Connect with us

International

Trudeau Expels MPs From Party, Threatens to Sue Opposition Leader

Advertisements

Published

on

  • Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expelled Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from the Liberal Party and banned them from running in October’s election as Liberals.
  • Wilson-Raybould, who previously served as the Attorney General and Justice Minister, accused Trudeau of pressuring her to drop a criminal case against Canadian engineering firm SNC-Lavalin and then reassigning her when she refused.
  • Opposition leader Andrew Scheer released a letter he received from Trudeau, threatening to sue him for libel over statements he made regarding the case.

Trudeau Kicks Former Ministers Out of Party

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expelled two former ministers from the Liberal Party, in a move intended to create unity between members of his party.

Trudeau said Tuesday that former Justice Minister and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould and former Treasury Board president Jane Philpott are no longer allowed in the Liberal Party.

Trudeau also banned Wilson-Raybould and Philpott from running for the party in the federal election in October.

The move comes as Trudeau has been embroiled in a corruption scandal that alleges his office attempted to settle a criminal case against SNC-Lavalin, a huge engineering and construction firm based in Canada.

The criminal case against SNC says the company paid millions in bribes to officials in Lybia in order to secure lucrative contracts between 2001 and 2011, including millions of dollars to the regime of Lybian dictator, Muammar Gaddafi.

When Trudeau and the Liberal Party took office in 2015, Wilson-Raybould was given oversight of the case against SNC in her role as Justice Minister and Attorney General.

A Scandal is Born

Then in January, Trudeau reassigned Wilson-Raybould to the Veterans Affairs Department, which was considered a major demotion.

On February 7, The Globe and Mail published an investigative report claiming Trudeau and his aides had tried to direct Wilson-Raybould’s handling of the SNC-Lavalin case. Wilson-Raybould resigned less than a week after the story was published.

Shortly after that, Wilson-Raybould testified before a parliamentary committee, and claimed that Trudeau and his aides had pressured her to settle the case by using “political interference” and “veiled threats.”

She said what they did was not illegal, but that it crossed informal lines intended to keep politics and criminal prosecutions separate.

Following Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, Philpott resigned from her post as Treasury Board president, saying in a resignation letter that she had lost all confidence in the government.

Both women remained as members of the Canadian Parliament in the Liberal Party after they stepped down from their cabinet positions.

Why Were They Expelled?

Trudeau has continually denied any wrongdoing and has said he takes the concerns very seriously.

Trudeau’s decision to eject Wilson-Raybould and Philpott is largely considered part of his broader efforts to do damage control before he faces a federal election in October.

However, it has not been unprompted. Parliamentarians in the Liberal Party have recently pushed Trudeau to remove both women from caucus on the grounds that they were undermining party unity.

“The trust that previously existed between these two individuals and our team has been broken,” Trudeau said in a press conference on Tuesday, “It’s become clear that Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Dr. Philpott can no longer be part of our Liberal team.”

Wilson-Raybould & Philpott Stir the Pot

The Liberal Party putting pressure on Trudeau to remove Wilson-Raybould and Philpott did not come out of the blue.

About two weeks ago, Wilson-Raybould publicly released a secret a recording of a phone call she had in December with Canada’s Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, who is Canada’s top civil servant.

In the phone call, she told Wernick that Trudeau “was on dangerous ground.” Wilson-Raybould released the records shortly after Wernick announced that he was going to step down from his position before the upcoming election.

In addition to continually supporting Wilson-Raybould, Philpott also angered members of the Liberal Party after she gave an interview with MacLeans on March 21.

“There’s much more to the story that should be told,” Philpott said in the interveiw, “I believe the former attorney general has further points to make. I believe that I have further issues of concern that I’m not free to share.”

Both women can still run for election again, but they would have to run as a different party, which could be challenging. So far neither Wilson-Raybould nor Philpott have said they are going to run for Parliament again in October under another party.

Wilson-Raybould & Philpott Respond

Wilson-Raybould responded to Trudeau’s move to expel her in a series of tweets on Tuesday, writing, “I have no regrets. I will speak the truth as I will continue to do.”

Wilson-Raybould also defended herself in a letter to the Liberal Party, writing:

“I am angry, hurt, and frustrated because I feel and believe I was upholding the values that we all committed to. In giving the advice I did, and taking the steps I did, I was trying to help protect the Prime Minister and the government from a horrible mess. I am not the one who tried to interfere in sensitive proceedings.”

Philpott also responded to her expulsion in a Facebook post on Tuesday.

“It appears that the caucus is intent on staying the current course, regardless of its short-term and long-term consequences to the party and to the country,”wrote Philpott, “And it has been decided that there is no place for me in the caucus.”

Unprecedented Action

Trudeau’s move to expel Wilson-Raybould and Philpott may have come from internal pressures inside the Liberal Party as they inch closer to the election, but this kind of action is largely unprecedented in Canadain politics.

“There’s been resignations on disagreements to government policy, there’s been resignations relating to scandal,” said Chris Cochrane, a University of Toronto politics professor, “There’s never been two resignations in recent memory of people resigning on principle … together.”

Cochrane also said that Wilson-Raybould and Philpott’s ejections especially come as shock because they represent a change of course for Trudeau, who has continually said that Liberals needed strong legislators with different points of view, and who also campaigned on transparency and government accountability.

“The difference here is that Trudeau explicitly promised in the last election to do business differently than previous governments,” Cochrane told the National Post.

Trudeau is also receiving criticism because he has been championed in the past as a self-described feminist and a supporter of indigenous rights.

Now, his opponents have used this incident to portray him as a leader who directed aides to bully Wilson-Raybould, an Indigenous woman, in order to protect a corporation from a criminal conviction in a corruption case.

Trudeau Threatens Lawsuit Against Opposition Leader for ‘Libel’

On Sunday, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer released a letter he received from Trudeau’s lawyer on March 31, threatening to sue him for libel.

On March 29, Scheer posted a statement on Facebook and Twitter regarding Wilson-Raybould and the SNC case. According to Trudeau’s attorney, Scheer’s statement was“beyond the pale of fair debate” and “libelous.”

Trudeau’s lawyer also said Scheer’s statement, “Contained highly defamatory comments about Prime Minister Trudeau.” The letter concludes that it should be taken as a notice for any subsequent action.

Scheer responded to the letter in a tweet, writing, “I stand by every single criticism I have made of Justin Trudeau’s behaviour in this scandal.”

The tweet also included a letter from Scheer’s own lawyer in response to Trudeau’s letter, which called the libel claim “completely without merit,” and claimed Scheer was “performing his constitutional duty to hold the Prime Minister and his government to account.”

Scheer later tweeted that he welcomed Trudeau’s lawsuit, “Because he will finally be forced to testify under oath.”

Whether or not Trudeau will move ahead with the lawsuit is yet to be known.

See what others are saying: (National Post) (CBC) (The Washington Post)

Advertisements

International

Largest Network in the Philippines Denied Licensing Renewal, Reigniting Concerns Over Press Freedoms

Published

on

  • The Philippine’s largest broadcaster, ABS-CBN, has been officially taken off the air by the Filipino Congress.
  • The outlet has been critical of President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs, which has seen thousands of Filipinos die in extra-judicial killings.
  • This points to a growing trend of the president and his allies silencing outlets and individuals critical of him.
  • The Philippines, once considered a stable and free democracy, currently ranks among the worst in the world when it comes to freedom of the press, according to the World Press Freedom Index.

Largest Broadcaster Pulled Off the Air

The Philippine’s largest broadcaster has been officially pulled off the air by the Filipino Congress after having its broadcast license renewal denied on Friday.

The outlet, called ABS-CBN, employs 11,000 people. It was available to an audience of 60 million and consistently was viewed by over 15 million. It was hoping to receive another 25-year broadcast license after its recent one expired in May.

However, that request was denied by a committee of the House of Representatives after 13 hearings. Most of the committee members are long-time allies of President Rodrigo Duterte, who has been extremely critical of the outlet since taking office.

PHILIPPINES-POLITICS-MEDIA
Supports and employees of ABS-CBN hold signs in front of the House of Representatives, Manila, July 10, 2020. (Miggy Hilario)

Unlike other outlets petitioning for a license renewal, ABS-CBN weren’t allowed to continue using the free public airwaves while its application was pending, meaning it could only be a paid-subscription service.

Following the decision, ABS-CBN’s president and CEO, Carlo Katigbak, said in a statement on Friday, “We remain committed to public service, and we hope to find other ways to achieve our mission.” He went on to add the network was “deeply hurt” by the committee’s ruling.

The outlet can appeal, although there isn’t much hope that it’ll be successful.

Covering the War on Drugs

Duterte and his allies have long been critical of the outlet, claiming it’s biased, has long-standing labor violations, and is foreign-owned. This angle of attack was the focus of Duterte’s allies when they questioned the outlet during its hearings; however, many of these claims were debunked during the committee hearings.

As for the claims that its biased, that may be true. The outlet refused to air election ads from Duterte in 2016, and was accused by the then-candidate of favoring his opponent.

The outlet has since been a thorn in Duterte’s side because of its ongoing coverage of his drug war. Since taking office, Duterte has encouraged a war on drugs that has seen thousands of vigilante and capricious killings of civilians over accusations they are involved in the drug trade. Police have also been used to carry out attacks.

ABS-CBN has been extremely critical of the attacks and has long kept track of the extra-judicial killings, broadcasting their findings to millions of Filipinos. Duterte already wasn’t a fan of journalists, calling them “sons of bitches” and warning they weren’t exempt from physical attacks, but ABS-CBN’s reporting put it in the crosshairs of the president.

On multiple occasions, the president has stated that he planned to get the broadcaster’s license revoked, even as recently as December telling the station, “I will see to it that you’re out.”

However, despite his long history of disliking the outlet, the president’s spokesman, Harry Roque, tried to distance Duterte from the decision in a statement.

“The palace has maintained a neutral stance on the issue as it respects the separation of powers between the two coequal branches of government. Much as we want to work with the aforesaid media network, we have to abide by the resolution of the House committee,”

Duterte’s War on Journalists

ABS-CBN warned its 11,000 employees that if their license wasn’t renewed, they could expect to be laid off. Assuming their appeal is denied, that is expected to happen.

Congressman Carlos Zarate was appalled at this prospect and the committee’s decision, saying, “Why should we add 11,000 more to the number of unemployed in this most difficult time?” He was alluding to the coronavirus pandemic, which has hit the Philippines particularly hard with over 50,000 cases nationwide.

Human rights and media organizations decried the vote as a continuation of Duterte’s assault of the free press. The Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines said in a statement, “The decision deprives the Filipino people of an independent source of information when millions are grappling with the coronavirus pandemic.”

Another recent example of Duterte’s war against journalists is Maria Ressa, the head of the popular news site Rappler. She has also been critical of the government and its extrajudicial killings as part of its war on drugs. Last month, she was found guilty of libel in a case seen by many as an attempt to silence the site. She faces upwards of six years in prison.

Despite nominally enshrining the freedom of the press in its constitution, the Philippines ranks among the worst in the world in that regard, currently placed at 136 out of 180 on the World Press Freedom Index.

The Philippine’s ranking on the World Press Freedom Index, only ranking marginally better than places like Russia.

In addition to revoking the broadcast license of outlets that are critical of the president and charging reporters with libel, Reporters Without Borders claims, “Private militias, often hired by local politicians, silence journalists with complete impunity.”

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (CBS News) (BBC)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

International

Body of Missing Seoul Mayor Found Just Days After He Faced Sexual Harassment Allegations

Published

on

  • Park Won-Soon, the mayor of Seoul, was reported missing on Thursday and was found dead early Friday morning, days after reportedly being accused of sexual harassment by a former secretary.
  • His death was officially considered a suicide after a note was found at his residence.
  • The allegations are particularly shocking because Park was a known advocate for women’s rights and was considered a potential presidential candidate.
  • His accuser suggested more of Park’s victims existed but were scared to come forward. In accordance with South Korean law, an investigation into the matter has been dropped because of his death.

Body Found at Bukaksan

The mayor of Seoul, a potential presidential candidate and arguably the second most powerful public official in the country, was found dead on Friday, roughly two days after a former secretary from his office accused him of sexually harassing her in 2017.

According to authorities, the body of Park Won-Soon was found on a forested hill on Bukaksan, a mountain in northern Seoul, not too far from his home in the Jongno neighborhood. CCTV footage showed the mayor arriving at the park by taxi at 10:53 a.m. on Thursday. By 5:17 p.m. Thursday, his daughter filed a police report stating that he “had left home four to five hours ago” and left a message that sounded like his will. By this point, his phone was turned off.

Shortly after the report, upwards of 600 officers, K-9 units, and medical personnel were dispatched to search for the mayor. At 12:01 a.m. Friday, his body was found near a bag, a water bottle, a cell phone, writing utensils, and Park’s business card. Police reported that there were no signs this case was a homicide, and after the unveiling of a note from his residence, it was considered a suicide.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/img_dir/2020/07/10/2020071000952_2.jpg
Police searching Bukaksan Thursday night. (Chosun Ilbo)

In the note, Park wrote that he was “sorry” to everyone and specifically stated that he was sorry to his family for “causing only pain.” His note made no mention of the allegations against him.

Police are in talks with the Park family over whether to conduct an autopsy. In the meantime his body is being kept at Seoul National University Hospital, where supporters could be seen outside crying and shouting, “Get up, Park Won-Soon,” and “We’re sorry, Park Won-Soon!”

Unexpected Allegations

Park’s death is a dramatic loss for the city for a variety of reasons. Despite South Korea having the highest suicide rate among the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, suicide by politicians is quite rare. Additionally, Park has been a staple of life in Seoul, which dominates the political landscape of South Korea. He was the longest serving mayor in the country’s history, having been in the role since 2011.

He was also considered a likely candidate to run for the Democratic party after President Moon Jae-in’s term was up in 2022 – the same time Park’s most recent mayoral tenure would end.

The circumstances leading up to his presumed-suicide have also left many South Korean citizens shocked. On Wednesday, a former secretary from his office went to police and filed a report accusing the mayor of sexual harassment, although this accusation wasn’t public until after Park went missing.

For years, South Korea has been embroiled in its own #MeToo reckoning, leading to many actors, businessmen, and politicians losing their positions and often facing jail time.

However, the allegations against Park, of which few details are actually known to the public, reportedly include unwanted physical contact and inappropriate messages. His alleged victim, according to Chosun Ilbo, gave investigators messages and inappropriate photos Park had sent her while she worked for him. She also allegedly said that there were more victims who were too scared to come forward.

The allegations are particularly shocking because of Park’s past. The mayor was long been considered a pillar of civil rights and women’s rights. He was famous for being a prominent civil rights attorney who founded the nation’s most influential civil rights group.

During his time as a lawyer, he campaigned on behalf of “comfort” women, Korean sex slaves who were forced into the role by the Japanese during the 1930s and ’40s. He also won major cases, including a case in the ’80s, during the country’s dictatorship, against a police officer who molested a woman while she was being interrogated. One of his biggest accolades was winning South Korea’s first sexual harassment case ever in the ’90s.

These actions were often praised by supporters because they challenged South Korea’s strict hierarchical and patriarchal structure, which are ingrained into the culture and language.

During his time as mayor, he focused on the environment and urban renewal for Seoul. Park also focused on fighting and containing COVID-19, leading to Seoul, a city of 10 million, having less than 2000 cases. For comparison, the city of Los Angeles, which is similar in population but less densely populated, had well over 50,000 cases.

Current cases in South Korea as of July 10. (Google)

Five Days of Funeral Services

In accordance with South Korean law, the police investigation against Park will be dropped due to his death. That’s because police won’t have someone to actually charge a crime with.

Although, when city officials were asked if they would be conducting their own investigation, officials said they are “not yet aware” of the allegations.

Park’s note mentioned that he wished to be cremated and have his ashes spread over his parents’ graves. Currently, the city of Seoul will be holding a mayoral funeral for Park, which means it will last five days. Generally speaking, Korean funerals last three days.

An altar will be set up in front of City Hall in Seoul for citizens and staff members wanting to mourn Park’s death.

See What Others Are Saying: (Yonhap News Agency) (Chosun Ilbo) (The Korea Times)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

International

Hong Kong Bans Students From Engaging in Politics, Nations Respond to National Security Law

Published

on

  • In compliance with Hong Kong’s strict national security law, Hong Kong students are now being banned from engaging in political activity such as singing, skipping class, and posting online.
  • Books and other educational material are being removed from libraries or placed under review if they break four crimes under the law: treason, sabotage, espionage, and terrorism.
  • Critics and nations, like the US, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK, have called the law vague and are reexamining their relationships with Hong Kong.
  • Most recently, Australia suspended its extradition treaty with the city over the recent changes, while also moving to expand visas for Hong Kongers.

Hong Kong University Bans

Students within Hong Kong are now banned from engaging in all political activity as of Wednesday.

This is just the most recent change to Hong Kong life after China’s new national security law was put into effect on June 30. Other changes include banning speech that violates the Four Rules: “treason, sabotage, espionage, or terrorism.”

On Wednesday the city’s education secretary Kevin Yeung announced that “schools are obliged to stop” students from engaging in a ton of political activity, citing that at least 1,600 students under the age of 18 had been arrested at protests.

He added, “We would like to reiterate that no political propaganda activities should be allowed in schools, and no one, including students, should play, sing, and broadcast songs which contain political messages or hold any activities to express their political stance.”

This means activities like posting political slogans, forming human chains, or singing “Glory to Hong Kong” (the unofficial anthem of the protests) are now prohibited. That song, in particular, was targeted because it “contains strong political messages and is closely related to the social and political incidents, violence and illegal incidents that have lasted for months. Therefore, schools must not allow students to play, sing or broadcast it in schools.”

Some of the most serious fighting between protesters and police took place at universities and officials likely hope this move will sap the energy of many pro-democracy protesters, as students were a driving force for the movement.

Hong Kong Quickly Changing

The now banned slogan of the Hong Kong protest.
Photo via Simon Jankowski/Nur Photo

Beyond banning students from protesting, Hong Kong has seen many political activities curbed. Last week, popular slogans associated with the protests were banned for breaking the Four Rules of the national security law. Slogans like “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times!” and “Hong Kongers, build a nation,” are now illegal and seen as undermining Chinese national sovereignty.

One aspect of the national security law and its Four Rules often criticized are that they’re so vague. Nearly any pro-Democracy advocate in Hong Kong is considered to be breaking the law, which over the weekend led to public libraries being forced to review books in their collections that could break these rules.

This meant that a wide array of books are currently “under review” to determine whether or not they need to be banned.

A similar move was made on Monday when Hong Kong’s Education Bureau issued new rules to universities throughout the territory that would also ban books and learning materials.

The rules include banning education materials, “If any teaching materials have content which is outdated or involves the four crimes under the law, unless they are being used to positively teach pupils about their national security awareness or sense of safeguarding national security, otherwise if they involve other serious crime or socially and morally unacceptable act, they should be removed.”

So, what books can be expected to see a ban in schools? If the public library ban is used as a guideline, books by pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong are likely the first to be removed. Activists Joshua Wong and Tanya Chan both had their books removed from shelves while they are “under review.”

Wong was quick to criticize the move, saying on Monday, “If basic freedom still exists under the national security law, how come the book I published when I was still in high school was banned in the Hong Kong public library?”

The activist went on to add, “It’s not only about the political rights any more. It’s not only about the rights of protesters. It’s about the fundamental freedom or liberty that everyone cherish in this city, being eroded and fade out already.”

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement criticizing the extent to which the national security law is being implemented, “With the ink barely dry on the repressive National Security Law, local authorities — in an Orwellian move — have now established a central government national security office, started removing books critical of the CCP.”

He also lamented that rights Hong Kong previously enjoyed, which were shared by most developed Democratic nations, were now eroded, such as freedom of the press.

For their part, the Hong Kong government under Chief Executive Carrie Lam has tried to spin the new national security law and all of the rules coming out because of it as a good thing for freedom in Hong Kong. On Tuesday she told reporters, “Instead of spreading fear, the law will actually remove fear and let Hong Kong people return to a normal peaceful life and Hong Kong will resume its status as one of the safest cities in the world.”

Freedom of the Press

All of these provisions have caused widespread fear over the freedom of the press, which had widespread freedoms in the city before last week. For example, on Monday the Hong Kong government announced that RTHK, a public broadcaster in the city, would be undergoing a six-month review of their “governance and management.” It’s widely assumed that the means the station will be purged of any anti-Chinese Communist party viewpoints.

Despite this, Lam tried to say that journalistic freedom would still exist in Hong Kong. She told journalists that they wouldn’t face censorship or prosecution under the law by stating, “if journalists can guarantee that they won’t breach this law, then I can also guarantee the same.”

This means journalists are safe from prosecution as long as they don’t report on any facts that break the national security law – a law that is written to apply worldwide. Recent coverage detailed that posts written in America are subject to the law, so journalists critical of the regime face repercussions upon entering Hong Kong.

Nations Respond to Shifts

Since the national security law went into effect, Hong Kong has been quickly changing, which has caused countries to reexamine their relationship with the city. Many nations gave Hong Kong special exemptions on the premise that it was separate and distinct from mainland China.

Since June, the U.S. has stated that they would no longer give Hong Kong special trade exemptions, which added fuel to the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China. The U.S. wasn’t alone, over the last week New Zealand announced it would also review its relationship with Hong Kong and consider new visa and trade rules.

Canada approached the situation from a different angle, announcing last week they would be pulling out of an extradition treaty with the city. That move was followed up by Australia, which announced on Monday that it would also suspend their extradition treaty.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in a press conference the country was also changing visas for Hong Kongers, “There will be citizens of Hong Kong who may be looking to move elsewhere, to start a new life somewhere else, to take their skills, their businesses.”

Hong Kong students, graduates, and workers in Australia on temporary visas will now have the opportunity to stay and work for an extra five years, and then apply for permanent residency after that time.

The new system, on the surface, sounds similar how the UK plans to deal with Hong Kongers wishing to move to the UK. Although a deeper looks shows they are quite different, notably the UK’s version applies to people who hold a BNO passport. Those passports holders include over 300,000 people who were born in Hong Kong before the territory was transferred back to China.

Australia’s rules would apply to about 10,000 Hong Kongers living in the country.

Although future student visas would also cover a five-year period; however, Morrison said they were “not expecting large numbers of applicants any time soon.”

China was extremely upset with Australia’s decision and Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian warned that Australia should stop interfering in Chinese affairs. He added that China could retaliate by reminding the Australians that most of their exports go to China.

Throughout the world, democratic leaders like Angela Merkel have been pressured to act as the Chinese Communist Party continues to be a polarizing figure on the world stage.

See what others are saying: (TIME) (The New York Times) (The Wall Street Journal)

Advertisements
Continue Reading