  Rarely, but primarily when brought against democratic nations  Often, and without much need for political pressure to aid it  Often, but only with the assistance of economic and/or political pressure

 Question 17. 17. (TCO 9)    Hannah Arendt pointed out that rage is the fuel of revolution, but what is    now the greatest cause of rage? (Points : 2)

The low level of  education in developing nations  The enormous economic mismanagement in industrialized nations  The extreme violence utilized by industrialized nations against developing  nations  The massive corruption now found in developing lands

 1.     (TCO 2) Evaluate Aristotle’s six types of government. In doing so, please be sure to list and define the categorizations. Please then assess how these classifications can be useful today to someone analyzing current governmental structures. (Points : 40)

 Explain the relationship between electoral systems and party systems. Answers should be sure to assess this question from the perspective of both proportional representation and single-member districts and provide examples to support your points. (Points : 40)

 The United States has utilized multiple forms of liberalism throughout its history. Please distinguish the specific characteristics of classical and modern liberalism and outline the evolution of these forms of liberalism within the United States. Please be sure to include specific historic examples to support your points. (Points : 40)

 Today’s world seems to be moving beyond sovereignty and toward supranational leadership to cooperate on issues of global importance. What are some of these issues? How might they be solved through supranational cooperation? Does such cooperation impede the sovereignty of independent nations? Please sure to include specific examples in supporting your points. (Points : 40)

[ultrasarahgordon-blog]

DeVry POLI330 ( Political Science ) Final Exam

https://homeworklance.com/downloads/devry-poli330-political-science-final-exam/

   DeVry POLI330 ( Political Science ) Final Exam

 1. (TCO 1) Which best explains the differences    between historians and political scientists? (Points : 2)

Historians look for  generalizations, and political scientists are reluctant to generalize.  Historians are reluctant to generalize, and political scientists look for  generalizations.  Historians are more likely to look for comparisons than political scientists.  Historians tend to focus on nature-based explanations, and political  scientists focus on nurture-based explanations.

 Question 2. 2. (TCO 1) The    notion that politicians think practically and political scientists think    abstractly is indicative of which of the following? (Points : 2)

Political scientists  often train politicians.  Politicians often train political scientists.  Political scientists and politicians are different in that the former studies  the latter.  Political scientists and politicians are often indistinguishable.

 Question 3. 3. (TCO 1) When    people base their views on beliefs that may not be based in reality, they    are behaving _____. (Points : 2)

irrationally  rationally  politically  legitimately

 Question 4. 4. (TCO 1) A    political leader’s ability to command respect and exercise power is known    as _____. (Points : 2)

sovereignty  corruption  authority  legitimacy

 Question 5. 5. (TCO 1)    Despite a disputed 2000 presidential election, once President George W.    Bush took office, few people doubted his _____. (Points : 2)

charisma  control  legitimacy  sovereignty

 Question 6. 6. (TCO 1)    Relating concepts in a way that connects them in an empirical manner is the    basis of _____ building. (Points : 2)

scholarship  theory  power  culture

 Question 7. 7. (TCO 1) A(n)    _____ is an initial theory a researcher starts with to be proved with    evidence. (Points : 2)

quantification  hypothesis  qualification  empirical

 Question 8. 8. (TCO 4)    Unlike natural law, positive law uses _____. (Points : 2)

the spirit of the  law to make determinations  books to reach conclusions  judicial sentencing to determine case outcomes  jury selection to manipulate judgment

 Question 9. 9. (TCO 4)    Under which of the following circumstances might a case be pursued as both    a criminal and a civil case? (Points : 2)

The federal  government accuses investment houses of wrongdoing and investors who lost  money sue them.  Drug traffickers violate property and federal law by moving drugs across  state borders.  Burglars violate federal property and the state sues them for damages.  A state accuses banks of mortgage fraud in mortgages sold to investors  elsewhere in the nation.

 Question 10. 10. (TCO 4)    Describe the significance of Marbury v. Madison. (Points :    2)

The ruling laid  precedent for judicial review.  The ruling stated that the president is subject to the court’s decisions.  The ruling decreed that current administrations must honor the appointments  of previous administrations.  The ruling claimed that federal taxes could not be levied on the states.

 Question 11. 11. (TCO 4)    What legal agency in the United States generates reputation-based ratings    of prospective federal judges? (Points : 2)

Judicial Ratings  Bureau  Federal Bureau of Judicial Review  American Bar Association  Office of Legal Assessment

 Question 12. 12. (TCO 4)    When was judicial review granted to the Supreme Court within the United    States? (Points : 2)

It was granted  during the Constitution Convention of 1787.  It was granted in the Bill of Rights.  It was the result of the Marbury v. Madison decision  of 1803.  It was never officially adopted but is an unofficial practice.   

 Question 13. 13. (TCO 4)    Which of the following best articulates the stance of judicial restraint    advocates? (Points : 2)

Judicial review is  the best and only true method of checking legislative power.  The court should practice restraint in cases in which legislative acts are  presented for interpretation.  Only the executive branch can restrain the court, keeping the power of  judicial review in balance with the other governing branches.  Only Congress should make public policy and, unless a legislative act clearly  violates the Constitution, the law should stand.

 Question 14. 14. (TCO 4)    The Supreme Court’s decision in _____ (1954) triggered a revolution in    American race relations, an area Congress had been unwilling to touch.    (Points : 2)

Miranda v. Arizona  Dred Scott v. Sandford  Brown v. Board of Education  Gibbons v. Ogden

 Question 15. 15. (TCO 5)    Which systems demonstrate the clearest separation of power between the    executive and legislative branches? (Points : 2)

Parliamentary  Presidential  Monarchies  Ministerial

 Question 16. 16. (TCO 5)    How often does the cabinet change in a parliamentary system? (Points : 2)

Every 4 years  Every 6 years  Every 8 years  When the cabinet is voted out or resigns

 Question 17. 17. (TCO 5)    Voters receive the most direct representation in which system? (Points : 2)

Parliamentary  Presidential

Electoral  Coalition

 Question 18. 18. (TCO 5)    The head of ministry is equivalent to the _____ in the United States.    (Points : 2)

chief of government  head of state  departmental secretary  premier

1. (TCO 5) The only    political system that could guarantee the cooperation between the    legislative and executive branches is _____. (Points : 2)

a monarchy  a dictatorship  a democracy  an oligarchy

  Question 3. 3. (TCO 5)    Explain which type of candidate parliamentary systems seek out to become    ministers. (Points : 2)

Those who have  experience winning elections and serving on a parliamentary committee  Newcomers who can bring in a fresh perspective to the ministry  Individuals who possess a great knowledge of the specific ministry’s area  Those who have political experience regardless of whether or not they have  been elected in the past

     Question 7. 7. (TCO 7)    Which of the following is an increasing financial concern of the Medicare    program? (Points : 2)

The proportion of  older people in American society is increasing steadily.  Every American citizen on reaching 65 obtains Medicare, regardless of class.  Economic inequality renders Medicare more necessary for some than for others.  Wealthy Americans are taking advantage of the Medicare system.

 Question 8. 8. (TCO 7) Why    are many politicians wary about limiting Social Security and Medicare    expenses? (Points : 2)

Many would be left without  enough to support them.  Caps to these programs would undermine the welfare state.  It can cost them votes.  Both are primary social safety nets.   

 Question 9. 9. (TCO 7) How    does the American welfare state compare to those of other industrialized nations?    (Points : 2)

Much less is  allocated to welfare in the United States.  Other nations allocate less to welfare than the United States.  The United States allocates about the same to welfare.  Few nations besides the United States maintain funds for welfare.

 Question 10. 10. (TCO 7)    Theoretically, what are the consequences if the government assumes the    burden of bad loans? (Points : 2)

Citizens will  default on their mortgages.  Banks will learn from their mistakes and pay back the burden with interest.  Ultimately, the government will profit.  Firms will be encouraged to continue their risky behavior.

 Question 11. 11. (TCO 9)    _____ is a small or moderate change that essentially leaves the system    intact. (Points : 2)

Mass discontent  Reform  Dramatic system change  A coup d’etat

 Question 12. 12. (TCO 9)    Describe what can often happen in a changing society when, during times of    prosperity, some people get rich faster than others. (Points : 2)

Jealousy is aroused.  Politicians pay more attention to poverty.  The very poor revolt.  Economists become confused.

 Question 13. 13. (TCO 9)    What is likely to happen if the people are unhappy and there is no    organization to focus their discontent? (Points : 2)

They will almost  surely turn to violence.  Not much will happen.  The people will organize themselves, regardless.  They will eventually find other means of achieving contentedness.

 Question 14. 14. (TCO 9)    What about U.S. agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the    FBI, and the CIA make them so ill prepared to fight terrorism? (Points : 2)

They have extremely  different missions when it comes to terrorism.  They are poorly funded.  They have a great deal of red tape to get through in order to be able to  communicate.  They are often unwilling to communicate with each other.

  Question 16. 16. (TCO 9)    Does terrorism work? (Points : 2)

Rarely, and seldom  without political and/or economic pressure  Rarely, but primarily when brought against democratic nations  Often, and without much need for political pressure to aid it  Often, but only with the assistance of economic and/or political pressure

 Question 17. 17. (TCO 9)    Hannah Arendt pointed out that rage is the fuel of revolution, but what is    now the greatest cause of rage? (Points : 2)

The low level of  education in developing nations  The enormous economic mismanagement in industrialized nations  The extreme violence utilized by industrialized nations against developing  nations  The massive corruption now found in developing lands

 1.     (TCO 2) Evaluate Aristotle’s six types of government. In doing so, please be sure to list and define the categorizations. Please then assess how these classifications can be useful today to someone analyzing current governmental structures. (Points : 40)

 Explain the relationship between electoral systems and party systems. Answers should be sure to assess this question from the perspective of both proportional representation and single-member districts and provide examples to support your points. (Points : 40)

 The United States has utilized multiple forms of liberalism throughout its history. Please distinguish the specific characteristics of classical and modern liberalism and outline the evolution of these forms of liberalism within the United States. Please be sure to include specific historic examples to support your points. (Points : 40)

 Today’s world seems to be moving beyond sovereignty and toward supranational leadership to cooperate on issues of global importance. What are some of these issues? How might they be solved through supranational cooperation? Does such cooperation impede the sovereignty of independent nations? Please sure to include specific examples in supporting your points. (Points : 40)

[toddwillingham-blog]

DeVry POLI330 ( Political Science ) Final Exam

https://homeworklance.com/downloads/devry-poli330-political-science-final-exam/

   DeVry POLI330 ( Political Science ) Final Exam

 1. (TCO 1) Which best explains the differences    between historians and political scientists? (Points : 2)

Historians look for  generalizations, and political scientists are reluctant to generalize.  Historians are reluctant to generalize, and political scientists look for  generalizations.  Historians are more likely to look for comparisons than political scientists.  Historians tend to focus on nature-based explanations, and political  scientists focus on nurture-based explanations.

 Question 2. 2. (TCO 1) The    notion that politicians think practically and political scientists think    abstractly is indicative of which of the following? (Points : 2)

Political scientists  often train politicians.  Politicians often train political scientists.  Political scientists and politicians are different in that the former studies  the latter.  Political scientists and politicians are often indistinguishable.

 Question 3. 3. (TCO 1) When    people base their views on beliefs that may not be based in reality, they    are behaving _____. (Points : 2)

irrationally  rationally  politically  legitimately

 Question 4. 4. (TCO 1) A    political leader’s ability to command respect and exercise power is known    as _____. (Points : 2)

sovereignty  corruption  authority  legitimacy

 Question 5. 5. (TCO 1)    Despite a disputed 2000 presidential election, once President George W.    Bush took office, few people doubted his _____. (Points : 2)

charisma  control  legitimacy  sovereignty

 Question 6. 6. (TCO 1)    Relating concepts in a way that connects them in an empirical manner is the    basis of _____ building. (Points : 2)

scholarship  theory  power  culture

 Question 7. 7. (TCO 1) A(n)    _____ is an initial theory a researcher starts with to be proved with    evidence. (Points : 2)

quantification  hypothesis  qualification  empirical

 Question 8. 8. (TCO 4)    Unlike natural law, positive law uses _____. (Points : 2)

the spirit of the  law to make determinations  books to reach conclusions  judicial sentencing to determine case outcomes  jury selection to manipulate judgment

 Question 9. 9. (TCO 4)    Under which of the following circumstances might a case be pursued as both    a criminal and a civil case? (Points : 2)

The federal  government accuses investment houses of wrongdoing and investors who lost  money sue them.  Drug traffickers violate property and federal law by moving drugs across  state borders.  Burglars violate federal property and the state sues them for damages.  A state accuses banks of mortgage fraud in mortgages sold to investors  elsewhere in the nation.

 Question 10. 10. (TCO 4)    Describe the significance of Marbury v. Madison. (Points :    2)

The ruling laid  precedent for judicial review.  The ruling stated that the president is subject to the court’s decisions.  The ruling decreed that current administrations must honor the appointments  of previous administrations.  The ruling claimed that federal taxes could not be levied on the states.

 Question 11. 11. (TCO 4)    What legal agency in the United States generates reputation-based ratings    of prospective federal judges? (Points : 2)

Judicial Ratings  Bureau  Federal Bureau of Judicial Review  American Bar Association  Office of Legal Assessment

 Question 12. 12. (TCO 4)    When was judicial review granted to the Supreme Court within the United    States? (Points : 2)

It was granted  during the Constitution Convention of 1787.  It was granted in the Bill of Rights.  It was the result of the Marbury v. Madison decision  of 1803.  It was never officially adopted but is an unofficial practice.   

 Question 13. 13. (TCO 4)    Which of the following best articulates the stance of judicial restraint    advocates? (Points : 2)

Judicial review is  the best and only true method of checking legislative power.  The court should practice restraint in cases in which legislative acts are  presented for interpretation.  Only the executive branch can restrain the court, keeping the power of  judicial review in balance with the other governing branches.  Only Congress should make public policy and, unless a legislative act clearly  violates the Constitution, the law should stand.

 Question 14. 14. (TCO 4)    The Supreme Court’s decision in _____ (1954) triggered a revolution in    American race relations, an area Congress had been unwilling to touch.    (Points : 2)

Miranda v. Arizona  Dred Scott v. Sandford  Brown v. Board of Education  Gibbons v. Ogden

 Question 15. 15. (TCO 5)    Which systems demonstrate the clearest separation of power between the    executive and legislative branches? (Points : 2)

Parliamentary  Presidential  Monarchies  Ministerial

 Question 16. 16. (TCO 5)    How often does the cabinet change in a parliamentary system? (Points : 2)

Every 4 years  Every 6 years  Every 8 years  When the cabinet is voted out or resigns

 Question 17. 17. (TCO 5)    Voters receive the most direct representation in which system? (Points : 2)

Parliamentary  Presidential

Electoral  Coalition

 Question 18. 18. (TCO 5)    The head of ministry is equivalent to the _____ in the United States.    (Points : 2)

chief of government  head of state  departmental secretary  premier

1. (TCO 5) The only    political system that could guarantee the cooperation between the    legislative and executive branches is _____. (Points : 2)

a monarchy  a dictatorship  a democracy  an oligarchy

  Question 3. 3. (TCO 5)    Explain which type of candidate parliamentary systems seek out to become    ministers. (Points : 2)

Those who have  experience winning elections and serving on a parliamentary committee  Newcomers who can bring in a fresh perspective to the ministry  Individuals who possess a great knowledge of the specific ministry’s area  Those who have political experience regardless of whether or not they have  been elected in the past

     Question 7. 7. (TCO 7)    Which of the following is an increasing financial concern of the Medicare    program? (Points : 2)

The proportion of  older people in American society is increasing steadily.  Every American citizen on reaching 65 obtains Medicare, regardless of class.  Economic inequality renders Medicare more necessary for some than for others.  Wealthy Americans are taking advantage of the Medicare system.

 Question 8. 8. (TCO 7) Why    are many politicians wary about limiting Social Security and Medicare    expenses? (Points : 2)

Many would be left without  enough to support them.  Caps to these programs would undermine the welfare state.  It can cost them votes.  Both are primary social safety nets.   

 Question 9. 9. (TCO 7) How    does the American welfare state compare to those of other industrialized nations?    (Points : 2)

Much less is  allocated to welfare in the United States.  Other nations allocate less to welfare than the United States.  The United States allocates about the same to welfare.  Few nations besides the United States maintain funds for welfare.

 Question 10. 10. (TCO 7)    Theoretically, what are the consequences if the government assumes the    burden of bad loans? (Points : 2)

Citizens will  default on their mortgages.  Banks will learn from their mistakes and pay back the burden with interest.  Ultimately, the government will profit.  Firms will be encouraged to continue their risky behavior.

 Question 11. 11. (TCO 9)    _____ is a small or moderate change that essentially leaves the system    intact. (Points : 2)

Mass discontent  Reform  Dramatic system change  A coup d’etat

 Question 12. 12. (TCO 9)    Describe what can often happen in a changing society when, during times of    prosperity, some people get rich faster than others. (Points : 2)

Jealousy is aroused.  Politicians pay more attention to poverty.  The very poor revolt.  Economists become confused.

 Question 13. 13. (TCO 9)    What is likely to happen if the people are unhappy and there is no    organization to focus their discontent? (Points : 2)

They will almost  surely turn to violence.  Not much will happen.  The people will organize themselves, regardless.  They will eventually find other means of achieving contentedness.

 Question 14. 14. (TCO 9)    What about U.S. agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the    FBI, and the CIA make them so ill prepared to fight terrorism? (Points : 2)

They have extremely  different missions when it comes to terrorism.  They are poorly funded.  They have a great deal of red tape to get through in order to be able to  communicate.  They are often unwilling to communicate with each other.

  Question 16. 16. (TCO 9)    Does terrorism work? (Points : 2)

Rarely, and seldom  without political and/or economic pressure  Rarely, but primarily when brought against democratic nations  Often, and without much need for political pressure to aid it  Often, but only with the assistance of economic and/or political pressure

 Question 17. 17. (TCO 9)    Hannah Arendt pointed out that rage is the fuel of revolution, but what is    now the greatest cause of rage? (Points : 2)

The low level of  education in developing nations  The enormous economic mismanagement in industrialized nations  The extreme violence utilized by industrialized nations against developing  nations  The massive corruption now found in developing lands

 1.     (TCO 2) Evaluate Aristotle’s six types of government. In doing so, please be sure to list and define the categorizations. Please then assess how these classifications can be useful today to someone analyzing current governmental structures. (Points : 40)

 Explain the relationship between electoral systems and party systems. Answers should be sure to assess this question from the perspective of both proportional representation and single-member districts and provide examples to support your points. (Points : 40)

 The United States has utilized multiple forms of liberalism throughout its history. Please distinguish the specific characteristics of classical and modern liberalism and outline the evolution of these forms of liberalism within the United States. Please be sure to include specific historic examples to support your points. (Points : 40)

 Today’s world seems to be moving beyond sovereignty and toward supranational leadership to cooperate on issues of global importance. What are some of these issues? How might they be solved through supranational cooperation? Does such cooperation impede the sovereignty of independent nations? Please sure to include specific examples in supporting your points. (Points : 40)