THE Yoruba living in the North have resolved to support the laudable programmes and policies of the government of northern states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
A communiqué issued at the end of the delegate meeting of Yoruba communities in 19 northern states and the FCT said the Yoruba had resolved that the country must remain a single, united and indivisible entity as enshrined in the constitution.
The communiqué was signed by Chief William Alabi, Afeez Adigun, Chief James Bokirunduro and Yinus Alao, who are officials of the Yoruba community in the North.
It said: “Members of the Oduduwa nation living in northern Nigeria must be law- abiding, obedient and have respect for constituted authorities and traditional institutions in the North.
“Members of Yoruba nation must carry on legitimate and lawful businesses within the ambit of the law, norms, values, customs, culture, tradition and way of life of the other tribes and nationalities residing in northern Nigeria.
“The Yoruba community shall prioritise education, health care, security and welfare of each and every member of the community with the aim of taking care of the children, widows, the less-privileged, the vulnerable and the down trodden.”
And yet another option comes from a much more specific source: Finding My Way Books, which publishes and promotes the stories of children with disabilities. The bookstore collaborated with online bookseller Bookshop on a list of inclusive children’s holiday books. “The holidays seemed like a perfect opportunity to promote religious inclusion and understanding,” said the outfit’s publisher and author Jo Meserve Mach. She’s been working with Bookshop throughout 2020 on various books lists, including:
“For this specific list, I did not want any white Santa Clauses because they are so universal and exclusive,” Mach told Shopping, noting she attempted to find a “balance” in the number of titles that represent any one religious group. “I intentionally include under-represented people so their voices are lifted up within our society.”
Goodreads: 4.43 star-average rating, more than 35 ratings
Related
Why buy inclusive children’s books
Why opt for an inclusive picture book this holiday, whether for your kids or to gift others? For one thing, consider the same reason Mach said she found her calling in creating inclusive children’s books: The need for “books sharing positive stories about children with disabilities.”
“In the last century, stories tended to be about animals with a physical limitation or about children being cared for. Those books encouraged readers to see children with disabilities in a dependent way and exclusive way,” she explained. “Children with disabilities need to see the wonderful role models who are out there and children without disabilities need to see that children with disabilities are just like them.” With that in mind and so close to various gifting occasions, Mach urged parents and grandparents to consider diversity in the children’s books they shop for.
“It seems like a slight shift in thinking, but it could change the perspective of the children reading books throughout their lifetime,” she noted. “You don’t even realize how narrow your reading focus is until you stop and examine the books on your shelf.”
Related
Catch up on the latest from NBC News Shopping guides and recommendations and download the NBC News app for full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak. Looking for the perfect gift? Check out the Shop TODAY Holiday Plaza.
Sydney Williams, Shop TODAY
Sydney Williams is an NBC page on assignment with NBC News Shopping.
“What we have learned about schooling during the time of COVID is clear: the benefits of keeping schools open, far outweigh the costs of closing them, and nationwide closures of schools should be avoided at all costs”, Robert Jenkins, UNICEF Global Chief of Education, said in a statement.
Closing schools did not help in the fight against COVID-19, but simply removed a system that provides children with support, food and safety as well as learning, UNICEF said. Instead of shutting them, governments should prioritize school reopening and make classrooms as safe as possible.
“Evidence shows that schools are not the main drivers of this pandemic. Yet, we are seeing an alarming trend whereby governments are once again closing down schools as a first recourse rather than a last resort. In some cases, this is being done nationwide, rather than community by community, and children are continuing to suffer the devastating impacts on their learning, mental and physical well-being and safety”, Mr. Jenkins said.
A young Kenyan girl studies at home in Nairobi during the COVID-19 pandemic.
November saw a 38 per cent jump in the number of children affected by school closures, UNICEF said, after a big wave of reopenings the previous month.
“In spite of everything we have learned about COVID-19, the role of schools in community transmission, and the steps we can take to keep children safe at school, we are moving in the wrong direction – and doing so very quickly”, the top education official added.
Expanding access
Reopening plans must include expanded access to education, including remote learning, and rebuilding education systems to withstand future crises, UNICEF said.
The agency cited a recent study using data from 191 countries, published by the independent non-profit foundation, Insights for Education, which showed no association between school status and COVID-19 infection rates in the community.
The UN agency, together with the UN educational agency UNESCO, the refugee agency UNHCR, the UN World Food Programme and the World Bank, has published a Framework for Reopening Schools, with practical advice covering areas such as policy reform, financing requirements, safe operations and reaching the most marginalized children, who are the most likely to drop out of school altogether.
The Trump administration released a finalized rule on Monday that will clarify religious protections for federal contractors. Many critics argue it will allow for discrimination.
The Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs said its upcoming rule will provide a “clearer interpretation” of the exceptions of Title VII and the 1965 executive order that established non-discriminatory practices for federal contractors, but noted that “religious organizations may prefer in employment ‘individuals of a particular religion.’” The department first issued the proposed rule in August 2019, and it was immediately met with widespread criticism that it would sanction discrimination. It received over 109,000 comments during the public comment period and is one of the “controversial and consequential” regulation changes the administration is pursuing during its lame duck period, according to a ProPublica tracker.
“First, the rule adds definitions of key terms. Second, it adds a rule of construction to provide the maximum legal protections of religious exercise permitted by the Constitution and law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” a senior Labor Department official said during a press briefing on Monday. “The rule also adds several examples within the definition of ‘religious corporation, association, educational institution or society’ to better illustrate which contractors may qualify for the religious exemptions. And lastly, the rule and associated preamble demonstrate an abiding respect for religious organizations and allowing these organizations to fully participate in federal contracting without sacrificing their right to be religious.”
It will take effect on January 8, which is 12 days before President-elect Biden is sworn in. The senior official directed Government Executive to the public affairs office when asked if the department has spoken to the incoming Biden administration about the upcoming rule, as part of the transition process, and what its reaction was, if so.
The initial, proposed rule was based on an opinion by the father of Labor Solicitor Kate O’Scannlain, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, in Spencer v. World Vision Inc. (2010), which was brought before three judges and had no majority opinion.
Under Judge O’Scannlain’s test, an organization would be exempt if it: “1) Is organized for a self-identified religious purpose (as evidenced by Articles of Incorporation or similar foundational documents), 2) is engaged in activity consistent with, and in furtherance of, those religious purposes, and 3) holds itself out to the public as religious,” according to Brigham Young University’s law review.
The department added a fourth requirement to the final rule that says a contractor “either operates on a not-for-profit basis; or presents other strong evidence that it possesses a substantial religious purpose.” This is because “in certain, rare circumstances, an organization might be for-profit, yet still be fairly considered a religious rather than secular organization.” The department does not believe many for-profits will be seeking the exemption.
Lastly, in accordance with various Supreme Court rulings, the U.S. Constitution and other laws, “the rule clarifies the protections and obligations for religious organizations that qualify for the exemption,” said the senior official.
While religious advocates and two Republican members of the House Education and Labor Committee applauded the new clarifications (as Bloomberg Lawreported), there was still much backlash to the rule.
“The final rule would significantly expand eligibility for federal contractors to claim a religious exemption from non-discrimination rules,” Matt Kent, regulatory policy associate at Public Citizen, an advocacy nonprofit, told Government Executive. “It’s an invitation for any contractor that’s loosely affiliated with a religious purpose to discriminate against LGBTQ employees. Yet another major, ideologically driven last-minute rule change from the Trump administration.”
American Atheists, an organization advocates for civil liberties for atheists and separation of religion and government, also criticized the rule. “Job applicants and workers should not have to pass a religious litmus test, especially when it comes to government funded contracts,” said Alison Gill, the group’s vice president for legal and policy. “The American taxpayer should not be forced to fund discrimination, period.”
Additionally, Jennifer Pizer, director of law and policy for Lambda Legal, the oldest and largest legal organization that protects the rights of LGBTQ individuals and all those with HIV, said in a press release “it is hard to overstate the harm that [Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs] is visiting on LGBTQ people, women, religious minorities and others with the sledgehammer it is taking to nondiscrimination protections.” The new rule has “a grotesquely overbroad exemption that will be used by many federal contractors as a totally improper, catch-all defense to discrimination complaints.”
The senior Labor official tried to quell some of those concerns on the call by stressing that the rule neither allows for discrimination, exempts religious organizations from undergoing the contracting office’s compliance reviews or favors religious organizations over non-religious ones.
The department doesn’t expect a majority of the 25,000 federal contractors to seek religious exemptions. Additionally, it noted in a statement that the rule also complies with President Trump’s 2017 executive order on deregulation because it minimizes confusion under the 1965 executive order.
Christian geneticist Dr. Francis Collins is advising churches to avoid in-person services as countries around the world fight to bring COVID-19 rates down.
The advice of the Templeton Prize laureate of 2020 came as some religious leaders are pushing for the right to worship as the COVID-19 pandemic rages in the United States, Christian Today reported.
He had an online conversation with theologian Russell Moore about vaccines, and said churches could be sources of “superspreading” events.
Collins was attending an online church at the moment as a practising Christian himself.
While in some places, churches are open and holding public worship, his recommendation is that in-person services are shelved until at least 2021.
Collins explained his and said some restrictions were working in the fight against COVID-19, but they would falter if people started ignoring them.
“I know people are tired of hearing these messages and having to be acting upon them, but the virus does not care that we are tired,” he said.
“The virus is having a wonderful time right now spreading through this country, taking advantage of circumstances where people have let their guard go down.
“We need to be just absolutely rigorously adherent to things that we know work. But they don’t work unless everybody actually sticks to them faithfully without exception.
“Churches gathering in person is a source of considerable concern and has certainly been an instance where superspreading has happened and could happen again.
ADVICE TO CHURCHES
“So I think most churches really ought to be advised, if they are not already doing so, to go to remote, virtual kinds of services. That’s the way I’m having my experiences as a churchgoer,” he said.
Not heeding his advice San Francisco’s Catholic archbishop in response to the U>S. Supreme Court’s Dec. 3 order saying federal judges should take another look at pandemic limits on California churches, said: “The time is overdue for our civil officials to work with us and other churches on worshiping safely.”
“Catholics need the body and blood of Christ this Christmas, in California as everywhere else. And they have every right to access it,” said Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone in a statement issued late Dec. 3.
The court’s decision was based on its Nov. 25 ruling to lift similar restrictions on congregations in New York due to the pandemic, Catholic News Service reported.
“Worship is not less important than shopping for shoes; it is certainly more important to people’s spiritual and psychological health; it is a natural and constitutional right,” he continued, “and we Catholics have shown for months that we can worship safely — with masks, social distancing, ventilation, and sanitation,” said Cordileone.
TEMPLETON PRIZE
Back in May, the Templeton Foundation had named Collins as the 2020 Templeton Prize Laureate.
“In his scientific leadership, public speaking, and popular writing, including his bestselling 2006 book, The Language of God, Collins has demonstrated how religious faith can motivate and inspire rigorous scientific research, said Templeton when it made the award.
“This book argues that belief in God can be an entirely rational choice,” he writes in the introduction, “and that the principles of faith are, in fact, complementary with the principles of science.”
In the book, he endeavors to encourage religious communities to embrace the latest discoveries of genetics and the biomedical sciences as insights to enrich and enlarge their faith.
Collins, 70, was selected as the 2020 Laureate by the Prize judges lin late 2019, but the announcement was delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Valued at 1.1 million British pounds (about $1.83 million or €1.3 million), the prize is one of the world’s largest annual awards given to an individual.
It honors a living person who has made exceptional contributions to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.
From 1993 to 2008, Collins directed the National Human Genome Research Institute, guiding the Human Genome Project in its mapping and sequencing of the three billion DNA letters that make up the human genetic instruction book.
There has been a lot of debate about COVID-19 vaccines, but Collins said people should take one and also adhere to other guidelines like wearing face masks and social distancing.
He said he was optimistic that with the vaccines on their way, larger gatherings in church and other places like sports arenas would be possible again by next summer.
“And certainly, by next fall, I’m hoping we can get back to things like normal schools and businesses, and our economy can get back on its feet,” he said.
“But there are a lot of steps between now and then.
“And of course, it will go better if we don’t have our healthcare system utterly devastated by the ongoing pandemic that we could have potentially turned around by all of us taking those public health actions we just talked about.”
In his Pastoral Letter for Advent 2020, the Apostolic Administrator of Hong Kong, Cardinal John Tong Hon, has announced that in the coming year the Diocese will focus its pastoral activities on “parish renewal” so it can better address the demands of the contemporary era and also more effectively fulfil its mission and service of evangelisation. The move was decided in the light of the deep changes taking place society and Church life, also as a consequence of the on-going COVID-19 pandemic.
“The global pandemic – cardinal Tong explains – has clearly revealed to us the signs of the era. The digital culture has inevitably changed the concept of space and also people’s language and behaviour, particularly amid the younger generation”. This has had an important impact also on the Church: “As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the parish is no longer confined to a geographic space, but has become an environment for establishing rapport, through mutual servicing and liturgical rites among the local community. Hence, instead of reminiscing about the past and awaiting the restoration of parish life to that of a bygone era, it may be more desirable to face the challenges posed by the pandemic, move forward dauntlessly, as well as search for and identify a possible new mode of existence for the parish, in the hope of it playing a pivotal role in the local community once again”, the letter stresses.
Three directions
According to Cardinal Tong, the Instruction, “The pastoral conversion of the Parish community in the service of the evangelising mission of the Church”, released last July by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy, shows the path to follow in this renewal process. The Pastoral Letter focuses on three directions mentioned in the new Guidelines that are worthy of re-consideration. The first direction is that the parish should not be regarded as equivalent to a building or a series of organisations. “It is rather a community which is constituted of different communities, ‘an environment for hearing God’s word, for growth in the Christian life, for dialogue, proclamation, charitable outreach, worship and celebration’, Cardinal Tong stresses, citing Pope Francis’ words in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangeli Gaudium on the proclamation of the Gospel in today’s world.
Secondly, “the Parish must be a place which gathers people together and seeks to promote and foster long-term interpersonal relationships, thereby nurturing a sense of belonging and acceptance in the parish community”. Therefore it should be “a people-oriented venue, promoting dialogue, solidarity and openness to all”. If the parish “succeeds in firmly rooting itself in the heart of the community’s daily lives, it will become a place for overcoming loneliness, and will affect the lives of many”, cardinal Tong writes..
The prelate therefore calls on priests in the Diocese to discuss the Vatican document so that they can plan “the pastoral direction of the Diocese for the coming three years”. He also invites all Diocesan Bureaux and members of the parish councils to study this issue embracing “the spirit of co-responsibility” emphasized by the Instruction. Finally, Cardinal Tong calls on all the faithful, even though they may not be able to take part in the liturgy and pastoral activities of the parish, particularly amid the Covid-19 pandemic, to make every effort to get the parish deeply rooted in their daily life “through mutual care and concern for one another”.
“With less than a month before the end of the Brexit transition period, Bermudians living in the European Union on a British passport are advised to follow the UK Government’s guidance on ensuring their continued legal status,” the Bermuda Government said today.
A Government spokesperson said, “In June 2016 the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. The United Kingdom’s EU membership formally ended on 31 January 2020, kicking off a transition period that will last until 31 December 2020.
“Negotiations on the future relationship between the United Kingdom and European Union are on-going, and it is possible that British nationals arriving in the European Union after the 31 December 2020 cut-off date will be subject to new immigration rules.
“The January 2020 withdrawal agreement—which governs the terms of the United Kingdom’s departure—safeguards the rights of British nationals who are already legally resident in the European Union before the end of the transition period to continue to live, work and study in their EU Member State of residence.
“UK nationals who are already resident in the European Union by 31 December 2020 are also eligible to receive a new residence permit attesting to their rights under the withdrawal agreement.
“Bermudians currently living in the European Union on a UK passport should therefore take care to confirm that they are legally registered before the end of the transition period. It is also advisable to sign up for email alerts from the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, which offers guidance on the procedures in each EU Member State.
“After the end of the transition period, Bermudian and British tourists will continue to enjoy visa free access to the Schengen Area (which includes most EU countries, in addition to Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) for short trips of no more than 90 days within a 180-day period.
“At A Glance: Steps Bermudians living in the European Union on a British passport can take now:
The Proposed Anti-Separatism Law and the International Obligations of France: is it all about so-called Political Islam?
France is a member of International organisations and indeed a country where the rule of law, democracy and the respect of human rights are fundamental principles of the “République”.
Likewise France is a country with a very diverse population from several backgrounds and belonging to several different linguistic, ethnic and indeed religious or spiritual traditions or none.
President Macron and the Premiere Dame and a number of French politicians have defended the, arguable to say the least, right of Charlie Hebdo to insult the religion of Islam repeatedly by depicting the Prophet of Islam Mohammed, and by insulting the Turkish President Erdogan, and by insulting the religious sentiments of many religious and spiritual groups as such in a number of occasions. All of this in the name of the sacrosanct right to Freedom of Expression.
Freedom of expression is indeed a fundamental freedom enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights of 1950 and in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which inspired the ECHR, and in most international human rights instruments and most national Constitutions as well.
Just like the Freedom of Expression is a fundamental human right, also the Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, or in a single expression the Freedom of Belief, is a fundamental human right protected by art. 18 of the UDHR and by art. 9 of the ECHR whose extent can only be limited in compliance with the ECHR provisions not basing on assumed national values or needs in contrast with the spirit of the Human Rights legislation.
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Art. 9 ECHR should be read in conjunction with art. 2 Protocol 1 to the Convention which reads as follows:
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to education “No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
Arguing that some groups and specifically “Political Islam” tend to isolate within the society and from the society and that a legislation is needed to prevent that from happening, and such legislation causes also to prevent private entities from setting up or to carrying out their activities, or prohibiting home-schooling, is probably not the best answer to problems that may exist from a democratic country like France, considering that France has a set of laws, including also criminal laws, to prevent and tackle extremism, terrorism and any other forms of delinquency whatsoever.
So the wonder is: what is the real agenda behind this proposed legislation? and who is behind such?
Where does it come from? Have we seen anything like this in the past in France?
Well there’s an organisation called FECRIS in France which is funded by the French Government and that advocates, all over the world, the fight against minority groups, derogatorily called cults (sectes in French). FECRIS doesn’t care about the International Human Rights obligations of France and regularly requests the International Organisations to ban Human Rights Organisations advocating Freedom of Religion and Belief from their premises and to stop interacting with them, e.g. FECRIS at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw.
The belief that behind this legislation there may be both the FECRIS and those sharing the same views, may be a legitimate possibility, at least, if we consider that very often the fight against Islam, whether the so-called Political or non Political one, goes hand by hand with the fight against cults.
The proposed legislation may just be a Trojan horse aimed at fighting against extremism but with the real intention to fight against minorities considered as cults – this could be just my own personal opinion and speculation if the Minister Madame Marlène Schiappa had not stated, in an interview she gave to the newspaper Le Parisien, as follows:
“we will use the same measures against the cults and against radical Islam”.
The United States bipartisan organisation USCIRF, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, has warned that FECRIS is an organisation that threats the human rights of minorities and recommended, inter alia, as follows:
“Counter propaganda against new religious movements by the European Federation of Research and Information Centers on Sectarianism (FECRIS) at the annual OSCE Human Dimensions Conference with information about the ongoing involvement of individuals and entities within the anti-cult movement in the suppression of religious freedom.”
To me it is clear that the proposed legislation if passed would mean a serious drift from the International legal obligations of France, first and foremost the ECHR and its fundamental freedoms and human rights.
The rule of law requires attention and intervention and indeed the extremist activities of any group must be prevented and fought against with all necessary means – but erasing the International obligations that ensure the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms belonging to everyone is not the answer but only an excuse for other ends. The present law is the natural consequence of law no. 504 of 2001 on the prevention and suppression of cultic movements and of her sister law no. 228 of 2004 aimed at suppressing the right to show religious symbols in public places, both of which are a serious concern for a European democracy.
We hope that, while we are fighting against two viruses, the Covid-19 and the virus of intolerance, the actions recommended by the USCIRF Report may be implemented very soon and also be only the beginning of a series of further actions to contrast these hate experts, and finally guarantee everyone their right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.
