Connect with us

International

Greta Thunberg is Time’s Youngest Ever Person of the Year

Published

on

  • Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old climate activist from Stockholm, Sweden, was unveiled as Time’s 2019 Person of the Year on Wednesday.
  • She is the youngest individual to ever receive the honor, which has been one recognized annually by the magazine for over 90 years.
  • Thunberg has turned into an emblem of youth activism, calling out world leaders for change and inspiring others worldwide to protest for political action.

Time Person of the Year 2019

Greta Thunberg, a teenage climate activist from Sweden, was announced as Time magazine’s Person of the Year on Wednesday morning. 

Editor-in-Chief Edward Felsenthal unveiled her as the honored figure on NBC’s Today show, calling her “the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet this year.”

“She embodies youth activism,” Felsenthal said.

At age 16, Thunberg is the youngest individual ever to be Time’s Person of the Year, a 92-year-old title that recognizes “the man, woman, group or concept that has had the most influence on the world during the previous 12 months.”

Past honorees have ranged from prominent world leaders to groups of people, such as the 2017 Silence Breakers which includes those who spoke out on sexual harassment and misconduct in the wake of the #MeToo movement.

Thunberg has had an eventful year, rising from what Felsenthal called a “solo protester” planted outside of Swedish parliament to a figure of hope and change.

She launched the #FridaysForFuture movement, inspiring masses of people worldwide to protest outside of their local government buildings weekly, demanding climate action. In September, she stood before the United Nations Climate Action Summit and delivered a passionate speech to some of the planet’s most powerful leaders. 

“People are suffering, people are dying, and our ecosystems are collapsing,” she said. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?”

Thunberg is diagnosed with Asperger’s and has spoken out about her condition, likening it to a “superpower.” 

“I have been very limited by my diagnosis in the past but now I don’t suffer from it anymore,” she told Time. “I use it in a way that [I] can take advantage of.” 

Time’s 2019 pick has been praised by many.

Thunberg’s Critics

Not everyone is in support of Thunberg or her climate-focused agenda. After her remarks at the UN Climate Action Summit in the fall, President Donald Trump tweeted out a message about the teen.

“She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future,” he wrote. “So nice to see!”

The POTUS’s message was widely believed to be sarcastic, as Thunberg appears anything but happy in the video of the summit. 

Anthony Scaramucci, Trump’s former communications director, called him out for his response.

“Parents in America and around the world: he went after a 16 year old girl yesterday,” Scaramucci tweeted. “⁦@realDonaldTrump⁩ unfit to serve.”

Thunberg retaliated subtly, briefly changing her Twitter bio to describe herself as: “A very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future.”

Just one day before Time’s honor of Thunberg was revealed, Brazil’s president Jair Bolsanaro called her a “brat” to reporters. His comment came after Thunberg tweeted a video on Sunday drawing attention to indigenous people that are allegedly being murdered for their efforts to protect the Amazon from illegal deforestation.

In the past year, Thunberg has been publicly insulted by others as well, including Fox News host Laura Ingraham and Conservative commentator Michael Knowles.

Thunberg’s Persistence

The teenage activist doesn’t seem fazed by her critics—they seem to only push her to work harder for a more sustainable planet.

“All we young activists are doing is telling people to listen to and unite behind the science,” she told Time in November. “We get all this hate that shows we are actually making a difference and they see us as a threat.” 

Thunberg doesn’t even seem to be very stirred by the honors she has received. In October, she posted a lengthy Instagram caption explaining why she turned down the 2019 Nordic Council’s environmental award.

“The climate movement does not need any more awards,” she wrote. “What we need is for our politicians and the people in power [to] start to listen to the current, best available science.”

Thunberg posted on Wednesday morning, thanking Time for the recognition and declaring that she shares the honor with “climate activists everywhere.” Her focus seems to remain primarily on the planet that she is fighting for. 

“I’d like to tell my grandchildren that we did everything we could,” she told Time. “And we did it for them and for the generations to come.”

See what others are saying: (New York Times) (BBC) (Washington Post)

International

Israel Relaxes Abortion Restrictions in Response to U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

Published

on

The reforms follow similar moves by France and Germany as leaders across the political spectrum denounce the court’s decision.


Health Minister Makes Announcement

Israel is easing access to abortion in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s repeal of Roe v. Wade, Nitzan Horowitz, the country’s health minister and head of the small left-wing Meretz party, announced Monday.

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s move to deny a woman the right to abortion is a dark move,” he said in the announcement, “oppressing women and returning the leader of the free and liberal world a hundred years backward.”

The new rules, approved by a majority in the parliamentary committee, grant women access to abortion pills through the universal health system. Women will be able to obtain the pills at local health centers rather than only hospitals and surgical clinics.

The new policy also removes the decades-old requirement for women to physically appear before a special committee that must grant approval to terminate a pregnancy.

While women will still need to get approval, the process will become digitized, the application form will be simplified, and the requirement to meet a social worker will become optional.

The committee will only conduct hearings in the rare case it initially denies the abortion procedure.

Israel’s 1977 abortion law stipulates four criteria for termination of pregnancy: If the woman is under 18 or over 40, if the fetus is in danger, if the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or an “illicit union,” including extramarital affairs, and if the woman’s mental or physical health is at risk.

All of the changes will take effect over the next three months.

The World Reacts

Politicians across the political spectrum from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson have denounced the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision since it was announced Friday.

On Saturday, French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne expressed support for a bill proposed by parliament that would enshrine the right to an abortion in the country’s constitution.

“For all women, for human rights, we must set this gain in stone,” she wrote on Twitter. “Parliament must be able to unite overwhelmingly over this text.”

Germany scrapped a Nazi-era law prohibiting the promotion of abortion Friday, just hours before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

In Israel, abortion is a far less controversial issue than it is for Americans. Around 98% of people who apply for an abortion get one, according to the country’s Central Bureau of Statistics.

Part of the reason for Israel’s relatively easy access to abortion is that many residents interpret Jewish law to condone, or at least not prohibit, the procedure.

In the United States, several Jewish organizations including the American Jewish Committee, Hillel International, and the Women’s Rabbinic Network have expressed opposition to the court ruling, and some Jews have protested it as a violation of their religious freedom.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (ABC News) (The Guardian)

Continue Reading

International

Flight Deporting Refugees From U.K. to Rwanda Canceled at Last Hour

Published

on

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said the U.K.’s asylum policy sets a “catastrophic” precedent.


Saved By The Bell

The inaugural flight in the U.K. government’s plan to deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda was canceled about an hour and a half before it was supposed to take off Tuesday evening.

A last-minute legal intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) halted the flight. Tuesday’s flight originally included 37 people, but after a string of legal challenges that number dwindled to just seven.

In its ruling for one of the seven passengers, a 54-year-old Iraqi man, the court said he cannot be deported until three weeks after the delivery of the final domestic decision in his ongoing judicial review proceedings.

Another asylum seeker, a 26-year-old Albanian man, told The Guardian he was in a “very bad mental state” and did not want to go to Rwanda, a country he knows nothing about.

“I was exploited by traffickers in Albania for six months,” he said. “They trafficked me to France. I did not know which country I was being taken to.”

A final domestic effort to block the flight in the Court of Appeals failed on Monday. The High Court will make a ruling on the asylum policy next month.

Britains Divided by Controversial Policy

U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel spoke to lawmakers after the flight was canceled, defending the asylum policy and saying preparations for the next flight will begin immediately.

“We cannot keep on spending nearly £5 million a day on accommodation including that of hotels,” she said. “We cannot accept this intolerable pressure on public services and local communities.”

“It makes us less safe as a nation because those who come here illegally do not have the regularized checks or even the regularized status, and because evil people-smuggling gangs use the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains to fund other appalling crimes that undermine the security of our country,” she continued.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Filippo Grandi, told CBC the policy sets a “catastrophic” precedent.

“We believe that this is all wrong,” he said. “This is all wrong. I mean, saving people from dangerous journeys is great, is absolutely great. But is that the right way to do it? Is that the right, is that the real motivation for this deal to happen? I don’t think so. I think it’s… I don’t know what it is.”

An Iranian asylum seeker in a British detention center who was told to prepare for deportation before being granted a late reprieve was asked by ABC whether he ever thought the U.K. would send him to Africa.

“I thought in the U.K. there were human rights,” he said. “But so far I haven’t seen any evidence.”

The Conservative government’s plan was announced in April, when it said it would resettle some asylum seekers 4,000 miles away in Rwanda, where they can seek permanent refugee status, apply to settle there on other grounds, or seek asylum in a safe third country.

The scheme was meant to deter migrants from illegally smuggling themselves into the country by boat or truck.

Migrants have long made the dangerous journey from Northern France across the English Channel, with over 28,000 entering the U.K. in boats last year, up from around 8,500 the year prior. Dozens of people have died making the trek, including 27 who drowned last November when a single boat capsized.

See what others are saying: (BBC) (The Guardian) (CNN)

Continue Reading

International

Ryanair Draws Outrage, Accusations of Racism After Making South Africans Take Test in Afrikaans

Published

on

Afrikaans, which is only spoken as a first language by around 13% of South Africa, has not been the country’s national language since apartheid came to an end in 1994.


Airline Won’t Explain Discrimination

Ryanair, Europe’s largest airline, has received widespread criticism and accusations of racism after it began requiring South African nationals to complete a test in Afrikaans to prove their passport isn’t fraudulent.

The airline told BBC the new policy was implemented because of “substantially increased cases of fraudulent South African passports being used to enter the U.K.”

Among other questions, the test asks passengers to name South Africa’s president, its capital city, and one national public holiday.

Ryanair has not said why it chose Afrikaans, the Dutch colonial language that many associate with white minority rule, for the test.

There are 11 official languages in South Africa, and Afrikaans ranks third for usage below Zulu and IsiXhosa. Only around 13% of South Africans speak Afrikaans as their first language.

“They’re using this in a manner that is utterly absurd,” Conrad Steenkamp, CEO of the Afrikaans Language Council, told reporters. “Afrikaans, you have roughly 20% of the population of South Africa understand Afrikaans. But the rest don’t, so you’re sitting with roughly 50 million people who do not understand Afrikaans.”

“Ryanair should be careful,” he continued. “Language is a sensitive issue. They may well end up in front of the Human Rights Commission with this.”

Ryanair’s policy only applies to South African passengers flying to the United Kingdom from within Europe, since it does not fly out of South Africa.

The British government has said in a statement that it does not require the test.

Anyone who cannot complete the test will be blocked from traveling and given a refund.

Memories of Apartheid Resurface

“The question requiring a person to name a public holiday is particularly on the nose given that SA has a whole public holiday NEXT WEEK commemorating an historic protest that started in response to language-based discrimination,” one person tweeted.

South African citizen Dinesh Joseph told the BBC that he was “seething” with anger when asked to take the test.

“It was the language of apartheid,” he said, adding that it was a trigger for him.

Officials in the country were also surprised by Ryanair’s decision.

We are taken aback by the decision of this airline because the Department regularly communicates with all airlines to update them on how to validate South African passports, including the look and feel,” South Africa’s Department of Home Affairs said in a statement.

Any airline found to have flown a passenger with a fake passport to the U.K. faces a fine of £2,000 from authorities there. Ryanair has also not said whether it requires similar tests for any other nationalities.

Many people expressed outrage at Ryanair’s policy and some told stories of being declined service because they did not pass the test.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (BBC) (Al Jazeera)

Continue Reading