Bien que l’élection présidentielle de 2027 soit encore lointaine, Gabriel Attal semble actuellement bien placé dans la course à la succession d’Emmanuel Macron. < Back Gabriel Attal ou l’art de la communication By Jonathan Smidtas Schalita À seulement 34 ans, Gabriel Attal est le plus jeune chef de gouvernement de la Ve République. Encore inconnu du grand public il y a peu, il a réussi en seulement quelques mois à s’affirmer comme une figure centrale de la vie politique française. Depuis sa prise de fonction le 20 juillet au ministère de l’éducation, sa capacité à réagir de manière proactive à l'actualité et à transformer les défis en opportunités a rapidement attiré l'attention. Son premier fait d’arme ne se fait pas attendre. À la veille de la rentrée scolaire, la polémique enfle sur le port de l’abaya à l’école. Dès son arrivée en poste, Attal marque sa présence en se présentant comme le défenseur de la laïcité et déclare qu’ « on ne pourra plus porter d'abaya à l'école .» Alors que la controverse sur l’abaya s’apaise, le pays est bouleversé par le suicide, le 5 septembre, d’un adolescent harcelé de 15 ans. Tandis que la presse soulève les failles de l’administration, Attal annonce un plan anti-harcèlement à l’école incluant la création de cours d’empathie et d’une cellule dédiée au harcèlement dans chaque rectorat. Le mois suivant, la question du mal-être à l’école disparaît des médias tandis que les attaques terroristes du Hamas contre Israël le 7 octobre rappellent au monde le danger jihadiste. La France est attaquée le 13 octobre par un terroriste islamiste qui assassine dans une école Dominique Bernard qui tentait de protéger ses élèves. Alors qu’un hommage est prévu dans chaque classe, Attal exprime une fermeté notable et annonce l'exclusion des élèves perturbant l'hommage au professeur. En outre, l’image de réformateur d’Attal est renforcée lorsqu’il déclare en novembre qu’« il faut revoir le tabou du redoublement » , quelques semaines avant la parution du classement PISA qui évalue les performances scolaires des élèves de 15 ans des pays de l’OCDE. Le 5 décembre, le classement PISA révèle une baisse significative du niveau des élèves français, particulièrement en mathématiques et en français. Sans attendre, le ministre de l'Éducation nationale tient le jour même une conférence de presse pour présenter une série de mesures visant à rehausser le niveau des élèves. Parmi celles-ci figurent la création de classes de niveau, le retour du redoublement sur décision des professeurs ou encore l'exigence d'obtenir le brevet pour accéder au lycée. Sa stratégie, consistant à occuper l'espace médiatique et à multiplier les annonces, s’est avérée d'une grande efficacité. Le baromètre politique Ipsos-Le Point le crédite en décembre de 40% d'opinions favorables, le plaçant ainsi en tête des personnalités politiques préférées des Français, devant Édouard Philippe (39%) et Marine Le Pen (37%). Le 8 janvier, le président Macron nomme son ministre de l’Éducation nationale Premier ministre. Il explique son choix à des proches en mettant en avant sa popularité, sa jeunesse et ses aptitudes pour conduire la bataille des élections européennes, selon des propos rapportés par le journal satirique Le Canard enchaîné. Bien que l’élection présidentielle de 2027 soit encore lointaine, Gabriel Attal semble actuellement bien placé dans la course à la succession d’Emmanuel Macron. S’il reste Premier ministre jusqu’à la fin du quinquennat, il lui reste trois années pour obtenir des résultats et relever le pays. Le défi est cependant de taille dans un contexte économique dégradé et en l’absence d’une majorité nette à l’Assemblée Nationale pour voter ses futures lois.

Images emerge from Iran with unsettling regularity: mothers mourning their children, bodies of Iranian martyrs killed by the IRGC during the crackdown in black bags, and quasi-apocalyptic scenes of explosions in Tehran. And then, just as quickly, they disappear from collective attention. Not because the suffering ends, but because the audience moves on. < Back We Watch, We Feel, We Scroll: Susan Sontag’s ‘Regarding the Pain of Others’ and the War in Iran Amena Elkayal June 3, 2026 Images emerge from Iran with unsettling regularity: mothers mourning their children, bodies of Iranian martyrs killed by the IRGC during the crackdown in black bags, and quasi-apocalyptic scenes of explosions in Tehran. And then, just as quickly, they disappear from collective attention. Not because the suffering ends, but because the audience moves on. We watch, we feel briefly, and then we move on... Published in 2003, Regarding the Pain of Others is a critical reflection on how images of war and suffering shape public perception, especially for those who experience violence only from a distance. Its author, Susan Sontag, was an American writer, philosopher and cultural critic known for her incisive analyses of media, politics and representation. In this work, she questions whether witnessing suffering through photographs truly fosters empathy, or instead risks turning pain into something consumed, distant and ultimately ineffective in prompting action. More than two decades ago, Susan Sontag described a dynamic that has since become central to contemporary media culture. In Regarding the Pain of Others , she argued that for those who have not experienced war, understanding it is “chiefly a product of the impact of images, ” an understanding mediated not by direct encounter but by curated visual representations that shape perception in subtle yet powerful ways. In this sense, images do not merely document reality; they construct it, selecting, framing, and aestheticizing moments of suffering in ways that can both reveal and obscure. What appears immediate and authentic is often already interpreted, distanced from the conditions that produced it. Thus, images, she cautioned, do not necessarily bring viewers closer to reality. They can instead create a moral distance, where suffering is observed, even felt, but rarely acted upon. " Compassion ," she wrote, "is an unstable emotion. It needs to be translated into action, or it withers." In Iran, it is not only withering. It is being redirected. Since late 2025, Iranians have faced one of the most severe waves of internal repression in the country’s history. Protests quickly escalated from a response to mounting economic pressures and social restrictions to challenging the Islamic Republic’s oppressive regime. The state's response turned into a massacre of its own people. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) fired on civilians, internet access was repeatedly restricted and hospitals struggled under the weight of casualties. Since the protests started, at least 36,500 Iranians have been killed by their own government in a strikingly short span of time. This is alongside the 330,000 injured and tens of thousands detained and tortured by the IRGC. It has become one of the deadliest crackdowns in recent memory. Yet despite the scale of the violence, global attention has remained fleeting. For a brief moment, the world looks. Then it looks away. Sontag understood that images do not simply document suffering, they shape how it is valued. Some forms of violence are amplified, others minimized or rationalized. Iran presents a particularly uncomfortable case. Because the Iranian government positions itself in opposition to Israel and in support of Palestine, some observers adopt a very reductive logic: the enemy of my enemy is my friend . Within this framework, the regime's repression is treated as secondary, or even justifiable. It reduces a complex national struggle to a crude binary as if the Iranian people were merely pieces on a board rather than a society with its own grievances, hopes and agency. This serves geopolitical convenience, not their lived reality. This is not solidarity. It is selective morality. Opposing Israeli policies does not require silence about Iran. Supporting Palestinian rights does not necessitate overlooking state violence against Iranians. These positions are not mutually exclusive, yet public discourse often treats them as though they were. The result is a hierarchy of suffering in which Iranian lives are weighed against geopolitical narratives and too often found inconvenient. Repeated exposure to violence, Sontag warned, risks dulling moral response. "As one can become habituated to horror in real life, " she wrote, " one can become habituated to the horror of certain images. " We saw this in Palestine, where after October 7, the world watched in horror, only to later look away as 75,000 Palestinians were killed in Gaza. We saw it in South Lebanon, where Israeli forces have been continuously carrying out extensive military attacks, just for this to turn into a week-long trend. We saw it in Ukraine, once front-page news, now pushed to the margins despite ongoing civilian killings. And yet, international attention has faded, even as the suffering continues. Now we are seeing the exact same scenario in Iran. What begins as outrage slowly curdles into numbness. The images keep coming—so many that the mind, in self-defense, stops feeling each one. Sontag understood this not as callousness, but as a kind of moral exhaustion. And that, perhaps, is the deeper violence: not just the bombs, but the ease with which we learn to live with them. Today, that habituation is reinforced by the architecture of digital media. Disturbing images compete with entertainment, commentary and distraction. The easiest response is not engagement but avoidance –users scroll past before a video even finishes. They skip images that feel overwhelming, or promise to return later, but rarely do. The result is a fragmented attention span, in which suffering is encountered in brief, intense bursts, never long enough to demand sustained reflection or action, fulfilling what Sontag once anticipated. When Iranians themselves respond to events, the pattern shifts. Indifference gives way to judgment. Following the death of dictator Ali Khamenei, which marked the death of the regime’s central figure, reactions within Iran were ones of open celebration. They reflected a very new hope towards a better future. Yet many outside observers —most of whom had previously remained silent on Iran— were quick to dismissively criticize, describing Iranians as naive, misinformed, or manipulated. This reductive framing arrives from multiple directions, but one of its most striking iterations comes from within the region itself. There is an irony in hearing, from certain quarters of the Arab world, lectures on the dangers of misplaced hope. This is, after all, a region that has known the weight of foreign intervention intimately—the devastation of Iraq after the American invasion, the carve-up of sovereignties, the long catastrophes of occupation. One might expect that such experience would yield a certain humility, a reluctance to presume that a distant observer knows a people's political reality better than they know it themselves. And yet, in the case of Iran, the script flips. Those who have endured the wreckage of foreign intervention now presume to tell Iranians that their celebration of a dictator's death is a mark of naivety. This condescension reveals a failure of imagination. It cannot fathom that an Iranian political consciousness might exist that is neither pro-regime nor a puppet of foreign interests. It reduces a population of nearly 90 million people, shaped by decades of revolution, war, and the lived experience of theocratic rule, to a simple binary: either they are with the Islamic Republic, or they are doing the bidding of its enemies. To dismiss their reactions is not analysis; it is paternalism. It suggests that Iranians can be seen, but not heard. The truth is more complex and more human. The Iranian people do not want war. They have watched their country teeter on the edge of regional conflagration. They have seen their resources funneled toward foreign militias while their own economy crumbled. The prospect of a war imposed from outside—whether by the United States, Israel, or any other power—is not something they desire. They know that the first casualties would be themselves. But neither do they want the regime they live under. This is the duality that the world refuses to hold. To be anti-regime in Iran is not to be a warmonger. To celebrate the death of Khamenei is not to invite foreign intervention. It is to express a yearning for the end of a system that has, for nearly half a century, treated its own citizens as enemies. The Iranian position is not a logical contradiction. It is a political stance forged in lived experience: a rejection of both the tyranny of the mullahs and the tyranny of outside powers. It is the desire for a path that belongs to Iranians alone. Sontag is very skeptical about a certain universal “we” —that unspoken assumption that the viewer, the reader, the distant observer belongs to a single moral community with the one being observed— often invoked in discussions of suffering. She questions who exactly is included in this collective? The "we" that watches Iran from afar does so from a position of distance and safety. It can choose when to look and when to look away. Those inside Iran do not have that luxury. And yet, from this distance, external audiences often claim authority over interpretation, over morality, over what Iranian suffering signifies. Sontag challenges this assumption directly, arguing that the perceived bond created by viewing suffering is often illusory. Rather than fostering responsibility, it can reinforce a sense of innocence: we have seen, therefore we have done enough. But witnessing without responsibility is not solidarity. It is spectatorship. The challenge is not simply to look, but to look without reducing. Iran demands this kind of attention. It requires acknowledging multiple truths at once: that the Islamic Republic is deeply repressive, that geopolitical conflicts shape how its actions are perceived, and that Iranian voices cannot be reduced to external narratives. Above all, it requires resisting the impulse to use human suffering as evidence in unrelated political arguments. Because when attention is conditional and when suffering is recognized only if it aligns with existing beliefs, it ceases to be empathy. It becomes selective engagement. And in that moment, Sontag's warning becomes unavoidable. If looking changes nothing, if it merely reinforces what viewers already believe, then the image is not an appeal. It becomes a mirror, and we learn to admire our own reflection while the world continues to burn beyond the frame. That is the moment witnessing fails. That is when we cease to be participants in a shared moral world and become something lesser—eyes open, hearts absent, watching devastation unfold without ever stepping inside it, and calling it awareness. Photo Source: flickr by Ted Eytan

Every time someone calls criminal justice a vital institution to democracy, I remember the ghastly sight of someone being pulled aside and getting beaten up by the police in Ventimiglia. It reminds me of the widespread bias, racism, and xenophobia that still corrupt our society; the same discrimination that lies but a few few kilometers away from us. < Back On Being Racially Profiled in Ventimiglia By Ishan Naithani January 30, 2022 Racial profiling has been a long-standing issue, be it at an airport, train station, or police checkpoint. Despite seeping into the national dialogue, this topic remains very controversial. Understanding racial profiling requires the use of a working definition. For the purpose of this article, I define racial profiling as the law enforcement practice of using race, ethnicity, national origin, or religious appearance, among other factors, to determine which people are suspicious enough to warrant police stops, questions, frisks, searches, and other routine police practices. Racial profiling, a violation of fundamental civil liberties, is not only morally objectionable and ineffective, but also undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system and instills distrust in targeted populations. As an Indian person of color (POC), I have experienced some of these morally objectionable elements of biased policing at the Franco-Italian border. I have always had to carry my passport and my student card to leave and reenter France. The feeling of being singled out by the border police and getting interrogated is often quite humiliating. In one instance, my first week in France, I remember going from Menton to Ventimiglia when I had an unnerving experience with the border police. I was the only person standing on Platform B (the side opposing the train station), waiting for the train to arrive. Oddly enough, I saw a group of three French policemen running towards me, screaming from the other side “attends là.” When they came to the platform where I stood, they disrespectfully asked me to show my passport and to tell them where I was heading. They also asked me to open my bag for an inspection. As I opened my bag, one of the officers noticed my Sciences Po hoodie (what a clutch). At that moment, their demeanor changed completely. They not only told me that my passport and bag were not needed anymore, but also wished me “un bon voyage.” Biased inspections keep happening — I am singled out, asked to prove my identity, interrogated about the reasons for my border crossing, and treated without courtesy — despite belonging in a group of people from the same university. While my experience is certainly harrowing, it is also humbling. Unlike me, most other persons of color, who are disproportionately victims of racial profiling, rarely know to use their right to demand a reason for apprehension from a police officer. Unlike me, ethnic minorities may not have a Sciences Po hoodie to save them. Every time someone calls criminal justice a vital institution to democracy, I remember the ghastly sight of someone being pulled aside and getting beaten up by the police in Ventimiglia. It reminds me of the widespread bias, racism, and xenophobia that still corrupt our society; the same discrimination that lies but a few few kilometers away from us. Racial profiling points towards discriminatory attitudes within legal institutions like law enforcement, and it reveals a deeply entrenched norm of systemic racism in today’s societies. It is challenging to eradicate racism inherent to every major institution, which is why we must go beyond understanding individual acts of racism. Non-discriminatory law enforcement is also aided by the recruitment and retention of officers from varied backgrounds, who are more reflective of the community they serve. This enhanced representation can alter organizational culture and staff attitudes, which is predicted to result in less biased decision-making. The real problem posed by racial profiling is that law enforcement authorities often violate domestic and international legal principles, like non-discrimination and the right to equal legal treatment. Furthermore, data indicates that racial profiling is ineffective as a law enforcement technique and should be replaced. Racial profiling is not a new trend, but it definitely can not continue to be the status quo. Whether through discussions with civil society representatives and the media, or by creating large-scale shifts in socio-political attitudes, racial profiling can be reversed in Ventimiglia and beyond. And because it can, it must.

Dans la publication précédente du Menton Times, nous avons revu un peu la manière dont le kirchnerisme utilise la mémoire de la dictature militaire (1976-1983) pour son propre bénéfice. Cependant, le kirchnerisme n'a pas été le seul mouvement politique à instrumentaliser la mémoire de la dernière dictature à des fins politiques. < Back Argentina 1985 - partie 2 By Amalia Heide February 29, 2024 Dans la publication précédente du Menton Times , nous avons revu un peu la manière dont le kirchnerisme utilise la mémoire de la dictature militaire (1976-1983) pour son propre bénéfice. Cependant, le kirchnerisme n'a pas été le seul mouvement politique à instrumentaliser la mémoire de la dernière dictature à des fins politiques. Le 24 mars 2017, jour férié pour commémorer le début de la dictature, des membres du parti de centre-droit "Juntos por el cambio" ont stratégiquement décidé de publier une image sur les médias sociaux avec une pancarte sur laquelle on pouvait lire : " Nunca más al negocio de los derechos humanos, Nunca más a la interrupción del orden democratico " (Plus jamais de business des droits humains, plus jamais d'interruption de l'ordre démocratique). Une fois de plus, le slogan "plus jamais ça" est utilisé pour délégitimer l'adversaire politique qui, dans ce cas, se situe au sein du mouvement kirchneriste. Accompagnant les photos, ils ont publié un communiqué dans lequel ils affirment que : "Les droits humains n'appartiennent pas à un gouvernement ou à un parti politique, et ne doivent pas être utilisés à des fins personnelles; ils sont universels et appartiennent à l'ensemble du peuple argentin. C'est pourquoi nous soutenons que les droits humains n'ont pas de propriétaire." La campagne condamne le kirchnerisme pour avoir exploité le rôle de gardien de la mémoire du terrorisme d'État de 1976 à 1983 à des fins personnelles. Cela suggère une contradiction entre la politique commémorative kirchneriste et l'adhésion pratique aux principes de respect des droits de l'homme. Indépendamment de l'exactitude de ce portrait, il lie directement le kirchnérisme à des éléments qui rappellent la dictature. Le choix délibéré du 24 mars pour lancer cette campagne politique contre le kirchnérisme n'est pas une coïncidence. Dans son tristement célèbre discours inaugural de la junte militaire argentine (24/03/1976), juste après le coup d'État, le dictateur Videla a déclaré : "Pour nous, le respect des droits de l'homme ne découle pas seulement du mandat de la loi ou des déclarations internationales, mais (...) de la dignité prééminente de l'homme en tant que valeur fondamentale, et c'est précisément pour garantir la protection des droits naturels de l'homme que nous exerçons toute notre autorité". Tout comme Videla justifiant la défense des droits humains pour mettre en œuvre un régime autoritaire et répressif, le kirchnerisme, selon ce mouvement politique de droite, viserait un régime illibéral et populiste en utilisant une rhétorique comparable. Cette campagne politique implique également un appel à l'État pour qu'il maintienne un engagement apolitique ou neutre vis-à-vis du passé. En discréditant les kirchneristes, le parti de centre-droit se positionne comme un acteur neutre et, par conséquent, revendique la légitimité de construire et de diffuser un récit alternatif au sein de la société civile argentine. Cela lui permettrait d'élargir sa base électorale. En effet, une partie de la population argentine souhaite être représentée par une mémoire officielle plus complète et inclusive reconnaissant les actions militaires et de guérilla comme des crimes et des victimes: une mémoire prenant en compte la théorie des deux démons. Cependant, l'instrumentalisation de la mémoire de la dictature par Juntos por el cambio n'a pas changé de manière significative. Elle suit le même modèle narratif que le kirchnerisme: l'ennemi principal reste l'armée, même si elle reconnaît d'autres violations des droits de l'homme commises par d'autres groupes tels que la gauche révolutionnaire. La seule différence est que le kirchnerisme le manipule contre la droite et que la droite le manipule contre le kirchnerisme. Ce n'est pas le cas de l'extrême droite. Le mouvement libertaire dirigé par Milei a fait preuve d'astuce dans l'utilisation de la mémoire de la dictature. Il a redéfini de manière significative la dynamique "nous" contre "eux". Contrairement au point de vue conventionnel depuis le rétablissement de la démocratie en 1983, la faction politique de Milei identifie les "terroristes de la guérilla" plutôt que les militaires comme étant l'ennemi. Ce changement narratif s'appuie sur le livre influent " Los Otros Muertos- Las víctimas civiles del terrorismo guerrillero de los 70 " (Les autres morts - les victimes civiles du terrorisme de la guérilla dans les années 70). Ce volume a été co-écrit par Victoria Villarruel et publié en 2016. Dans son travail, l'actuelle vice-présidente argentine procède à un examen historique des victimes des organisations terroristes de gauche telles que les Montoneros et l' ERP (Armée révolutionnaire du peuple). Ces groupes ont mené des attaques civiles et des enlèvements de la fin des années 60 à la fin des années 70, faisant face à une sévère répression sous la dictature. En s'appuyant sur ces faits historiques, Villarruel critique l'interprétation "mythique" et/ou "héroïque" du militantisme révolutionnaire de gauche faite par les kirchneristes, affirmant que présenter les guerrilleros comme des martyrs n'est pas conforme à la vérité historique. En outre, dans une interview accordée à Infobae en 2021, elle déclare : " Des centaines de terroristes ont été réintégrés dans le pays et font désormais partie des trois branches de l'État , adoptant des lois qui les protègent. Je me demande comment les terroristes peuvent accéder au pouvoir et décider de l'avenir des personnes qu'ils ont attaquées " De plus, dans une autre entretien avec La Nacion en 2021, Villarruel ajoute : "Je crois que l'un des grands succès du terrorisme a été de garantir son impunité en réécrivant le passé pour nous tous, en effaçant ses victimes de l'histoire. (La Nación, 2021). Dans ce récit simplifié à l'extrême, les victimes du terrorisme d'État entre 1976 et 1983 sont synonymes de "guérilla terroriste". En d'autres termes, si des personnes ont été torturées et tuées pendant la dictature, il y a de fortes chances qu'il s'agisse de terroristes. Dans cette logique, les militants des droits de l'homme qui ont émergé après la dictature pour plaider en faveur de la reconnaissance des victimes de la répression de l'État sont considérés comme des acteurs ou des complices de cette guérilla terroriste. Comme nous l'avons vu, le kirchnerisme a fait de la défense et de la représentation des victimes de la répression militaire un axe central de son identité politique. La faction politique de Milei l'exploite habilement contre le kirchnerisme, en présentant l'aile gauche comme faisant partie de l'élite et d'une "caste politique" immunisée qu'il faut éradiquer du pouvoir pour protéger les institutions démocratiquesÉtant donné que ces "terroristes" sont censés avoir infiltré les institutions de l'État par le biais du kirchnérisme, ce dernier et les institutions démocratiques de l'État sont considérés comme impurs, corrompus et partiaux. L'articulation de ce récit a été au cœur de la campagne présidentielle de Milei, jouant un rôle dans le discrédit et l'érosion de la légitimité du kirchnérisme. D'autre part, le 1er octobre 2023, lors du premier débat présidentiel, Milei a repris à son compte les déclarations de l'amiral Emilio Massera, membre éminent de la junte militaire, lors de son discours de défense dans les procès de 1985 : Milei : " Dans les années 1970, il y a eu une guerre, et dans cette guerre, les forces de l'État ont commis des excès ” Massera en 1985 : " Tout ce que je sais, c'est qu'il y a eu ici une guerre entre les forces légales, et que là où il y a eu des excès, il s'agissait de débordements exceptionnels. " En tant qu'outsider politique cherchant à attirer l'attention du public, Milei opte stratégiquement pour le terme "excès" au lieu de "terrorisme d'État" afin de créer un impact médiatique. Cette utilisation délibérée d'un langage moins critique à l'égard des actions des militaires vise à les réhabiliter. Rares sont les aspects de la mémoire de la dictature sur lesquels les Argentins s'accordent. L'un d'entre eux est la gravité et l'inexcusabilité d'actes tels que les disparitions forcées, les assassinats et les enlèvements d'enfants par les militaires.La déclaration de Milei représente un défi direct au consensus social établi en Argentine. Cette déviation du consensus social génère une commotion médiatique qui sert l'objectif de Milei de capter l'attention du grand public. Bien que l'utilisation d'un récit aussi provocateur puisse sembler contre-productive pour la campagne politique de Milei, ce dernier a démontré que ce changement dans le discours public a captivé l'intérêt de la population. En effet, sa capacité à présenter des perspectives totalement contraires au statu quo dans toutes les sphères de la société a joué un rôle essentiel dans son ascension à la présidence. À l'instar de Nestor Kirchner au début des années 2000, Milei vise à regagner la confiance de l'électorat en introduisant un nouveau modèle et en façonnant une mémoire différente du passé qui remet en question les récits officiels. Rien ne peut choquer et défier davantage les Kirchneristes que la réhabilitation du terrorisme d'État sous la dernière dictature.

Every Olympic Games opens with a patriotic parade featuring all the athletes, each team entering the stadium waving their national flag. At the 2026 Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics, the United States of America athlete delegation was greeted with cheers and applause. However, when the cameras cut to Vice President JD Vance in the stands, the audience’s sounds of support quickly morphed into prolonged boos and jeers. < Back American Patriotism at the Milan Olympics in the Age of Trump Rose Harrill April 1, 2026 Every Olympic Games opens with a patriotic parade featuring all the athletes, each team entering the stadium waving their national flag. At the 2026 Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics, the United States of America athlete delegation was greeted with cheers and applause. However, when the cameras cut to Vice President JD Vance in the stands, the audience’s sounds of support quickly morphed into prolonged boos and jeers. This negative response to the American Vice President reflects the current sense of unease generally held by most Europeans in regards to the Trump Administration and its foreign policy. During President Donald Trump’s second term, there has been a clear shift in U.S. policy, marked by aggressive attempts to annex Greenland, tensions with NATO and wavering support for Ukraine. Europeans now appear to be not only overwhelmingly distrustful and scrutinous of the U.S. government, but seemingly symbols of American patriotism as well. And it’s not only Europeans that feel this way, many Americans themselves are increasingly unhappy with the current Trump administration. American athletes are now caught between previous expectations of uncritical patriotism during the Olympics, with politicians like JD Vance instructing them to just “play their sport” and not “pop off about politics”, and a new reality in which both global audiences, as well as many Americans, question what the flag truly represents. The controversy surrounding the Trump Administration and the Olympics worsened after the U.S. men’s hockey team won gold for the first time in 46 years. A video quickly surfaced online of the team receiving a congratulatory phone call from President Trump. During this call they laughed along to a seemingly misogynistic joke made by the President as he claimed he would “have to” invite the gold medal winning women’s hockey team to the White House as well. The men’s hockey team ultimately accepted the invite and attended President Trump’s State of the Union address, which was viewed as a heavily politicized event. The U.S. men’s hockey team has faced significant backlash following the circulation of these videos. The players have been labelled as sexist and degrading, and have been criticized for not standing up to President Trump when he made inappropriate comments. They’ve received even further condemnation for accepting the President’s invitation to the White House. Historically, it is quite common for gold medal winning American athletes to accept congratulatory phone calls from the President, or to even visit the White House. But in this political climate, everything is polarized. Whether intentional or not, these celebrations now carry a political weight. Proximity to President Trump or the White House can be easily seen as an endorsement of his policies. So this begs the question: how are American athletes supposed to navigate patriotism in this political climate? Are they still simply playing on behalf of their nation, or do they now serve as direct representatives of their government and the President? As public figures, is it their job to stand up for what’s “right”? There is a blurred boundary emerging now that didn’t exist previously. When asked about the U.S. men’s hockey team’s decision to visit the White House, star player Jack Hughes enthusiastically declared their excitement. “Yeah, we’re excited,” he said . “Everything is so political. We’re athletes. We’re so proud to represent the U.S. When you get the chance to go to the White House and meet the President, we’re proud to be Americans, and that’s so patriotic. No matter what your views are, we’re super excited to go to the White House.” For Hughes, and the rest of the men’s hockey team, it seems that patriotism is represented through unwavering support for your country despite its faults. However, for many other athletes, patriotism seems to mean dissent when necessary, as love for your country does not have to mean it is exempt from criticism. In fact, sometimes loving your country means you have an obligation to fight for it when you disagree with what it’s doing. The U.S. women’s hockey team, for example, declined President Trump’s invitation to the White House. When asked what it’s like to represent the U.S. in the Olympics given its current political situation, freestyle skier Hunter Hess responded that it brings up “mixed emotions” and is “a little hard” for him. “There’s obviously a lot going on that I’m not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren’t,” he said . “ Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.” U.S. figure skater Amber Glenn, who identifies as queer, also criticized President Trump at the Games, stating that she will not visit the White House either following her team’s gold medal, as his administration has made it “a hard time for the [LGBTQ+] community.” This dissent from American athletes towards the President and his administration during these Games marks a stark contrast from the political climate during the 2024 Olympics in Paris. In the summer of 2024, Joe Biden was the President of the United States and Kamala Harris’ campaign for presidency was taking the country by storm. Discussion surrounding American politics will always occur on some level at prominent international events like the Olympics, but in Paris it was taking place on a much smaller scale. The Biden administration was considered to be much more aligned with the traditional democratic values of the U.S., so American athlete activism was typically more focused on widespread social issues and international conflicts than targeted at the White House specifically. Now, coverage in the U.S. of the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics has seemingly been dominated by political commentary and statements from American athletes on the situation within their country. There’s been a significant decline in unbolstered patriotism from fans as well. Many Americans now feel uneasy about waving the flag as defiantly as before. The culture of being an American athlete has changed dramatically as the political climate in the U.S. has grown more tense and polarized. Representing the U.S. now holds a different weight, leaving athletes at a crossroads. Do they succumb to the Trump administration’s definition of patriotism – blind loyalty to the country with a priority for a unified appearance above all else? Or, do they dictate that true patriotism and love for one’s country is rooted in the ability to criticize it and the determination to fix its flaws? Photo source: WikiCommons

Il est temps de s’attaquer à la rhétorique macroniste quant à la soit disante nécessaire réforme des retraites. < Back Déconstruction de la Pensée Dominante: l’Exemple de la Réforme des Retraites By Ilyès Mesbah February 28, 2023 Avant de commencer cet article, j’ai longuement hésité quant à la tournure que je lui donnerais. Comment convaincre mes cher(e)s camarades de se détacher de la pensée dominante, des arguments néo-libéraux qui sont si bien rodés et qui semblent être naturels, voire logiques ? Avant même d'énumérer les éléments de langage de la majorité, je tiens à expliquer ce qui me pousse, Ilyès Mesbah, à m’opposer frontalement à la réforme des retraites ainsi qu’à la logique qui se cache derrière. Depuis mon plus jeune âge, j’ai vu mon père partir au travail aux aurores pour rentrer aux alentours de 18h, et ce, du lundi au samedi. Il rentre toujours avec une tête fatiguée, des mains lacérées par son travail dans les champs, le dos courbé à peine capable de prendre une douche et de se reposer. Si je vous raconte cela, ce n’est pas pour me morfondre sur mon sort ou celui de mon père mais bien pour illustrer une réalité sociale trop souvent oubliée. Des exemples de ce type, il en existe des millions en France, alors quand on nous explique qu’il va falloir travailler deux ans de plus quand ce même gouvernement à supprimer la taxe d’habitation représentant un manque à gagner de 18 milliards d’euros par an pour l’Etat, autant dire que nous, enfants d’ouvriers, nous ne pouvons accepter cela. Il est temps de s’attaquer à la rhétorique macroniste quant à la soit disante nécessaire réforme des retraites. Selon Gabriel Attal “c’est la réforme ou la faillite”. Ah bon ? Le premier argument du gouvernement repose sur les prédictions du CORE (le Conseil d’Orientation des Retraites). Dans ce cas, qui de mieux pour les expliquer que le directeur du CORE. Pierre-Louis Bras explique en commission des lois que dans trois hypothèses sur quatre les dépenses de retraites sont stables et diminuent à très long terme. Néanmoins, dans un des scénarios, les dépenses augmentent “sans augmenter de manière très très importante”. En effet, il paraît cohérent de s’aligner sur le scénario le plus pessimiste mais pourquoi le faire encore une fois sur le dos des plus précaires ? Un autre élément qui a été martelé par la majorité, a été de dire que l'espérance de vie en bonne santé augmente et que par conséquent nous devons travailler plus longtemps. Cet argument, en plus d’être faux, reflète la déconnexion totale de certains parlementaires et de la réalité sociale de notre pays. La direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques explique qu' en 2016, l’espérance de vie en bonne santé, c’est-à-dire le nombre d’années qu’une personne peut compter vivre sans souffrir d’incapacité dans les gestes de la vie quotidienne, s’élève en France à 64,1 ans pour les femmes et à 62,7 ans pour les hommes.” Un argument renforcé par les sorties de Darmanin affirmant qu’il comprend la douleur des français puisque sa mère femme de ménage va aussi subir cette réforme (la rémunération des ministres en net est de 8400e…). Ainsi, le déplacement de l’âge de la retraite de 62 à 64 ans mène à des économies considérables puisque les personnes les plus précaires seront déjà soit mortes, soit incapables de travailler jusqu’à cet âge et bénéficieront donc d’une pension plus faible. Ce cynisme est d’autant plus douloureux que la majorité a récemment fait voter une baisse de la durée de l’assurance-chômage de 25% lorsque le chômage est inférieur à 9%. Pour couronner le tout, Renaissance se targue d'avoir fait baisser le chômage alors qu’il compte dans ses statistiques les micros-entreprises (incluant par exemple des jeunes qui travaillent en extras quelques mois dans l’année) mais aussi et surtout en radiant de plus en plus de chômeurs de pôle emploi. Cette précision est importante puisque rappelant que le taux d’emploi des séniors de 55 à 64 ans n’est que de 56% selon la Dares. Cela signifie donc qu’une grande partie des séniors ne cotisent plus à cet âge, survivons grâce aux aides sociales aussi grandement réduites sous les quinquennats de Macron. De plus, le gouvernement a aussi tenté de tacler les propositions de l’opposition (la vraie, pas celle des racistes) en acculant la Nupes de vouloir augmenter les charges sur les artisans et les ouvriers. Cela relève soit du déni, soit de la manipulation lorsque l’on sait qu’une des propositions a par exemple été d’augmenter les cotisations sociales (et non pas les charges sociales) de 2,5e ce qui permettrait de financer le déficit. En soi, ce genre de questions n’auraient même pas eu besoin de se poser si le gouvernement n’avait pas supprimer la CVAE (environ 8 milliards), l’ISF et mis en place la flat tax (4 milliards par an) sans citer toutes les autres mesures qui réduisent les recettes et donc la qualité des services publiques et des aides sociales. Toutefois, l’âme socialiste des macronistes semblent resurgir en nous répétant sans cesse que leur objectif est de maintenir le système de retraite par répartition. Comment croire ce gouvernement qui depuis le début s’inscrit dans la logique marchande et qui aujourd’hui, soudainement et pour l'intérêt des français refuse la capitalisation. Or cette réforme favorise la capitalisation puisque si les français conçoivent que leurs retraites seront amoindries il faudra bien trouver une autre solution. Plus haut, j’ai mentionné l’opposition en carton du rassemblement national soit disant pour le peuple. Rappelant quand même que Renaissance et le Rassemblement national se sont alliés à de multiples reprises contre l’augmentation du SMIC, la revalorisation des retraites au niveau du smic, la suppression des aides publiques aux entreprises qui ont augmenté les dividendes aux actionnaires sans augmenter leurs salariés. Ce n’est pas tout :le RN a aussi refusé d’appeler à manifester contre la réforme des retraites et ne fait que semblant de s’opposer avec un peu plus de 200 amendements proposés (c’est moins que la majorité…). Alors oui, que certaines personnes acculées par le travail et n’ayant pas la chance de s’informer correctement votent pour le Rassemblement National me dérange mais je les comprends. Toutefois, que des Sciences Pistes censé être l’élite de la nation corroborent avec un discours de haine, de fake-news et qui légitiment ça par le discours pseudo-social du Rassemblement National me dégoute. En effet, s’informer par les médias est important et nécessaire mais allez plus loin et regardez ce qu’il se passe réellement dans l'hémicycle. Encore aujourd’hui, le Rassemblement National et Renaissance s'applaudissent mutuellement, comme quoi le capital et le fascisme s’allient toujours. Alors si vous être contre la réforme des retraites, contre le modèle néo-libéral que j’ai en partie décrit et que vous n’êtes ni raciste, ni sexiste, ni xenophobe, je vous invite à aller dans la rue, qui a toujours été le meilleur moyen pour porter des revendications sociales à ce qui ont tout et qui nous demandent à nous de faire des efforts.

Si la guerre en Afghanistan a montré que vaincre des terroristes islamistes dans des terrains montagneux est un objectif difficile à atteindre, la Seconde Guerre mondiale nous rappelle que, lorsque la guerre est inévitable, il vaut mieux la mener tant que l’on dispose d’une supériorité militaire écrasante et ne pas céder aux menaces des extrémistes. < Back Attaques des Houthis en mer Rouge : une escalade est-elle inévitable? By Jonathan Smidtas Schalita January 31, 2024 Les Houthis refont parler d’eux. Alors que le monde semblait les avoir oubliés, ces acteurs de la chaotique guerre au Yémen ont détourné le 19 novembre un navire et pris en otage ses 25 membres d’équipage. Ils multiplient les tirs de missiles et de drones sur des navires marchands en mer Rouge et ont ciblé une frégate française le 9 décembre. Les impacts de ces attaques sont importants, tant sur le plan économique que politique, et une nouvelle intervention occidentale se dessine dans la région. Les Houthis, groupe rebelle chiite en conflit avec le gouvernement yéménite depuis les années 2000, ont montré leur puissance avec la conquête de la capitale Sanaa en 2014. L’intervention d'une coalition menée par l'Arabie Saoudite en 2015 n’a pas réussi à éliminer la menace posée par les Houthis, et a entraîné une catastrophe humanitaire du fait, notamment, du blocus saoudien. Soutenus par l'Iran, les Houthis se positionnent dans un "axe de la résistance" anti-occidental et anti-israélien, avec un slogan marquant leur idéologie islamiste terroriste : “Dieu est le plus grand, Mort à l’Amérique, Mort à Israël, Malédiction sur les Juifs, victoire à l’Islam” Dans le contexte de la guerre opposant Israël au Hamas, les Houthis ont lancé des missiles et des drones en direction du territoire israélien, mais ces attaques ont été contrées, tantôt par les forces israéliennes, américaines et saoudiennes, les missiles et drones violant parfois l’espace aérien saoudien. À ce jour, elles n’ont pas entrainé de riposte israélienne, qui est davantage préoccupé par les opérations militaires à Gaza contre le Hamas et à la frontière libanaise contre le Hezbollah, deux groupes alliés aux Houthis. L’Arabie Saoudite n’a pas non répliqué, le pays craignant une escalade alors qu’une trêve est observée depuis plusieurs mois avec les Houthis, qui disposent d’un arsenal capable de frapper durement les infrastructures civiles et pétrolières saoudiennes. Les attaques contre des navires en mer perturbent gravement le commerce maritime, qui pour 40% transite par la mer Rouge. Elles ont conduit plusieurs armateurs à emprunter le Cap de Bonne-Espérance en longeant les côtes africaines plutôt que d’emprunter la mer Rouge pour rejoindre la Méditerranée en passant par le canal de Suez. Les trajets sont plus longs et donc plus coûteux. Les primes d’assurance sur les navires empruntant la mer Rouge ont également fortement augmenté, ce qui entraînant un surcoût considérable pour les livraisons. Tout cela provoque des retards de livraison et une augmentation des coûts de transport, rappelant à certains égards la crise logistique du blocage du canal de Suez en 2021. L'Égypte est peut-être le pays qui risque le plus d’être déstabilisé par les actions des Houthis. Elle dépend grandement des revenus du canal de Suez, qui assure le passage entre la mer Méditerranée et la mer Rouge. Le canal lui a rapporté plus de huit milliards d’euros sur l’année fiscale précédente. Le pays est plongé dans une crise économique aiguë, avec une inflation à près de 40% et une dette qui ne cesse de se creuser. La perte de ces rentrées fiscales pourrait avoir des impacts désastreux sur un pays faisant face à de nombreux défis. Conscient des enjeux sous-jacents aux attaques d es Houthis, les États-Unis ont mis en place une coalition afin de défendre le commerce en mer Rouge. À l’heure où ces lignes sont écrites, une dizaine de pays l’ont rejointe. Pour l’instant, cette coalition se contente de détruire les missiles et les drones envoyés par les Houthis contre des navires. Cependant, la disproportion des coûts entre les moyens d'attaque des Houthis et les systèmes de défense de la coalition soulève des questions sur l'efficacité et la viabilité financière d'une telle réponse. Un drone Shahed iranien, utilisé par les Houthis, coûte environ 20 000 dollars alors qu’un missile antiaérien Aster de fabrication franco-italienne se chiffre à plus d’un million d’euros. Dans un article paru le 3 janvier, Le Canard enchaîné révèle que la France envisage sérieusement une opération militaire offensive contre les Houthis au Yémen. Le président Macron aurait déclaré à des proches qu’ « il est probable q u’on ne se limitera pas à des actions défensives». Une interventio n militaire risque d'avoir des conséquences imprévues sur une région déjà instable. Dans le même temps, les chancelleries occidentales sont dans l’impossibilité de laisser les Houthis continuer à perturber l’économie mondiale et à constituer un foyer de déstabilisation dans la région. Il n’est pas impossible qu’une concentration importante de troupes au large des côtes du Yémen couplée à des menaces directes vis-à-vis de l’Iran, qui est le principal soutien des Houthis, puissent convaincre les Houthis de cesser leurs attaques et qu’une désescalade s’enclenche. Cependant, il convient de s’interroger sur l’intérêt de cette dernière. Cela permettrait à l’Iran de continuer à renforcer l’arsenal des Houthis, déjà capables de provoquer d’importantes nuisances. Dans la perspective d’une escalade future avec l’Iran, un scénario plausible, il serait dans l’intérêt des États-Unis et de leurs alliés d’éliminer auparavant les milices pro-iraniennes présentes au Moyen-Orient. La guerre opposant Israël au Hamas à Gaza aboutira vraisemblablement à la neutralisation du potentiel militaire du groupe palestinien. Si la guerre de basse intensité opposant Israël au Hezbollah le long de la frontière libanaise s’intensifie, cela pourrait mener à la destruction des capacités offensives de l’organisation terroriste libanaise à moyen terme. La voie serait alors ouverte à une attaque contre les sites nucléaires de l’Iran qui continue son programme de développement nucléaire en dépit des sanctions occidentales. Les capacités de représailles de ce dernier seront somme toute limitées. Néanmoins, deux freins subsistent à toute opération offensive majeure contre les Houthis. D’abord, les opinions publiques pacifiques des pays occidentaux, qui ne souhaitent pas voir leurs pays s’engager dans une nouvelle guerre au Moyen-Orient. Ensuite, les capacités militaires limitées des États-Unis et de leurs alliés, qui doivent dans le même temps renforcer leur présence en Europe de l’Est et du Nord face à la Russie et en Asie-Pacifique face à la Chine, ainsi que soutenir l’Ukraine en lui fournissant du matériel militaire. Si la guerre en Afghanistan a montré que vaincre des terroristes islamistes dans des terrains montagneux est un objectif difficile à atteindre, la Seconde Guerre mondiale nous rappelle que, lorsque la guerre est inévitable, il vaut mieux la mener tant que l’on dispose d’une supériorité militaire écrasante et ne pas céder aux menaces des extrémistes.

American institutions, with their extravagant and perhaps even saccharine student services, at least appear to care about the wellbeing of their students. Sciences Po does not bother to pretend. Coasting off the inertia of its illustrious household name and impenetrable reputation, the institution knows it can afford to neglect its students. As a result, disillusionment is endemic to Sciences Pistes. < Back ‘L’Élite de la Nation’ Experience Sciences Po Disenchantment By Lara-Nour Walton December 30, 2021 Unlike its American counterparts, Sciences Po does not offer Guided Self-Compassion Meditation, Low Lounge DIY Crafts, or Vinyasa Yoga. The French scoff at excesses such as these. Accordingly, nobody comes to Sciences Po to be coddled. But American institutions, with their extravagant and perhaps even saccharine student services, at least appear to care about the wellbeing of their students. Sciences Po does not bother to pretend. Coasting off the inertia of its illustrious household name and impenetrable reputation, the institution knows it can afford to neglect its students. As a result, disillusionment is endemic to Sciences Pistes. Expectations for a school that churns out greats like Veil, Proust, and Dior are high. In fact, the Sciences Po student body is dubbed by the French populace as “ l’élite de la nation. ” However, the public perception of the institution often feels disjointed from reality. How can Sciences Po be training the nation’s future elites with a quality of education that, according to an anonymous Reims campus 1A, feels “worse than high school?” “I really don’t find the classes that difficult or fascinating,” continues the Reims 1A “The education is very superficial…” One of the most common educational grievances among the student body is the lack of standardization, not only between French and English sections, but also amongst different teachers within the respective tracks. Menton English track first year, Gayle Krest, wrote her history final about the similarities between the 1848 European Revolutions and the Arab Spring because her teacher is known to evaluate on the basis of originality: “If he is bored by your essay he will give you a lower grade.” Another 1A English track, who wishes to remain anonymous, had a wildly different experience in her History of the 19th Century class. Her teacher graded on historiographical knowledge. “I was encouraged to rely heavily on the opinions of the scholars we learned about,” she said. “[My history course] didn’t always push me to critically think about the topics. I was rewarded more for remembering the names of scholars than I was for having actual opinions.” The stark inconsistencies between both history teachers’ grading criteria is a microcosm of Sciences Po’s irregular and disorganized educational structure. “When exams come around you don’t know who is going to grade your (work). So you have no clue what methodology to use,” lamented the Reims 1A, “It creates so much ambiguity.” But ambiguity and structural disorder does not necessarily hinder one from securing a valuable education. What can serve as educational impediments, however, are incompetent and disinformed professors. According to Menton English track 1A, Angela Saab Saade, Sciences Po faculty is a mixed bag. “Some of the instructors are very qualified, others not so much,” said Saab Saade. Başak Üstün, a first year student at the same campus and track as Saab Saade, worries about the caliber of her professors at Sciences Po. Üstün said, “I learned very little this semester. Many of my teachers offered me no guidance or actual instruction. Often, we do not know the general framework for essay writing and the feedback that we receive later is not constructive.” The Reims 1A’s experience at her campus demonstrates that this is not limited to Menton, as even in Reims, “the instructors are not as experienced as they should be. How can they help their students if they’re confused about what they are doing?” The cross-campus similarities also reside in the administrative failure to meet campus needs. An English track 1A was “feeling terrible [mentally] during finals week.” Contemplating self harm, the student sought out mental health support from the school psychologist. They agreed to meet before his history final. But, when he arrived at his appointment, the psychologist was not in her office. “I got an email after my exam saying that she could not be there at that time and that she could meet in January,” he said. Such neglect amply demonstrates that the administration offers help as theater rather than out of true concern for student wellbeing. “If Sciences Po wants to retain that privilege of being an elite institution they need to deliver. They can’t do everything in service of their image because that comes at the expense of student life and education,” said Saab Saade. The appalling events that took place at Le Havre earlier this month serve as even further proof that these administrative shortcomings exist beyond the boundaries of campus alone. You can read more about the situation at Le Havre in the article written by Celeste Abourjeili.

Art has become the playground of impostors and also a means to escape taxes. Everything must be immediate and, most importantly, one arm away reachable. The greater threat was not totalitarianism, as Orwell thought, but the irremediable attraction of the immediate and the always reachable, as Huxley proposed in his dystopia, Brave New World. We are definitely not that far from that. < Back The mediocratization of the world Amer El-Ibrahim March 31, 2025 This article will be dedicated to an idea that has been remarkably captured in Mario Vargas Llosa’s book-” The Civilization of the Spectacle”, a literary masterpiece that deserves far more recognition than it had received. Dealing with a critical issue of contemporaneity, that of the decline of culture in its pure sense, this is a manifesto against the status quo of our times. The book's main point is that the word “culture” lost its previously high standards interlinked with engaging in literature, philosophy and the arts , and has become something much more semantically ambiguous. The word “culture” is now interlinked with a number of topics unrelated to its original sense, such as Cancel Culture, to name one of them. Subsequently, the previous definition of culture could be called in today’s terms high culture. This cleavage shows the transformation this word had through the decades and thus the greater implications outside semantics this implies. Progress and empowerment always come at a cost, and only through analyzing this cost can one decide whether it is better to reform or to maintain what still exists. For example, when planes were invented and massively produced, that was considered a major leap for humanity since transport became faster than ever before. But this innovation utterly tainted the inviolable and quasi-mystical flight of the dove; if humans manage to fly too, then all “magic” related to such a bird is lost forever. The same could be said about the number of published books. Each year, more and more books are published, thus making it harder for a good book to prevail in a sea of market-oriented books that tackle immediate subjects. That could be an explanation for the fact that almost all the classics we learn about in school are long-dead. This was also the case for the huge empowerment the middle class saw after WWII, especially in Europe. As part of its aftermath, the whole continent saw a drastic change in the quality of life of the average man, with the introduction of modern housing with electricity and sewage systems, more jobs on the market, higher literacy rates, and stronger welfare states. The elitism, both cultural and material, of the ancienne regimes was now eliminated, and workers finally had a voice. But at what price was this accomplished? With this empowerment of the middle class, however historically needed and sought after it might have been, came about the end of the so-called “high culture.” This democratization of society, as in a microrevolution from below against the traditional hierarchies that existed, even in authoritarian regimes such as those in Eastern Europe, was not limited only to the political sphere. Culture was naturally affected as well. The gradual rise of access to television and to newspapers lowered the quality of the produced content to mere entertainment. The worker, after all, wants to relax after his long working hours, and what was an easier way to do so other than through some good old-fashioned, cheap and immediate entertainment? Intellectual depth of any kind is now absent on any major news channel. Journalism, currently, is very much plagued by scandals and gossip, and not on a small scale. There are always people, see Murdoch, who capitalise on these very human needs for entertainment and immediate gratification. Contemporary literature is, similarly, plagued by the law of supply and demand, as I have mentioned above. . Art has become the playground of impostors and also a means to escape taxes. Everything must be immediate and, most importantly, one arm away reachable. The greater threat was not totalitarianism, as Orwell thought, but the irremediable attraction of the immediate and the always reachable, as Huxley proposed in his dystopia, Brave New World . We are definitely not that far from that. On an ending note, the easiest way to actually get a grip on this decline is by analysing how journalism, specifically, evolved. Specifically, because newspapers catch almost perfectly the Zeitgeist of an era. Thus, one could open any mainstream news outlet, such as The Guardian or The New York Times and read any article there and compare it with those of any newspaper from the 20s, 30s, or 40s. A very quick analysis would highlight that les anciennes did not just report on x events—they were not just simple accountants of facts, stern and emotionless. They were active participants in the society they were a part of, fighters for their own ideas and principles, and never afraid to show their opinions on the current events of their world. This tumultuous and never-ending passion, this combativeness that does not settle, this have we forever lost. Photo source: Wikimedia commons

The situation in Northern Ireland threatens the existence of the United Kingdom during what should be a celebration of the Union’s centennial. < Back ‘Till Death Do Us Part: Protests in Northern Ireland Threaten the Existence of the United Kingdom By Hugo Lagergren September 29, 2021 The Issue of Northern Ireland has been at the center of British domestic politics ever since its creation exactly 100 years ago. From the 30-year period of violence and guerrilla warfare dubbed “The Troubles” — which claimed over 3,000 Irish and Northern Irish lives — to the more recent riots caused by the post-Brexit trading arrangement that the United Kingdom agreed to sign, it has become clear that Northern Ireland’s socio-political situation has again become extremely precarious. Many believed that the Good Friday agreement of 1998 had resolved the issues, however, the rapid reemergence of tension post-Brexit show that the Good Friday agreement was a ticking time bomb. The violent nature of the recent protests in Northern Ireland has prompted the UK Government to seek a renegotiation of the Northern Ireland protocol with the European Union. The protocol prevents checks on goods travelling between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and instead introduces checks on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, thus maintaining the soft border which has played a key role in maintaining the fragile peace between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The EU has since stated that it has no intention of renegotiating the protocol. However, it believes a solution can be found within the constraints of the existing protocol, thus creating a new de facto border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The protocol aims to protect the integrity of the EU’s single market, whilst avoiding any form of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which was the central point of tension during The Troubles. Therefore, checks on certain goods, including chilled meats and eggs, were instead introduced between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. While this deal may have appealed to nationalists and republicans, who favor a united Ireland, it simultaneously created a feeling of marginalization and frustration among unionists and loyalists, who believe that Northern Ireland should remain a part of the UK. According to 19-year-old Joel Keys, an emerging loyalist figure, the violence is “all about maintaining [the] right to remain British,” and the physical barrier created by the checks on certain goods passing into Northern Ireland from Great Britain is representative of British feelings towards Northern Ireland. This sense of having been forgotten by the British Establishment is what sparked many of the riots across Northern Ireland. As the EU continues to reject the UK’s renegotiation offers, many Brexiteers have used this as an excuse to blame the EU for what is happening in Northern Ireland. However, this blame is misplaced as the EU has a duty first and foremost to its own members so maintaining a strict policy regarding its high food standards is essential, both for the safety of its citizens and the maintenance of its reputation as a major international player. Any relaxation of custom checks on goods going into Northern Ireland from Great Britain would make it far easier for banned goods, such as chlorinated chicken, to make its way into the European Market. This is a particular risk if Britain agrees a trade deal with the US, which would undoubtedly result in lower food standards in Britain. The EU has, however, made it abundantly clear that it is willing to open a dialogue with Northern Ireland. For instance, it has halted the legal proceedings it had launched against the UK for unilaterally extending the grace period (a period of transition before the EU’s tougher customs checks come into existence) which was originally meant to finish in March. The demonization of the EU by certain members of the Conservative Party is simply an attempt to distract the British public’s attention from the strain and tension that the Union is currently undergoing. The apparent stalemate between the UK and the EU threatens to engulf the two into a full-scale trade war in which the UK would undoubtedly come out worse. Furthermore, the increasing tension inside the UK, as a result of the disaster that is Brexit, threatens the very existence of the United Kingdom as a political and economic union. One wonders, during this year that celebrates 100 years of union, how much more can such a fragile union endure.

During the European Union Foreign Ministers’ meeting on Jan. 22, the Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz presented a video discussing the creation of an artificial island off the coast of Gaza to serve as a maritime port and potentially an airport for the strip in the future. < Back Artificial Island Proposal for Gaza By Jad Toufic Toutinji February 29, 2024 During the European Union Foreign Ministers’ meeting on Jan. 22, the Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz presented a video discussing the creation of an artificial island off the coast of Gaza to serve as a maritime port and potentially an airport for the strip in the future. Even if this proposal was found “very interesting” by the EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell, it was also regarded as off-topic amidst the current war in the Gaza Strip. In fact, Katz was recommended to focus more on the security concerns in the region instead of suggesting a proposal which has been mentioned on several occasions since 2011. Many skeptics regarded this artificial island as an indirect response to the question on the future of the Gaza Strip. Due to its timing, many perceived the proposal as a suggestion to relocate the Palestinians living in Gaza to the island in the long term in order to eliminate Hamas or to annex the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, the Israeli Foreign Ministry denied that Katz made any claim of relocation of Gaza’s population in his defense and insisted that the plan was only a commercial vision for the Strip. What is the Proposal Really About? In its essence, the project is an alternative proposal to building a coastal port in the Gaza Strip. Since Gaza is a coastal region surrounded by Israel to the East, a method of achieving economic development through trade would be to build a maritime port. Given that there exists no secure connection to the West Bank, and thus the Arab world, and a limited crossing in Rafah connecting to the Sinai Peninsula, the path towards integrating Gaza into the global economy is to look to the Mediterranean Sea as most civilizations of this region have done historically. Based on the security concerns presented by Hamas, Israel suggests that the port be controlled by an international force inland while the Israeli navy takes responsibility for securing the maritime borders. Even if little information has been disclosed regarding the matter, the main idea is to build an island port for Gaza in an endeavor to prevent a coastal port, which Hamas might utilize to strengthen its armament. In the video presented by Katz, some commercial installations were also displayed, alongside a potential airport lane, which might replace the Gaza airport that Israel destroyed earlier this century. What are the Potential Complications? Many Israeli ministers, headed by the main proposer, Israel Katz, have been complimenting the idea, claiming that it would bring an infrastructural tool for the economic development of Gaza without threatening Israel’s security. However, skeptics have not been silent on the matter every time the proposal resurfaces. Most evidently, the main predicament behind the proposition is the sovereignty question: can a Palestinian state be created if Palestinian authorities do not cement their control over their main economic infrastructure? Not only so, but others even go as far as saying that the maritime control by Israeli forces, as well as inland control by international ones, will legitimize the Israeli blockade of Gaza, not to ignore in this situation Israel’s historical tactics in breaching sovereignty through claims on security. In this situation, it would be unsurprising that Israel pressures the future Gazan authorities by blocking maritime trade for security concerns. Also, despite some calling for a cooperation between international forces and the Palestinian authorities inland, it is not even known who are the proposed ‘legitimate’ authorities, especially after current events. Regarding the costs of the port, which are projected to reach $5 billion dollars, it is unclear who will cover them. If the future Gaza authority is held responsible for the charges, then it is doubtful that such an authority will be able to fund an artificial seaport and rebuild the demolished strip. Other reports in years past hinted that China and Saudi Arabia are willing to build and fund the project. However, considering the unstable geopolitical situation of the region, and in parallel with the detrimental invasion, it would be unlikely for the Chinese to invest in the Gaza strip. As to the Saudis, as long as an Iranian proxy exists, they will not invest in the region, considering the case of Lebanon with Hezbollah. Moreover, Israel will have a role in the investment, yet not only might Palestinian authorities reject it to avoid public discontent and political dependency, but also the Israeli public will be reluctant, especially after the Oct. 7 attacks. On the other hand, Israeli authorities, depending who reaches power at that time, might regard such an investment as a way to correct Israel’s public image in the international media. Environmentally, there will inevitably be negative consequences; however, no prominent studies have been conducted on whether a coastal seaport will be more environmentally friendly or not. Reality of the Current State? In the current state of war, with more than 90 percent of the Gaza population staying around the Rafah crossing in the south, it is expected that allegations regarding the relocation of Gazans on to the proposed island would surface. Realistically, however, three points can be made: first, it would be cheaper for Israel and the U.S. to pressure Egypt, as well as Gulf countries, to host the 1.8 million refugees than to build a costly island. Furthermore, building an artificial island requires years to be finalized: if Israel lacks something, it is time, especially with the rising death toll of Israel Defense Force soldiers as well as public anger. Finally, it is unlikely that Israeli allies will accept the relocation due to potential infringement of further human rights, which will arouse the already incessant fury amongst pro-Palestine manifestations in Western communities. It is important to note that when Katz displayed the video, it was also followed with another video that proposes a trade route connecting India to the Middle East. As readers were shocked with the timing chosen to revive the island seaport proposal, many overlooked the second proposal, thus little information has surfaced around it. Yet, the second video most probably refers to the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) trade route proposed in September, prior to the Oct. 7 attacks. This trade route which would connect India to Europe through the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel, thus bypassing the Suez Canal, throws doubt on the economic efficiency of an Island in Gaza. Putting into perspective, the already pre-constrained island would be competing with an international trade route a few kilometers away; in other words, even if the seaport provides integration for Gaza into the globalized world, the competition will demolish potential long-term investments, possibly leaving the future Palestinian authorities in huge debt. Clearly, no trade route through the island can be made into the region without passing through Israel, so IMEC will be more favourable for traders. A Political Message? Finally, the timing of the videos, amidst International Court of Justice trials on genocide allegations, reflects an indirect message to Hamas and the world: Israel has won the war against Hamas and it will do as it sees appropriate with the Gaza Strip in the future. Moreover, both videos can also be a political pressure to Egypt to accommodate the refugees or else face the crippling economic effect of a cheaper alternative to the Suez Canal.

The war on drugs will, ultimately, be a war against civilians if Noboa's approach concentrates itself only in the streets of Guayaquil, instead of looking at where the militia has long stabilized itself — Ecuador's dearest political institutions.  < Back American White Lines: The History of Militia Violence in Ecuador By Pedro Meerbaum February 29, 2024 The afternoon of Jan. 9 was a common day in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Workers and students returned to their normal routine with the end of the holidays and the beginning of 2024. As the second Tuesday of the year came to an end, the people of Guayaquil tuned in for the afternoon news. The program on the national television channel TC was typical: an introduction from the presenters, daily news, a couple of interviews, and a section on international affairs. It would have been an ordinary day, but instead, the audience watched, for 15 minutes, as masked gunmen invaded the broadcast network, forced staff to the floor, and shot their guns as the hostages cried for help. In that afternoon, there was no news besides terror. The invasion of the broadcast followed the escape of notorious drug lord José Villamar, known as Fito, who had been detained since 2011 in the city of Guayaquil. His disappearance was reported on Jan. 7, and on Jan. 8 a wave of riots in six different Ecuadorian prisons took place , leading President Daniel Noboa to announce a state of internal armed conflict. The televised violence that befell right after was a response to Noboa's statement, easily seen as a confrontation between drug lords to the new Ecuadorian president — a stark reminder of the limits of his autonomy as a leader. As Noboa intensifies its military response to the militia groups, and as the coast of Ecuador transforms its landscape into a quasi-war zone, questions are raised about the nature of gang violence in the country. The militia group works, mostly, with cocaine, and yet Ecuador is famously not a producer of narcotics. Instead, it is a channel in which cocaine produced by its neighbors, Peru and Colombia, is transported into North America. The cocaine that reaches Ecuador in its borders is then transported to port cities, like Guayaquil or Esmeralda, and is then shipped through the Pacific Ocean. To avoid dealing with anti-narcotics policing forces from Colombia or the U.S., the boats pass through the Galapagos islands, where they refill before reaching their destination in Mexico, Costa Rica, or Guatemala . The illegal goods are then smuggled into their final destination, the United States. The easy access to ports or lack of inspection throughout the process of smuggling the cocaine is a result of a marking characteristic of the Pacific Ocean: it is a sea of corruption. Ecuador has been a transit country since the 1980s, but it was only in the last twenty years that it became one of the global cocaine traders. In the early 2000s, while the Colombian government tackled the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) cocaine fields, Ecuador suffered a strong economic crisis. On Jan. 9, 2000, exactly 24 years before the televised dispersion of terror, the central bank announced the dollarization of the Ecuadorian economy, replacing the Sucre with the American Dollar as the national legal tender. Ecuador, then, became an international target for money laundering. As writer James Bargent puts it , Ecuador is a "country bordering the world's biggest cocaine producer that uses the currency of the world's largest cocaine market." Its potential to become a major exporter of cocaine and a hotspot for narcotrafficking in South America was boosted with the 2006 election of Rafael Correa. The former president of Ecuador led the country for 10 years, from 2007 to 2017, implementing internal policies that cultivated the strengthening of militia in the country: Correa decided to remove a U.S. naval base in the city of Manta, which later revealed in a scandal to be a campaign promise to the FARC in exchange for funding. The former president also politicized the judiciary and shifted his internal security focus to reducing the power of his political adversaries rather than properly tackling organized crime. In the years of administration by Correa, a blindspot is left in Ecuadorian land. Militia groups now have proper access to ports and the country's sky, transforming it into a huge global transport for cocaine. It is within this pretext that, in 2023, Noboa gains popular support. A young and charismatic leader, the businessman builds his campaign around the extermination of gangs. And for the past month, Noboa has been successful in establishing a war on drugs. Military forces roam around Guayaquil with weapons, forcefully pulling people out of their cars and searching for any type of indication of gang involvement. While his military-based approach has received overwhelming popularity within Ecuador, similarities are raised with other cases of war on drugs throughout Latin America that have, in the long term, been unsuccessful. The use of extensive military force to combat gang violence left its traces in Colombia, in its combat against FARC caused mass incarceration, extrajudicial executions of civilians , and an increase in violence. Likewise, in Brazil, raids against drug lord s in favelas have been historically linked to the high-level loss of innocent civilian lives. Noboa's tackle-down approach does not bring hope. It is paving the way for a stronger proliferation of violence, incarceration, and calamity. The military, like in Colombia, is not properly trained to deal with gang violence without, in return, acting in violence towards civilians. The temporary relief and support being given to the military action is not sustainable, it is bound to develop into a cycle of violence and a massive reduction of well-being in what was once the safest country in South America. For Noboa, however, this approach gives him the legitimacy as a leader he sought, one that had been jeopardized by militia involvement since the beginning of the millennium. He has also received increasing support from the US, strengthening the diplomatic bonds between the two countries — without any direct intervention, internally nor externally, from the U.S. despite being the biggest receptor of Ecuadorian coke. The war on drugs will, ultimately, be a war against civilians if Noboa's approach concentrates itself only in the streets of Guayaquil, instead of looking at where the militia has long stabilized itself — Ecuador's dearest political institutions.

في اليوم العالمي للمرأة، كشعيرة من شعائر "الإنسانية،" يجب علينا، نحن ماكثي العالم الغربي، أن ننعى بؤس المرأة العربية. ولكن الحقيقة هي أن المرأة العربية، في طبعها، ثورية عنيدة. < Back خاطرة في اليوم العالمي للمرأة Anonymous March 31, 2025 في اليوم العالمي للمرأة، كشعيرة من شعائر "الإنسانية،" يجب علينا، نحن ماكثي العالم الغربي، أن ننعى بؤس المرأة العربية. ولكن الحقيقة هي أن المرأة العربية، في طبعها، ثورية عنيدة. فأن تولد عربيًا أمر في غاية العناد، ولكن أن تولدي امرأة عربية يعني أن يلين أمامك صلب العناد نفسه. فأنتِ لستِ فقط في صراعٍ وجوديّ مع عالمٍ ظالمٍ يستبيح دماء شعبكِ، ويودّ لو يجعل من بلادكِ ريفييرا يستجمّ فيها فوق أضرحة أطفالكِ، ولكنكِ أيضًا في صراعٍ مع نفسكِ ومجتمعكِ؛ فأنباء اضطهادكِ تتصدر عناوين الصحف في الغرب، ناعتةً الرجل العربي بالرجعية وغير ذلك من صفاتٍ قبيحة؛ كل كي يزعزع جنودُ "الإنسانية" وجدانَ الرجل الغربي المتحضر، لعلّ وعسى أن يلبّي نداء التحضّر ويجلب لكِ الحرية المحتومة. وأنتِ، أنتِ يا أيتها المرأة العربية، مركز كلّ ذلك. ولكن الحقيقة هي أن المرأة العربية، في طبعها، ثورية عنيدة. كانت جدّتي منذ صغر سنها مناضلةً، استطاعت أن تربي جيلًا كاملًا في بيتٍ صغيرٍ لا يكاد يتسع لنفسه، لكنّها جعلت منه صرحًا عظيمًا واسعًا رحبًا بإقامتها فيه . كانت أُميّة حُرمت من التعليم، ولكن، على الرغم من ذلك، كانت تفوقنا جميعًا علمًا. فيا للعجب! أما عمّاتي، فكنّ فلاحاتٍ في قريةٍ من قرى الأردن، ومثل جدّتي، كان مقطنهنّ متواضعَ الحال، لكنهنّ كنّ إمبراطوراتٍ في عالم الفلاحة، يحرثن الأرض، ويحلبن البقر، ويرعين الدجاج، ويأكلن من عمل أيديهنّ، بل إنّ القرية بأكملها كانت تأكل من عمل أيديهنّ. ولا سيما أمي كذلك، قيادية حازمة، فكل كلمة تصدر منها في البيت أو خارجه بمثابة أمر نهائي لا محال منه. فإذا نطقت أمي، سكت القانون. وعلى الرغم من أن هذه الصفات بدت سائدةً فينا بالوراثة، إلا أنني لا زلت امرأة في مطلع شبابي، أحاول بعسر أن أستمد ثوريتي من النساء اللواتي نشأت على أيديهن؛ فلا بد بالطبع أن يعكر صفو تلك المحاولات الكلام الفارغ الذي يُتطلب مني أن أصغي إليه يوميًا في محاضراتي الزنانة. ففعلًا، إن ما تنشره الصحف في ذم الرجل العربي ورثاء المرأة العربية له روّاد في الغرب يتابعونه ويطّلعون عليه، وها أنا، التي كنت أعتقد أنني مركز هذا الحوار، أجلس في خلفية الصف، نائيةً نأي الكواكب عن الشمس عن المركز. فإيميليا (أو أدخل اسم أي فتاة أعجمية) أصبحت أكثر درايةً بمصلحة المرأة العربية، وها هي ذا منفعلة، يحتدّ صوتها وهي تستنكر فعلة الرجل العربي الشنيعة في حق امرأته. يا للهول! إنها لا تستطيع أن ترتدي ما تشاء من ماركات، ولا أن تدارك موضات لباس إيميليا ورفيقاتها! ولن نبرح من المحاضرة حتى تقنعنا إيميليا أن هذا هو كل ما في الأمر يا سيدي، ولا يوجد أي بعد آخر للوطن العربي تراه سوى ذلك. وأنا في الخلف أخاف أن أئنّ أي أنين، حتى لا تهيج إيميليا وتدعو إلى التحرك العسكري الفضائي لإنقاذي من أيدي سجّاني! لكن أيا ليت صمتي لخطابها رادعًا، فهي لا يعنيها حقًا كل ما يمسني من سوء، فيشغلها السوء طالما يطولني من على يد الرجل العربي وليس الغربي، وذلك لأن مذهبها الفكري ليس سوى امتدادا لحيلة استعمارية قديمة؛ استنادًا لتحاليل الكاتبة المصرية ليلى أحمد، فإن فكرة اضطهاد الرجال في المجتمعات المستعمَرة للنساء لا تعني المستعمر إلا بغرض توظيفها أداة في الخطاب الاستعماري تُستخدم "لإضفاء شرعية أخلاقية على مشروع تقويض ثقافات الشعوب المستعمَرة أو القضاء عليها." فهل تدري إيميليا أن جدتي وعماتي كنّ كلهنّ ضحايا حرب الإملاق نتيجة سياسات العالم الغربي الرأسمالي المحتل، قبل أن يكنّ ضحايا الرجل العربي؟ هل ذكرت الصحف المستشرفة التي تتابعها أن الرّجل العربي نفسه ضحيّة للعالم الغربي الرّأسمالي المحتل؟ وذلك كما وضّحت عالمة الأنثروبولوجيا الفلسطينية ليلة أبو لغد في كتابها هل تحتاج المرأة المسلمة إلى الإنقاذ؟ إن "اختزال المرأة المسلمة في صورة نمطية يُبعدنا عن الإشكالية الأعمق، وهي أن سياساتنا وأفعالنا في الغرب تساهم في خلق الظروف القاسية التي يعيشها آخرون في أماكن بعيدة. في النهاية، إن خطاب "إنقاذ" النساء المسلمات يتيح لنا التهرب من التعقيدات المتشابكة التي نشارك جميعًا في تشكيلها، ويكرّس استقطابًا يضع النسوية في صف الغرب وحده." لا أخاطبكم اليوم إنكارًا لما تمرّ به المرأة العربية من ظروف خطيرة وتعيسة، ولكنّي ضقت ذرعًا بالدموع المصطنعة التي يذرفها الغرب ادعاءً منه الاهتمام بتلك الظروف، وهو أول من صنعها. فبعد فصل دراسي كامل لي في جامعة غربية، أحطتُ علمًا بأنني لستُ جوهر الحوار. أصبحت على علمٍ بأنني أنا وسائر النساء العربيات لسنا سوى مضافًا إليه في نثر الكلام، وجزءًا من مسرحية الغرب المتحضر. فصفّقوا، كلٌّ كان له دور وأدّاه! ودوري أنا: أن أُجلب للصف كالصنم الذي لا يفقه شيئًا، ليطمئن زملائي أنه بوجودي استطاعوا أن يحطّموا الجدار الثالث، فأقحموني بكل سخاءٍ في نقاشهم الذي من المفترض أنني أنا "مركزه." وها هي مسرحيتهم العبثية قد أُخرجت بمباركة وجودي بينهم، ورفعت الأقلام، وجفت الصحف، وانقضى حلّ كلّ مشاكل الشرق الأوسط لا يزيد ولا ينقص عن دروس جوفاء تُردَّد عن المساواة الجندرية، كأنَّ العدلَ يولدُ من صدى كلمات الغرب، لا من صرخات أهل الأرض . بدأت أشعر أن الحرية التي أطمح لها أنا، وتطمح لها زميلاتي، ليست الحرية ذاتها. فلم تعد الحرية في عيني أن أرتدي بنطالًا أو قميصًا أو أي قطعة قماش زائفة. أدركتُ أن الحرية هي أن ترميك طائرات الغرب الوحشية بقنابل من سجّيل، تنخر عليك واحدة تلو الأخرى من السماء، لتُوئدك بعد ذلك تحت الأنقاض، ثم تعودي أنتِ وبقوة، تتوعدين بإنجاب المزيد والمزيد لتجديد العهد عليهم، حتى يجنّ جنون العدو، الذي لا يزال يحاول -عبثًا- أن يطمسكِ أنتِ ونسلكِ عن الوجود. ويبقى السؤال: هل إذا كسونا أجسادنا بلباس الغرب سيعصمنا لباسهم من جحيم قنابلهم؟ ومن ثمّ بلغوني، هل بين حريتي وحريتكم أية صلة؟ أوجه رسالتي في يوم المرأة إلى الأم، أو الأخت، أو البنت، أو الإنسانة التي فقدت حياتها، أو حياة من تحب، في غزة، في حلب، في بغداد، في بيروت، والتي تكافح في سبيل العيش الكريم في الأردن أو أي مكانٍ آخر. أضع كفي بكفكِ وأقول: تحيّة لكِ، فأنتِ الحريّة، وأنت الإنسانيّة، وأنتِ العروبة، وأنتِ الثّورة والعناد—وذلك حقّ، ولا شيء يعلو على الحقّ. Photo source: Alisdare Hickson on Flickr

How can believers trust an institution that continuously lies? How can they trust an institution that fails to live by the teachings of the word it claims to follow? How can one believe in the good, in the charity of an institution that causes so much pain? I am not suggesting the Church is inherently flawed, after all I still am a Christian and I still believe in the Church, but there is no denying the wrongdoings of its executive. The question is whether the Church will confront the sin lying in its foundation—for an institution like the Church cannot stand if it hides the rot within. < Back Broken Faith: Confronting Abuse within the Catholic Church Rebecca Canton For centuries, people around the globe have regarded the Catholic Church as an institution offering sanctuary, a place of rest and protection, evident in passages like Proverbs 18:10, ‘the name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe.’ Christian children are taught religion is dependable as a source of guidance and truth, myself included. Yet, such promises do not tend to reflect current realities. The revelations of widespread abuse in the Church create a shadow over these ideals. The Church and its confessional, once considered a place for repentance and reflection, have become symbolic of secrecy and cover-up. I am a Christian, I believe in God, I believe in the Bible. Do I believe in the systemic abuse of children and vulnerable adults by priests and clergy members? Rather obviously not. I’m a Christian, not devilish. So then, why has this happened? Why have, since 1950, around 216,000 children in France been sexually abused by clergy members? 216,000 childhoods were destroyed in France alone, by people they were taught to trust. I’ve read the Bible and nowhere does it state ‘Thou shalt not refrain from assault,’ not one passage, phrase, nor implication suggests this is the Christian doctrine, that this is acceptable. Yet, until recently, they have gotten away with it. Protected by religion, protected by hierarchy, protected by institutions, such cycles of physical, sexual and mental abuse have been perpetuated throughout the Church for decades. The first time I heard of anything remotely related to abuse within the Church was in 2013. In my home country, the United Kingdom, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who was the Archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh, resigned after revelations that he had engaged in predatory sexual relations with priests and seminarians in an abuse of power. I was eight and had just started religious studies. I remember my mother, who is a Protestant and my father, who is a Catholic, discussing this ‘scandal,’ but I did not think much of it. At the same time, I learned a phrase that rang particularly true, ‘a tree with a rotten core cannot stand.’ This metaphor resonates with the Church, with allegations of decades of abuse threatening the foundation of its institutions. It was in the 1980s that revelations of Catholic Church abuse first came to light, with allegations of decades of abuse. And that is just the modern Church. As early as the 11th century, abuse has been reported within the Church, notably when Peter Damian, an Italian Benedictine monk wrote ‘ Liber Gomorrhianus,’ which condemns priests having sexual relations with young boys. Now, since the 1980s, the Church has been hit with ‘scandal’ after ‘scandal.’ It only takes a quick search for ‘Catholic Church abuse’, for thousands of articles to emerge, from a multitude of countries. August 2005, Bell River, Ontario, Canada. Father Charles Henry Sylvestre pleads guilty to 47 counts of sexual abuse between 1952 and 1989. His victims? Girls aged nine to fourteen. August 2020, Germany. 1,412 people accuse at least 654 monks, nuns and other clergy members of abuse. 2017, Australia. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse finds that out of the 201 Catholic Churchs, 46% had allegations of sexual abuse towards minors. What becomes evident is that this is not one event. Not one ‘scandal’ like my parents told me. This abuse transcends borders, age and gender. It is systematic, ingrained within the very structures of the Church. Perhaps it is unfair to claim this is institutional. After all, not all Catholic priests are sex offenders. Institutions have taken steps, however small, to hold abusers accountable. There have been inquiries into sexual abuse in the Church with a court recently approving a $323 million settlement for abuse victims. Many priests have been forced to resign and in 2005, the ‘Ferns Report,’ an inquiry into allegations of clerical sexual abuse in Ireland, led to an apology from the Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowan and a promise to reform the Irish social service system. Such news fills me with hope. Whilst the historical abuse of children and vulnerable adults must not be ignored or neglected, the Bible teaches us to forgive. That hope is crushed when I see another article of another priest abusing another child in another country. That hope is destroyed even further when I read of how the Church has covered up another scandal. The Bible teaches us to forgive, but certain actions are unforgivable. The Church has apologized, but apologies mean nothing without incremental change. Further, are they really sorry, or are they just sorry they got caught? The most harrowing aspect to these cycles of abuse is that the Church was not unaware—they knew it was happening. So many of the Churches that housed these abusers knew. They knew and they did not care. In many prominent cases from all over the world, it has come to light that information surrounding abuse was intentionally suppressed. Take the 2010 Karadima case in Chile, for example, wherein Fernando Karadima, a Chilean Catholic priest, was accused of sexually abusing boys as early as 1984. Yet when it was found that these accusations were true, the Archbishop of Santiago, Karadima’s superior, took no action. In 2011, the Vatican found Karadima guilty of sexual and psychological abuse and he was forced into retirement and denied practice as a priest under the punishment of a ‘life of prayer and penance.’ Realistically, this was a slap on the wrist, as Karadima had no legal action against him due to the statute of limitations. Another example is from the United States, where on 29 December 2019, it was exposed that multiple bishops had withheld hundreds of names from the accused clergy list. Further, on 6 March 2020, an investigation by the Houston Chronicle and ProPublica revealed that the Catholic Church moved more than 50 accused clergy to other countries to avoid consequences for sex abuse. The story varies from country to country, but the patterns that emerge are the same: abuse has effectively been condoned, creating a system where clergy members think they can act without consequences and where victims are discouraged from coming forward. The hierarchical nature of the Church—characterized by a chain of command, has often led to an environment that leans towards mishandling and concealment of cases regarding sexual abuse. As in such a structure, the clergy and senior officials, the abusers, are protected by layers of secrecy. This system has long protected the reputation of the Church and loyalty over transparency and accountability, as many clergy members have been shunned from Church social circles, not for abuse, but for standing up for the abused. Likewise, it has meant that instead of being imprisoned perpetrators are simply reassigned. With a history of payouts, victims are compelled not to tell their stories. Further, in most religious communities, going against God is seen as blasphemous. Priests and Clergy members are meant to be his representatives, thus there is shame associated with questioning Church executives. Dissent or accusations towards Church members, especially high-ranking ones, can feel like a betrayal, promoting fear of condemnation or even eternal punishment. It is similar to why people tend not to testify against family members— there is a sense of loyalty. Loyalty not only to the Church, but to God and unless the victim wholly rejects religion, it can be hard for them to escape cycles of abuse. Likewise, it is not uncommon for priests and clergy members to have genuine relationships with their victims, acting as father figures to vulnerable children. For some, the Church becomes their family. “Seeing him in shackles and an orange jumpsuit, people asked me, ‘Why don’t you hate him? Why don’t you want to hurt him?’ Well, I do. But at the same time, I have some really strong conflicting feelings. It’s not hard to love the man that he was before he did what he did.” ~ Jim VanSickle The Vatican wishes for a “path of redemption,” which is how the narrative shifts. The very ones inflicting shame on the children they hurt, the ones seen as ‘holy’, now asking, begging, for forgiveness with statements of ‘pain’, of ‘regret’, of ‘institutional failings.’ But it is too late. You can not take back the suffering and erase the harm caused by the hands that touched perniciously. “Then, the next thing you know, he's reaching over there, touching you. You're asleep, wake up and somebody is touching you. I just remember freezing, frozen, kind of out of body.” ~ Mark Belenchia The Catholic Church has committed a heinous crime, the crime of failing generations, from Australia to Ireland, Rome to New York . In a way, the Church has failed not just the abused but its followers as a whole. When I think of God and Christianity, I feel loved, but when I think of the Catholic Church and the abuse of children, that emotion is replaced by disgust. These scandals, especially the failure to do anything about it, taints my religion and no amount of holy water can wash away the sins now ingrained in its very foundations. “I always listened as they said ‘lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil' but they were bestowing evil upon us at the same time” ~ Alicia Sample How can believers trust an institution that continuously lies? How can they trust an institution that fails to live by the teachings of the word it claims to follow? How can one believe in the good, in the charity of an institution that causes so much pain? I am not suggesting the Church is inherently flawed, after all I still am a Christian and I still believe in the Church, but there is no denying the wrongdoings of its executive. The question is whether the Church will confront the sin lying in its foundation—for an institution like the Church cannot stand if it hides the rot within.

The groundbreaking discovery of CRISPR has the potential to cure and even prevent at least 8,000 genetic diseases, but what ethical concerns does this technology raise? < Back The Ethics of Gene Editing By Isabella Aouad March 30, 2022 The genome is the blueprint of our being. Each person's genome comprises 20,000 to 25,000 genes, which define our physical traits, immunity, and even some of our abilities. Genes are made up of strands of DNA, and much like words, a change in just one letter can change the whole meaning of a gene. In fact, such a microscopic mutation in one gene can sometimes translate into a serious genetic illness. Gene therapy is the introduction, removal, or change of DNA strands to repair or alter a gene and thus cure a genetic illness. This kind of treatment has been accelerated by the discovery of CRISPR (an acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), a protein that cuts targeted strands of DNA with unprecedented precision, faster, cheaper, and more efficiently than ever before. The groundbreaking discovery of CRISPR has the potential to cure and even prevent at least 8,000 genetic diseases that afflict people with cancer, hemophilia, diabetes, and cystic fibrosis, among many other lifetime diseases. We have the knowledge to cure thousands of people severely suffering from genetic diseases, yet many oppose this cure, which they dismiss as "unethical." Are we "playing God" by attempting to alter our genetic code? Is changing the very nature of our being justified by the fact of sparing a person from a psychologically and physically painful disease? CRISPR's potential in genetic engineering gives us immense power to make people's lives better, but comes with significant risks if it were to get out of line. Adopting CRISPR gene therapy threatens to open a Pandora's box with chilling consequences. For one thing, biohackers could use CRISPR gene editing methods to enhance their abilities or alter their traits. Biohackers believe that we do not need to accept our bodies' shortcomings if we can engineer our way past them and boost our physical and cognitive performance. However, this philosophy could cause significant harm in the hands of inexperienced and reckless ordinary people. One such example is biohacker Josiah Zayner, who injected himself with DNA from CRISPR gene-editing technology at a biotech conference while live-streaming his experiment. Zayner has now become a biohacking celebrity with thousands of followers. Strongly advocating for the "democratization" of such a powerful technology, Zayner founded The Odin. This garage-run company sells biohacking supplies ranging from 20 dollar DNA to an 1849 dollar DIY genetic engineering kit. Although he is currently under investigation for practicing medicine without a license, his company is still running. Biohackers are still conducting experiments with insufficient knowledge of the technology, which could seriously harm their health. This example illustrates the dangers of making CRISPR technology widely accessible due to its potential to be used for self-enhancing purposes. Moreover, another essential risk accompanying the widespread adoption of CRISPR technology would be its application for germline gene editing. Germline gene editing is the process by which an individual's genome is edited so that the change is heritable. This is achieved through genetic alterations within the germ cells or the reproductive cells, such as the egg and sperm. This kind of treatment would affect the adult receiving it and their future offspring. By altering the genetic makeup of entire generations, this application of CRISPR technology threatens to exacerbate existing inequalities between families who could afford germline gene therapy and those who could not. Despite these frightening potential threats, I believe that CRISPR gene therapy could be a game-changer in treating genetic diseases more efficiently and painlessly than other medications, chemotherapy, and other existing treatments currently do. Nevertheless, the applications of CRISPR gene editing should be strictly regulated and limited to modifying somatic cells (all cells apart from reproductive cells). Somatic gene editing is not inheritable and would thus act as a promising analogous treatment for the adult undergoing the therapy. As long as caution and regulation are applied to control such a powerful technology, its effect could be a great relief for suffering patients worldwide.

It’s what Varoufakis calls a 'digital fiefdom': a post-capitalist economic order where smaller businesses pay dividends to massive corporations which control essential platforms — just like how poor serfs paid landowners in order to farm the land. < Back The Fight against Big Tech and the New Order Feidias Psaras November 30, 2024 As a law school student at Yale, Lina Khan was highly critical of how Amazon was doing business. In a break-out 92-page academic hit published in her university’s law journal, she explained how the company’s business model, which prioritized aggressive expansion within and across business lines even at the expense of profits, was poisonous to the free-market economy. Amazon’s Prime membership service, for example, allowed users to offer exclusive privileges such as same-day—for some, even same-hour—delivery and free shipping. Such features are immensely costly and lead to substantial deficits. But only multi-billion dollar companies like Amazon, with sets of faithful stakeholders and immense amounts of capital acquired from a wide variety of businesses, can fuel these ventures. These investments ultimately increase consumer spending and—much more importantly—loyalty. Lina’s efforts have extended to other tech behemoths that have pervaded their respective markets. After achieving her post as chair of the FTC, she quickly revived a lawsuit to break up Meta, and led attempts to prevent Microsoft’s $69 billion deal to acquire Activision in an attempt to consolidate ground in the gaming market. Khan called for a radical change in how the Federal Trade Commission, the state body in charge of maintaining anti-monopoly laws, dealt with companies such as Amazon. She contended that whether a company is engaging in anti-free-market practices should not be determined solely by its short-term impacts on consumer welfare and low prices, for example. It’s also the long-term impacts: how these low prices allow the company to gain a stranglehold over the market and paralyze competitors. It sets it up for a sort of dominance that would allow it, in the future, to raise prices as it wished. But there's something even more worrying about companies such as Amazon and their increasing establishment as the singular e-commerce retailer. While contemporary antitrust analysis would assume that rational firms aim to drive competitors out of business, Amazon’s ubiquitousness and role have made it necessary for competing smaller businesses. Thus, it has created an arena over which it gets to set the rules at the expense of dependent rivals. In a dispute with Hachette in 2014, for example, the company delisted the publisher’s books from its website during business negotiations. In ‘Project Gazelle,’ executives talked about approaching smaller book publishers as a ‘predator might approach a wounded gazelle.’ It’s what Varoufakis calls a digital fiefdom: a post-capitalist economic order where smaller businesses pay dividends to massive corporations which control essential platforms — just like how poor serfs paid landowners in order to farm the land. An emerging neoreactionary movement Varoufakis’ interpretation is an expressly Marxist one, and he believes in increased regulation to try and mitigate it. But there are others who welcome such change. Curtis Yarvin, one of the key thinkers of an emerging neoreactionary movement, believes that the best form of government would come about by a nationalization and subsequent privatization of everything. Nick Land, a frequently cited colleague, is known for coining the term accelerationism; that rather than fighting to regulate capitalist forces, we should just let them be and drive the system to its limits. In his essay, Meltdown, he writes: The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity as renaissance rationalitization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off. Logistically accelerating techno-economic interactivity crumbles social order in auto-sophisticating machine runaway. As markets learn to manufacture intelligence, politics modernizes, upgrades paranoia, and tries to get a grip. These thinkers are founding members of what has been dubbed the ‘Dark Enlightenment,’ a movement that criticizes aspects of the liberal democratic model prominent in the ‘Western sphere.’ Its proponents support that democracy is fundamentally flawed; that giving power to the majority ultimately leads to mediocre governance by the most popular rather than the most competent. The democratic institutional complex does not promote genuine plurality of opinion but rather just enforces another form of cultural hegemony through the imposition of societal norms. Yarvin’s concept of the ‘Cathedral’ denotes how the liberal universities that predominate the US zealously promote a foundational belief in egalitarianism that stifles freedom of thought and innovation. Land, in the same essay mentioned above, finishes: Learning surrenders control to the future, threatening established power. It is vigorously suppressed by all political structures, which replace it with a docilizing and conformist education, reproducing privilege as wisdom. Schools are social devices whose specific function is to incapacitate learning, and universities are employed to legitimate schooling through perpetual reconstitution of global social memory. Although this movement’s intellectual achievements were generated in online blogs by informal scholars, it doesn’t only extend to niche circles of disillusioned internet hermits. Peter Thiel, a multi-billionaire tech—investor listed 212th on Forbes’s list of richest people, recommends Yarvin’s blog unqualified reservations while stating that he ‘no longer believe[s] that freedom and democracy are compatible’. He is counted among the many ‘broligarchs’ that find the government’s monopoly on money-production irksome and seek to circumvent it. As well as heavy investment in seasteading projects aimed to create tax-free safe havens for the rich, he’s known to have co-opted government programmes intended to extend retirement savings for middle-class Americans to amass 5 billion in venture capital income, uncut. But it’s not just clever accounting tricks for tax avoidance. A Republican, Thiel has ramped up political involvement in the past decade. After being seriously considered for a position in the Trump cabinet in 2016 and abstaining from support in 2020, he’s been tentatively drawn back to Trump’s side given his choice of a former employee and protégé —JD Vance—for vice president. The election results and the future Although ultra-rich donors backing both US 2024 presidential candidates have expressed discontent for the aggressive approach to antitrust of the head of the FTC, Trump’s election has all but sealed Lina Kahn’s fate. Elon Musk, known for cutting Twitter’s staff by half a week after acquisition and now the co-head of the newly-created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has stated that she “will be fired soon”. The change would most definitely mark a decrease in state checks on private power in the interest of the consumer. This administration marks a decisive step at the crossroads between state and private power. Trump’s cabinet picks have already indicated his readiness to enact significant reform on the government apparatus. It’s not just the role of the FTC that’s about to experience seismic change, but the nature and freedom of big tech and business as a whole—very likely at the cost of that of the consumer.

Confronted by a tirade of questions expressing concerns about inflation,, rising energy costs and economic recession, Liz Truss chose to deflect by focusing her attention on the Labour opposition’s inability to elect a leader that “is not male or from north London.” Setting aside the observation that statements such as these are symptomatic of the conservative cabinet’s disease, preventing its elected members from answering the questions posed to our government, Liz Truss’ comment does raise questions about equality in a political party which generally claims to stand for progressive ideals < Back Are problems with female leadership unique to Britain’s Left? By Leo Gerza October 31, 2022 Ensuing the crowning of Liz Truss as victor of the summer palaver that was the contentious Conservative Party leadership election, many in Britain and abroad had the opportunity last month to watch the new prime minister jousting in her first Prime Ministers Questions. Confronted by a tirade of questions expressing concerns about inflation,, rising energy costs and economic recession, Liz Truss chose to deflect by focusing her attention onthe Labour opposition’s inability to elect a leader that “is not male or from north London.” Setting aside the observation that statements such as these are symptomatic of the conservative cabinet’s disease, preventing its elected members from answering the questions posed to our government, Liz Truss’ comment does raise questions about equality in a political party which generally claims to stand for progressive ideals. The fact is that all three of Britain's female prime ministers have been leaders of the Conservative Party. On the other hand, Labour has only ever had three female leaders during periods of opposition, all of which were in an “acting” capacity, thus temporary by design. Yet, the Conservative Party looks towards its elected female leaders with great reverence, especially Margaret Thatcher, who has become idolized by the Thatcherites, swooning over the glory days of the “Iron Lady.” How is it that the party of progress lags behind the party of right-wing beliefs and politicians stolen from a museum display when it comes to electing women? This phenomenon is difficult to dissect but seems to be guided by deep-rooted and outdated misogynistic political beliefs. The leading theory suggests that this phenomenon is not solely a problem in the UK. In fact, across G7 countries, “widespread distrust in women at the top” has been a core barrier, according to the Reykjavik Index, which outlines that in almost all western countries, men are perceived as more capable leaders than women. This ultimately suggests that, in a democratic system which still suffers from institutional sexist ideas, men are more likely to be elected into positions of power because there is a greater belief in their competence to perform as a leader. I think Boris Johnson and Donald Trump exemplify this truism. The study also hints towards a rising tide of misogyny in recent years against female leaders. They have always faced more vicious scrutiny, yet the outpour of criticism in reaction to a video of the Finish Prime Minister partying demonstrates that double standards remain a core-rotting pillar in politics. Increasingly concerning is that the same Reykjavik Index, outlining the general bias towards men, also found that 18 to 34-year-olds have a “less progressive attitude to gender and leadership.” Could this signal a warning that we may be diverging from decades of progress on gender equality? I would argue that attitudes perpetuated on social media sites, such as Tik Tok, are both a manifestation of this statistic and a source of its existence. The hyper-macho content and misogynistic comedy featured on the app combine to convince impressionable youth that men are the apex of society and that women are an evolutionary tool for man’s benefit. This is to say that these issues are not exclusive to the Labour party, they are global. In fact, Labour can claim to have had significant impacts on the fight for equality by introducing the Equal Pay Act of 1970 and the Equality Act of 2010. Perhaps more significantly, Labour also introduced all-women shortlists to select half the candidates running in the 1997 United Kingdom general election. The affirmative action taken by Sir Tony Blair saw a record 101 female members of Parliament elected to the House of Commons. However, more needs to be done so that rather than mitigating inequality our political parties can be actively promoting it. As for Liz Truss’ comments, perhaps she can be credited with raising important questions about equality in politics, but it should not distract from the dismal omnishambles her prime ministerial career has been so far.

In January 2022, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear two cases, one against Harvard University and one against the University of North Carolina, seeking to ban affirmative action in university admissions. The potential end of affirmative action would dramatically transform the framework of college admissions. < Back The End of Affirmative Action? By Magdelena Offenbeck March 30, 2022 In January 2022, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear two cases, one against Harvard University and one against the University of North Carolina, seeking to ban affirmative action in university admissions. The conservative Supreme Court majority is likely to overturn a legacy of race consideration in college admissions. The history of race as a factor in college admissions begins in the 1960s when Harvard University announced concrete measures to increase the percentage of African American students in its cohorts. Harvard’s plan of action was then adopted by many of the major institutions for higher education in the United States. Aiming to counter the inequality caused by the history of racial segregation, the policies have effectively promoted upward social mobility and diversified cohorts at US universities. Since its implementation, affirmative action has faced criticism by those who favor admission procedures that are entirely based on academic merit. In the landmark 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger , the constitutionality of affirmative action was confirmed in scenarios when race is one of many factors considered in the admission process. However, in the same year, the court declared points-based admission systems that grant extra points to minority applicants unconstitutional and contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourth Amendment. Both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are now accused of discrimination by giving race overwhelming importance in admission procedures. The difference between the cases is that Harvard is charged with discrimination against Asians while the University of North Carolina is accused of favoring Black and Hispanic applicants. The plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions,' argued that Harvard’s disproportional consideration of race violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The case was tried in 2018 in the state of Massachusetts but, after a 15-day bench trial in 2018, a lower court in Massachusetts found Harvard not guilty of “race balancing,” otherwise known as admission quotas for racial groups at the university. Many consider it unlikely that the Supreme Court has taken on the case to reaffirm the ruling of the state court. What would the end of affirmative action mean for university communities in the United States? Deans of Yale, Columbia, and Harvard University have spoken out against the lawsuit. In a statement released on the Columbia University website, President Lee Bollinger Broad asserted that “public awareness of the unrelenting impact of racism demands a recommitment to affirmative action, not its abandonment,” deeming affirmative action essential considering the nation’s history. He further described a ban on affirmative action as “calamitous for universities and for the ideals embodied in the Constitution.” The end of affirmative action could significantly decrease the number of Black students admitted to elite universities in the country as Black and Hispanic students have lower average standardized test scores and are subjected to structural obstacles that are not encountered by their white counterparts. However, the plaintiff argues that affirmative action comes at the expense of Asian students, who have lower chances of admission with equal or higher test scores and are consistently ranked lower on the personality scores of the admissions process. Public opinion seems to confirm the plaintiff’s view. A 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center concluded that 73% of Americans think that race should not be considered in college admissions. However, there is stratification between racial groups, with 78% of Caucasians opposed to affirmative action compared to 65% of Hispanics and 62% of Blacks. This gap persists with political leanings. While 88% of Caucasian Republicans are against the consideration of race, this number falls to 66% among Caucasian Democrats. The consideration of other factors such as legacy status, gender, or athletic ability is equally deemed inappropriate by the majority of survey participants. Therefore, the case puts into question a number of controversial admission practices, especially the elitist concept of legacy admissions. If affirmative action is found to be unconstitutional, the question of feasible alternatives arises. The benefits of diverse student cohorts in university environments and the positive effect of upward social mobility in the larger society have continually been emphasized by university administrations and the Supreme Court. Especially the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a major proponent of the policy. Yet, a similar degree of diversity could be achieved by taking into account the socio-economic background of applicants. Black and Hispanic communities are generally more socio-economically disadvantaged. According to a US government census, the median income of Black households in the United States is $28,000 and $41,000 below that of White and Asian households, respectively. The gap is slightly smaller for Hispanics. Considering household income and access to education resources would hence have similar effects on student diversity to affirmative action. This is not to deny the intersectional experience of members of the Black or Hispanic communities that face disadvantages compared to whites with a similar socioeconomic background. Rather, it acknowledges that the individuals who experience similar levels of poverty equally merit a chance in the higher education system. It further takes into consideration the racism and systemic discrimination that Asian communities are victim to, and counters stereotyping in admissions where the achievements of Asian students are not valued equally because of their ethnic background. While the official judgment will only be released in 2023, the end of affirmative action will bring changes to the framework of college admissions. However, it may not be necessary to equate this to the end of student diversity in higher education. A range of alternative tools could continue to protect the interests of socially disadvantaged students.

La construction du "peuple" à travers le spectre d'un ennemi anachronique, en s'appuyant sur la menace de la dictature pour instiller la peur, a démontré son efficacité. < Back Argentina 1985 By Amalia Heide January 31, 2024 Le film Argentina 1985 apparaît comme le dernier ajout à une vaste série cinématographique abordant le thème complexe de la dictature civico-militaire en Argentine de 1976 à 1983. La réception massive de ces films par le public et l'absence de critiques révisionnistes entourant ces productions laissent présager un consensus général concernant les violations des droits humains par les militaires pendant cette sombre période de l'histoire argentine. Cependant, ce consensus social apparent n'est pas nécessairement synonyme d'absence de conflit concernant la mémoire de la dernière dictature argentine. En effet, il existe une reconnaissance largement partagée des disparitions et des tortures envers d’activistes de gauche effectuée par les militaires argentins, leur rôle dans l'enlèvement de bébés issus de familles de gauche et confiés à des familles soutenant les actions militaires, ainsi qu'une reconnaissance collective de l'impératif de localiser et de rétablir l'identité véritable de ces bébés (comme le font l'organisation des Madres y Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo ). Cependant, cette acceptation des faits n'implique pas un consensus sur leurs interprétations. Une tension sous-jacente entre des interprétations historiques peut être instrumentalisée, voire exacerbée, par les politiciens. C'est cette instrumentalisation que nous cherchons à analyser. Nous adopterons une structure chronologique et thématique. Pour ce numéro, nous examinerons comment le régime kirchnériste (2003-2015 / 2019-2023) a marqué un tournant dans l'instrumentalisation de la mémoire de la dictature. Dans le prochain numéro, nous examinerons comment le parti politique de centre-droit "Juntos por el cambio" (au pouvoir entre 2015 et 2019) et à présent Javier Milei l’ont instrumentalisé à leur tour de manière assez originale. Après la crise économique significative en Argentine en 2001, la société civile a complètement perdu confiance en la politique et les politiciens du pays. Cependant, le candidat présidentiel Nestor Kirchner a compris que pour regagner légitimité et confiance, il pouvait aspirer à jouer le rôle d'avocat pour la reconnaissance des victimes de la dernière dictature. Cela impliquait de répondre à des demandes de longue date que les gouvernements précédents avaient échoué à satisfaire. En assumant ce rôle, le mouvement politique kirchnériste en Argentine a utilisé stratégiquement la mémoire de la dictature pour construire son identité politique unique. Alors que l'activisme en faveur des droits humains contre la dictature avait des racines depuis le début de la démocratie en 1983, le discours kirchnériste a embrassé, coopté et monopolisé ce récit au sein de son militantisme. Néstor Kirchner, à son arrivée à la présidence en 2003, s'est identifié comme faisant partie d'une "génération diezmada (génération décimée) punie par des absences douloureuses" . Il a déclaré : "J'ai rejoint les luttes politiques en croyant à des valeurs et à des convictions que je n'ai pas l'intention de laisser à la porte de la Casa Rosada (siège du gouvernement)". Néstor Kirchner a renforcé cette approche sur la scène internationale en se présentant comme le "fils des mères et des grands-mères de la Plaza de Mayo" dans un discours prononcé la même année devant l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies. Ce discours politique a été suivi par des actes symboliques officiels de reconnaissance et de commémoration des victimes du terrorisme d'État. Le 24 mars 2004, à l'occasion du 28e anniversaire du coup d'État militaire, la présidente Kirchner a demandé au chef de l'armée du collège militaire de la nation d'enlever les portraits des anciens dictateurs Jorge Rafael Videla et Reynaldo Bignone, qui étaient toujours accrochés dans l'établissement. Plus tard dans la journée, Mme Kirchner a présidé une cérémonie publique annonçant la transformation de l'École de mécanique navale (ESMA), le plus grand centre de détention clandestin du pays, en "site de la mémoire et des droits humains" . Aujourd'hui, ce site est devenu un site du patrimoine de l'UNESCO. Ces mesures officielles marquent un tournant dans les relations entre l'État et une partie importante du mouvement des droits humains. Cette dernière a rejoint les rangs du kirchnerisme, reconnaissant Néstor et Cristina Kirchner comme les principaux porteurs politiques légitimes de la mémoire de la dictature. Ainsi, Hebe de Bonafini, cofondatrice et principale dirigeante des Mères de la Place de Mai, a intégré l'appareil du parti kirchneriste dans les années 2000 et l'a revendiqué à de multiples reprises : "Notre ennemi n'est plus à la Casa Rosada" . En conséquence, la relation entre le mouvement des droits humains et l'État est passée de la confrontation à l'intégration, différents segments de ces secteurs devenant partie intégrante de l'appareil d'État. Le cas d'Horacio César Pietragalla Corti illustre ce processus d'intégration. Enlevé à sa mère dans un centre de détention pendant la dictature, il a été réuni avec sa famille biologique en 2003 par les Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo. Embrassant le kirchnerisme, il a ensuite été président des archives de la mémoire nationale, puis député, et occupe actuellement le poste de secrétaire aux droits humains de la nation argentine. Ainsi, une fusion entre les sphères politique, publique et militante s'est progressivement opérée. En mars 2018, dans une interview au journal La Nación, Estela de Carlotto, une autre dirigeante historique des Grands-mères de la Place de Mai, résume ce processus politique. Le journaliste lui a demandé si les gouvernements kirchneristes s'étaient "approprié la cause des droits humains" . Elle a répondu : "Non, nous nous sommes approprié des Kirchner" . De ce fait, comme nous le constatons, ces organisations et défenseurs individuels de la reconnaissance des victimes du terrorisme d'État n'ont pas été de simples récepteurs passifs de l'identité kirchneriste, mais ont contribué à la construction et à la consolidation d'une mémoire officielle par le biais de l'appareil du parti et de l'État de la mémoire de la dictature. Ce récit officiel kirchneriste a non seulement incorporé la mémoire de la répression politique sous la dernière dictature, mais l'a également remodelée dans le contexte politique contemporain. En créant un sentiment de continuité entre les luttes passées et présentes, ce récit a encouragé la dichotomie entre "nous" et "eux" pour gagner des partisans à leur cause politique. L'exposition "Le néolibéralisme, plus jamais ça" , présentée en avril 2022 par le déjà mentionné Horacio César Pietragalla Corti , illustre l'instrumentalisation de la mémoire de la dernière dictature militaire (1978-1983). Elle est utilisée pour définir "l'autre", en associant tous les opposants politiques à "l'ennemi" de cette période sombre de l'histoire argentine. L'exposition a été installée dans l'ex-ESMA, le centre commémoratif en souvenir des victimes du terrorisme d'État pendant la dictature. Ce lieu n'est pas une simple coïncidence. Elle démontre une tentative explicite de lier les politiques de la dictature à celles des gouvernements ultérieurs, notamment en critiquant les mesures de libéralisation économique mises en œuvre sous la présidence de Mauricio Macri (2015-2019). Cette exposition présente le "néolibéralisme" comme une continuation du modèle économique de la dictature, créant une antithèse entre cette idéologie économique et la démocratie. Pour rendre cette allusion très claire, le titre de l'exposition emprunte le slogan "Nunca más" (plus jamais ça), une expression très connue en Argentine. Elle a d'abord été employée par les mères et les grands-mères des membres disparus de leur famille sous la dernière dictature et s'est profondément ancrée dans la conscience collective. L'utilisation de cette expression vise à délégitimer le principal adversaire politique de Kirchner à l'époque, qualifié d' "antidémocratique" . L'exposition publique a intégré des discours politiques, comme celui prononcé par Cristina Fernández de Kirchner le 17 octobre 2019, dix jours avant les élections présidentielles qui allaient la couronner vice-présidente du pays jusqu'en 2023 : "Le néolibéralisme plus jamais dans notre pays. C'est la troisième expérience néolibérale subie par le peuple argentin. La première, lointaine, avec le coup d'État du 24 mars 1976, où un projet néolibéral a été installé dans le pays pour la première fois (...) Puis est venue la deuxième expérience, celle des années 1990 (...) Et maintenant cette dernière et troisième expérience néolibérale, nous devons le dire, et je pense que tous les Argentins doivent repenser et se demander pourquoi ces choses nous arrivent (...)". Ce discours adopte une approche clairement populiste. Cristina simplifie un passé traumatisant pour la population argentine, en le formulant en termes économiques, et se positionne comme la défenseuse du "peuple" contre les élites capitalistes et antidémocratiques. La construction du "peuple" à travers le spectre d'un ennemi anachronique, en s'appuyant sur la menace de la dictature pour instiller la peur, a démontré son efficacité.

Promoting finance to tackle climate change in developing countries is one of the pillars of the Paris Agreement. Yet the investment world, which seemingly has a never-ending stream of scandals and mis-selling driven by greed and lack of ethics, is yet again undermining the existentially important issue of climate change. < Back Regulating ESG Investments Becomes More Pressing Amidst Greenwashing Trends By Noor Ahmad November 30, 2022 The 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP27, is convening in the Egyptian coastal city of Sharm el-Sheikh between the 6th and 18th of November 2022. The conference seeks to tackle global climate emergency issues: how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to the effects of climate change and finance climate action in developing countries. The conference seeks to build on the Paris Agreement in 2015, which set out goals to guide nations on how to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and limit global temperature increase to two degrees Celsius. The agreement is a legally binding international treaty with 194 signatory Parties. The issue of climate change and financing the fight against it are nothing new. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing has been rising for the last decade. ESG incorporates a broad set of principles that socially responsible investments should follow and are sometimes commingled with “green” investments, which focus primarily on environmental impact. While there is no clear taxonomy for ESG, it broadly aims to curtail the effects of climate change, carbon emissions, environmental pollution, deforestation and water scarcity. The non-environmental categories of ESG encompass a wider scope, including community impact, human rights, diversity in company boards, bribery, and corruption. A report by the consulting firm Deloitte published earlier this year estimated $39 trillion of assets in 2020 were ESG-focused versus $19 trillion in 2014. This represents 36 percent of total global investments in 2020. The magnitude and proportion of ESG investments are expected to rise dramatically in the coming years, reaching $96 trillion by 2025 and representing 58 percent of worldwide investments. Other measures put the projected amount invested in ESG funds at a few trillion dollars. What is indisputable is that this sector is proliferating. As interest in the environment and sustainability has increased, so has regulatory focus. In 2021, the European Union introduced its Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, which requires asset managers to provide information regarding their adherence to ESG investment standards. Three categories were introduced in classifying investment funds: article six funds, which do not take sustainability into account; article eight funds, which promote ESG practices; and article nine funds, which is the highest ESG category, with sustainability at the heart of its investment policies. Moreover, since August 2022, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II, a regulation seeking to protect investors and standardize practices across the European Union, now requires financial advisors to evaluate not only the client’s risk tolerance but also their preferences for environmentally sustainable investments. The regulatory changes by the union are timely and possibly the beginning of a worldwide regulatory convergence in how to classify environmentally responsible investments. The changes have come against a background of mis-selling and misrepresentation by some of the world’s largest asset managers. DWS, Deutsche Bank’s asset management arm, recently saw its CEO step down after evidence emerged that the firm failed to classify investments labelled ESG against the necessary criteria correctly. The term “greenwashing,” which aptly describes DWS’s behavior, is one where a company tries to portray itself as more socially responsible and environmentally friendly than it is. The company may not meet the necessary standards and continue investing in environmentally harmful businesses. A German consumer group recently filed a lawsuit against DWS alleging that its ESG Climate Tech fund was marketed as having zero percent investments in polluting sectors such as coal. Yet, the fund’s investment policy allowed for investments in companies where up to 15 percent of their revenues could be generated from these harmful industries. The problems faced by DWS are not a one-off event, and the prevalence of misrepresentation of what investment funds are doing versus what they are advertising is an issue concerning regulators beyond the European Union, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority reviewing both conduct and current regulation. Promoting finance to tackle climate change in developing countries is one of the pillars of the Paris Agreement. Yet the investment world, which seemingly has a never-ending stream of scandals and mis-selling driven by greed and a lack of ethics, is yet again undermining an existentially important focus. As the awareness of climate change has begun to alter the behavior of both individual and institutional investors and centered them on environmentally positive goals, the investment world must step up and learn to police itself. Regulators will eventually catch up and create guidelines, but the intermediaries have a significant role as time passes and environmental catastrophe descends on humanity. Let us hope that the outcome of COP27 is a clear message to the investment industry that it needs to address these shortcomings and take substantial steps to finance positive change.