Ryanair called on all EU Govts to adopt the EU “Traffic Light” System without delay, following the EU Council meeting in Brussels on 13 Oct next. Under the new “Traffic Light” System, the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) confirmed it is safe to travel to 15 EU countries without any travel restrictions.
Europe’s aviation and tourism industries cannot suffer any delay to the adoption of this new system, as millions of jobs are at risk as Europe moves into a very difficult winter season. This common EU framework will help restore confidence in air travel and end the contradictory different national policies across Europe that have damaged customer demand.
The new EU ‘Traffic Light’ System allows safe travel to/from 15 countries listed as ‘green’ and ‘amber’ with no restrictions. For 15 ‘red’-list countries, there may be restrictions in place (e.g testing pre-departure/on arrival). The new “Traffic Light” System also recommends that member states apply a regional approach where possible to ensure regions or islands with low levels of Covid are not penalised.
Health experts – including the WHO & the ECDC – confirm that quarantines don’t work, and air travel represents minimal risk for the spread of the virus. In fact, Ryanair has carried over 16.5m passengers this summer with zero inflight transmissions. The adoption of the EU ‘Traffic Light’ System will allow families to re-unite and businesses to thrive, as the world recovers from the Covid-19 crisis.
Ryanair’s CEO Eddie Wilson said: “We urge all EU Govts to adopt the EU “Traffic Light” System without delay. Europe’s aviation and tourism industries cannot afford further job losses, and until a vaccine is available, we must learn to live with the virus.
The implementation of this coordinated regional approach will help restore consumer confidence ahead of a difficult winter season, and also allow all airlines plan for Summer 2021, with millions of jobs dependent on the recovery of our aviation and tourism sectors.
As confirmed by the WHO, aviation is not responsible for an increase in EU Covid rates and quarantines simply don’t work. EU Govts need to act fast and implement the EU “Traffic Light” System immediately following next week’s Council meeting and give Europe’s tourism economies the relief that’s much needed”.
<aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module para-one-1" data-section="0" readability="0.94017094017094">
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module thanks para-one-thankyou" id="para-one-thankyou-365084" readability="0.84810126582278"><div class="emailetext-blocks thanks" readability="27.139240506329">
Thank you for signing up. For more from <em>The Nation</em>, check out our <a class="textred-highlighted" href="https://www.thenation.com/issue" rel="nofollow">latest issue</a>.
</div>
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module para-one-2" data-section="1" readability="1"><div class="emailetext-blocks" readability="32">
Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!</p>
</div>
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module para-one-3" data-section="2" readability="1"><div class="emailetext-blocks" readability="32">
<h4>Support Progressive Journalism</h4>
The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
</div>
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module para-one-4" data-section="3" readability="0.94331983805668">
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module thanks para-one-thankyou" id="para-one-thankyou-365084" readability="0.84810126582278"><div class="emailetext-blocks thanks" readability="27.139240506329">
Thank you for signing up. For more from <em>The Nation</em>, check out our <a class="textred-highlighted" href="https://www.thenation.com/issue" rel="nofollow">latest issue</a>.
</div>
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module para-one-5" data-section="4" readability="1.5"><div class="emailetext-blocks" readability="33">
<h4>Travel With <em>The Nation</em></h4>
Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.
</div>
</aside><aside class="left indent indents email-signup-module para-one-6" data-section="5"><div class="emailetext-blocks">
<h4>Sign up for our Wine Club today.</h4>
Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
</div>
</aside><p>Mariana Enriquez grew up on the wrong side of the Riachuelo, the poisoned, lifeless waterway that separates the city of Buenos Aires from the slums to its south. “Four million people without sewers or plumbing,” she tells us. The river’s proper name, Matanzas—“Slaughter”—derives from the slaughterhouses that operated along its banks for two centuries, their animal effluence mixing with industrial and human waste to poison the waters. Among Enriquez’s earliest memories is the river’s putrid smell, which would wake her up some mornings as a child. And she remembers the floods—only they’re worse now, and more frequent, with some neighborhoods flooding twice a month: “The kids go swimming in the streets as if they were pools—the rotten water no longer bothers them.”<aside class="ad right most-popular-plus-ad grey_back">
<a href="https://www.thenation.com/advertising-policy" class="ad-policy" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">Ad Policy</a>
</aside><aside class="left indent indents related-newarticle author-modules book-module" readability="2.5"><h4>Books in Review</h4>
</aside>
Sulaiman Addonia is a refugee from Eritrea. As a child he survived war and a Sudanese refugee camp before escaping to London with his older brother, who was then only 17. Now he lives in Brussels, where he founded a writing academy for fellow refugees, helping them tell their stories. His partner is a climate activist from a middle-class white family. He used to tell her: “Saving the planet you destroyed is your fight and not mine.” But these days he thinks of his family back in Eritrea, one of the world’s poorest countries—“the scorching heat they faced, the failed harvests in the region, the decimated workforce,” and “the magnificent coral reefs,” on which so many lives depend, “dying off”—and he knows the climate is everyone’s fight.
Say their names. Mariana Enriquez and Sulaiman Addonia are but two of the contributors to Tales of Two Planets: Stories of Climate Change and Inequality in a Divided World, a new literary anthology edited by John Freeman. My descriptions come nowhere near doing justice to their stories and the power of their writing. You must read them and encounter their voices yourself—along with those of 34 other contributors, including Edwidge Danticat on Haiti, Mohammed Hanif on Pakistan, Anuradha Roy on India, and Ian Teh on China, to name just a few.
I’ll admit that this anthology brought back visceral sensations and emotions that I sometimes fear I’ve grown too numbed by my daily consumption of climate news to feel anymore. But there they were, my familiar companions: the old grief, the old rage. And, if I’m honest, the old despair that’s always lurking. There I am, reading this book on my comfy back porch in an affluent town west of Boston, feeling overwhelmed by my sense of complicity in unspeakable injustices against people, actual human beings, everywhere on Earth—and by my sense of powerlessness as an individual to stop any of it. I could tear down my solar-paneled house, live in a yurt, and convert my yard into an organic community garden, and it would make absolutely zero difference to the fates of billions whose names I’ll never know and can never say.
If I’ve learned anything over the past decade covering and engaging in the climate justice movement in this country—the same movement that has pushed the concept of, and varying proposals for, a Green New Deal to the very center of American politics—it’s that “solidarity” is complicated and often elusive. In movement circles, the word and concept of solidarity is all too often used casually, almost thoughtlessly, as if it’s a given that all of us fighting for climate justice are in solidarity with each other and with all of those, the vast majority in the Global South, who are on the front lines of climate catastrophe even now. We may believe this, and say it to ourselves and others, but most of the time it simply is not so. Or, at least, not so simple. At the global level, the only level at which humanity’s future can and will be decided, such solidarity is far from certain.
Because the idea of global solidarity—any genuine, human solidarity across borders, races, classes, and all the rest—is meaningless without effective action. That is, without action that has some chance of the desired and necessary effect, politically and economically and environmentally. And at the global level—if what one wants is climate justice—such action is eventually going to conflict with national and local priorities and politics. Even if the United States, despite the antidemocratic system standing in the way, somehow gets a government reflecting the solid majority who say they want decisive climate action, there will still be the inevitable tension between the local, national, and global. The United States (followed by Europe) owes by far the largest “climate debt” to the developing world: This country’s historic, cumulative emissions, and continuing per capita emissions, mean that Americans have used far more than their share of the atmospheric “carbon budget.” Again, if justice is what you care about, this means the United States must move faster and more radically than any other nation on Earth, whatever the cost. And while poor and working-class Americans should not bear the burden, even they are better off, and are responsible for higher per capita emissions, than the global poor—who far outnumber them.
This is a hard pill to swallow. And yet the alternative to the United States paying its global debt is a world without any hope of justice, anywhere.
So, yes, the West Coast is burning at a terrifying and unprecedented rate. Yes, Houstonians have suffered five 500-year floods in five years, and the Gulf Coast is pummeled by storm after ever more devastating storm, with the poor and racially marginalized suffering most, just as they’ve long suffered the most from fossil-fuel pollution. And yet, do any of us really think that Mariana Enriquez’s neighbors and their children in the Buenos Aires slums have any less right to a healthy, secure life than Americans lacking health care, food security, and clean air and water?
At the heart of the case for a Green New Deal, on both the national and global level, is the argument that any choice between justice and human survival is a false one. That is, in order to be politically viable—not to mention ethically defensible—any comprehensive climate strategy to prevent runaway catastrophe must combine rapid decarbonization with economic and social justice, because that’s the only way to mobilize and sustain a broad coalition to see the job through. That’s the idea, anyway, and it’s endorsed by Noam Chomsky and economist Robert Pollin in their new book, Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal.
A Noam Chomsky book about the climate crisis should be a noteworthy event. And yet it’s an odd and somewhat disappointing fact that Chomsky, although he has published more than 100 books in the course of his long career—a great many of them about global injustice and the threat of war to human survival—didn’t get around to writing a book about the existential threat of global warming until the year 2020, at the age of 91, when catastrophe on some scale is already assured due to decades of inaction.
And it’s an odd and disappointing little book that Chomsky and Pollin have given us. Presented in the form of an awkward dialogue between the authors, it adds little if anything new to the climate conversation, aside from Chomsky’s trademark style. Its appearance is especially odd considering that the book’s publisher, Verso, only a year ago released A Planet to Win, co-authored by Kate Aronoff, Alyssa Battistoni, Daniel Aldana Cohen, and Thea Riofrancos, which mounts the most sophisticated argument I’ve seen for an internationalist Green New Deal. The best one can say is that Chomsky and Pollin accurately convey the dire emergency and the daunting scale of the challenge we face. There’s no sugarcoating. And the book’s central point—that a global Green New Deal capable of meeting the two-degree Celsius goal set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is economically viable—is of course crucial. Unsurprisingly, Pollin’s economic case is clear and convincing, drawing on his many years of work on the subject.
It’s the authors’ political analysis, squeezed into a brief and unfocused final chapter on “political mobilization to save the planet,” that’s lacking. Chomsky rails against the denialism of Trump, the Republicans, and the fossil-fuel lobby, and the evils of neoliberalism and encroaching fascism, all of which is rather obvious, conventional fare. (Even Chomsky’s beloved anarcho-syndicalism is nothing new for the climate left, though it’s rare to see Bakunin invoked repeatedly in the pages of a sober-minded climate policy book.) But Chomsky and Pollin have little to say about how to actually mobilize a movement for a global Green New Deal or how to connect the existing movements around the world.
At this late date, it’s hard to take any climate policy book seriously if it articulates no coherent political analysis, no theory of change or understanding of social movement strategy and tactics. Incredibly, Chomsky and Pollin appear unaware of the robust climate justice movement that’s been building for more than a decade in the United States and internationally, leading in this country to the Green New Deal coalition, which has significantly shifted national climate politics (as witnessed by Joe Biden’s vastly strengthened plan). And while the authors discuss Europe’s version of a Green New Deal, there’s not even a passing mention of the actually existing Green New Deal resolution in the United States, introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey; no mention of Bernie Sanders’s Green New Deal plan, with its serious global component (see Tom Athanasiou’s analysis in The Nation); no attempt to explain how their Green New Deal vision differs from others, nor any critique of the various existing proposals. It seems only fair to ask that a book about the “Green New Deal” should address, you know, the Green New Deal and the movement that’s actually fighting for it.
Chomsky and Pollin do, however, find space in this slim book to offer their timid, conditional support of civil disobedience as a movement tactic. For the most part they doubt its “effectiveness”—as if the climate justice movement hasn’t already proven its efficacy over the past decade. Indeed, today’s Green New Deal movement in North America was built on years of relentless nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience, from the coal fields to the fracking fields, from coal plants and oil refineries to tar sands and fracked-gas pipelines. To ignore this central aspect of movement history is to ignore the centrality of frontline communities—Indigenous, Black and brown, poor and working-class white—and young people of all backgrounds in the struggle to keep fossil fuels in the ground.
If you want to know why the “kids” are angry, and why young people are willing to go to jail to fight for their future, it’s because their elders—including intellectuals across the entire political spectrum—have failed them for what is now three decades. They have every right to be pissed off and to demand the kind of political revolution a Green New Deal requires.
Some of that passion comes through in Winning the Green New Deal: Why We Must, How We Can, a new collection of essays edited by the Sunrise Movement’s Varshini Prakash and Guido Girgenti. With strong contributions from a superb cast of contributors—among others, David Wallace-Wells, Kate Aronoff, Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben, Rhiana Gunn-Wright, Joseph Stiglitz, Julian Brave Noisecat, the Rev. William J. Barber II, and Waleed Shahid—this is the volume that should serve as the definitive introduction to the Green New Deal and the coalition of movements behind it. Even so, it addresses only the US, not the global context.
Lest we forget, the IPCC makes clear that to have any chance of staying “well below” two degrees of warming, preventing huge swaths of the Global South from becoming uninhabitable—and allowing developing countries some shot at a livable future—global greenhouse emissions must fall by half in the next 10 years, and must be all but eliminated by around 2050. The speed and scale of that global shift—truly revolutionary—is almost unimaginable, not for economic (as Pollin shows) but for political reasons, given the unprecedented level of national and international coordination it would require. And as noted, it’s a necessity that the United States, Europe, and other Global North economies decarbonize much sooner, if only because they have the technological and economic capability, even as they help mobilize and finance the energy transition in the developing world. This is basic stuff, Climate 101—and it’s why the Sunrise-backed Green New Deal calls for a 10-year mobilization to decarbonize the US economy as far as technically possible, a far tighter timeline than Biden’s and the Democrats’, who aim for 2050. Whether or not a 10-year time frame is actually feasible—and we won’t know until we try—the point is that only an all-out effort on that scale by the United States and Europe will offer the hope of meeting the ultimate global emissions target for mid-century.
It’s one thing to rehearse these numbers and point out that this is what the world’s climate scientists tell us is necessary to salvage a habitable planet. It’s another thing entirely to ask poor and working-class Americans, or anyone who has lost a job and faces economic insecurity, to take a giant leap of faith that the Green New Deal’s promises of jobs, universal health care, racial and environmental justice, and just-transition policies for workers and communities will be fulfilled. Given the political system we’ve got, why should anyone believe they will? The truth is, nobody knows exactly how a comprehensive Green New Deal will play out, or if it’s even possible. And where there are looming unknowns, especially for economically vulnerable people, there will be fear. Most Americans are still more afraid of losing their paycheck than losing the planet. As the French Yellow Vest (gilets jaunes) movement, rebelling against President Emmanuel Macron’s ill-conceived and regressive fuel tax, memorably put it: “You talk about the end of the world. We’re talking about the end of the month.”
And then there is that vast portion of humanity only trying to get through another day.
It’s impossible to predict whether the movement for a Green New Deal in the United States, with its emerging coalition of labor unions, racial and environmental justice movements, and a galvanized generation of young people, can spearhead a democratic, bottom-up political revolution to overcome the obstacles of our antidemocratic system. First, there’s a make-or-break election to be won—and defended—in November. Beyond that, all we can say with any degree of certainty is that the struggle for a genuine political revolution in this country, to achieve that radical 10-year mobilization, is what global solidarity must look like now.
No such revolution will be possible unless we’re willing to truly level with the public about the dire situation and what those of us in the wealthiest countries owe the rest of the world. Because it will require more of each of us, a higher level of commitment, than anyone in our national climate politics is yet asking: a willingness to sacrifice, to take risks, to tell the truth no matter how ugly and no matter the consequences. It’s going to take all of this on the part of far more people, from all walks of life, than we’ve ever seen in our nation’s history. And if there aren’t enough of us willing to take that leap, then we’ll soon have to acknowledge that “climate justice” and “global solidarity” are empty phrases—and that Mariana Enriquez’s and Sulaiman Addonia’s families, and those of countless people like them, are on their own.
Another servant of the poor, one who “burned his life with the poor”. Having lived 30 years in Brazil, Father Julio Renato Lancellotti is the missionary the Pope referred to during his Sunday Angelus. Pope Francis said he was able to speak to him on the phone after having received his letter at the end of September.
The short letter brings to light the daily misery that Father Julio shares with the people who live on the streets of São Paulo. A scene which has been harshly complicated by the Covid-19 pandemic which, thrown in with the endemic poverty that afflicts these people, creates an unimaginable and even unprecedented violation of human dignity. Father Julio has seen so much of this, and yet he tells the Pope how surprised he is to see how a serious health crisis has become the proscenium of an even greater number of attacks on the value of life in Brazil.
Unequal Struggle
The letter that arrived on Pope Francis’ table is accompanied by photos that show the truth of the missionary’s words. The challenge of a small parish against a great global virus, the struggle of an island with the poor that tries to offer the bare minumum in order to protect health, even in situations where social distancing is practically impossible, and where there is a lack of food, showers and sinks. And yet, Father Julio assures us, these are people we would not and will not abandon.
“This is the messenger of God”
The letter sent to Pope Francis concluded with a request for a blessing that the missionary would have liked to receive in person, though he admits himself that this would be impossible as he would be unable to physically undertake the journey to Rome. The story of an old man who, the Pope told the faithful gathered for his Sunday Angelus, lives “old age in peace. This is our Mother Church, this is the messenger of God who goes to the crossroads.”
The Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs – European Banking Authority, European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, and European Securities and Markets Authority) published today its decision in the appeal case brought by Mr Howerton against the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). The Board of Appeal’s decision considered as inadmissable the Appellant’s claim that six national financial supervisory authorities and ESMA should have taken supervisory steps in relation to an alleged non-application of Union law.
The Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought forward by Mr Howerton as inadmissible as the facts described by the Appellant do not relate in any way to aspects under the supervision of the relevant six national authorities nor of ESMA. The Board of Appeal does not see, therefore, how the six national financial supervisory authorities and ESMA could investigate and take supervisory steps with regard to the facts described by the Appellant in his complaints and in the appeal.
Background
Between 5 and 6 July 2020 Mr Howerton sent several requests to investigate six national competent authorities under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. ESMA assessed the content of the requests to investigate and concluded that the facts described in the requests were outside its remit as they did not fall under any of the Union acts referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. The Appellant filed an appeal against this conclusion on 3 August 2020.
#WithBelarus: Young Parliamentarians call for Tsikhanouskaya to address European Council
Brussels. Young parliamentarians and youth-political organizations from across Europe have today published an open letter to European Council President Charles Michel urging him to invite the leader of the Belarusian opposition, Svetlana Tsikhanouskaya, to address this week’s meeting of the European Council. The initiative is being spearheaded by the President of the Youth of the European People’s Party (YEPP) Lidia Pereira MEP.
WithBelarus is the campaign being run by YEPP parliamentarians from across Europe in support of the people of Belarus. YEPP is the youth organization of the European People’s Party that brings together 63 center-right youth political organizations from 39 countries across Europe
Dear President Charles Michel,
In August of this year, following the Belarusian Presidential election, the Youth of the European People’s Party (YEPP) launched a campaign called #WithBelarus to show our support for the people of Belarus and send them a clear message of European solidarity. This campaign has drawn support from our member organizations and young parliamentarians from across Europe. As you are aware, the situation in Belarus has continued to escalate and protestors continue to risk their own safety by taking to the streets to make their voices heard.
Each day protestors are being arrested and tortured for opposing the Lukashenko regime and this fight will not end until their demand for democratic change is met. In light of this, we see it as imperative to invite the leader of the Belarusian opposition, Svetlana Tsikhanouskaya, to address the upcoming meeting of the European Council. As Belarusian issues are European issues, it is crucial that the true voice of the Belarusian people is heard at the highest level of European politics. Inviting Ms. Tsikhanouskaya to address the meeting would be a clear statement showing that the European Union stands with the people of Belarus in their fight for a future that is democratic and free.
“What does it mean to be a Filipino, and what is a meaningful basis for taking pride in the nation,” asks Gideon Lasco in the introduction to his new book, “The Philippines Is Not a Small Country” (Ateneo de Manila University Press, Quezon City, 2020, 234 pages). “What is our place in the world—and how should we envision a future we can all share?”
Lasco, 34, has demonstrated a gifted writing style, proven not only by a Palanca Award in the Essay in English but in his outspoken, highly opinionated column in the Inquirer, the pithily titled “Second Opinion.” But Lasco is also a medical doctor (Intarmed at the University of the Philippines College of Medicine), research fellow (Ateneo) and an anthropologist (PhD from the University of Amsterdam).
“The Philippines Is Not a Small Country” contains parts of essays Lasco wrote for the Inquirer over five years but he has built a narrative around those essays that is divided into seven digestible chapters.
In “Country,” Lasco deconstructs the Philippines to show how it “is as vast as it is beautiful.” In “Nation,” he talks about how the Philippines is “a young country” and how Filipinos need more empathy to deal with life. “Culture” talks about the social constructs that make up our unique worldview.
In “People,” he explores the spectrum of marginalized individuals who make up the population. “Technology” and “Modernity,” wired together, essentially comment on how both have changed Filipino society for good or ill. And the final chapter, “World,” literally discusses our place in the world, how the country is not apart but a part of the larger community.
Lasco’s writing is polished and impressive but “The Philippines Is Not a Small Country” is no rah-rah jingoist volume. It is a reflection of a flawed and complex people, how we became that way, and that, pointed in the right direction, the country has much to look forward to.
It’s good that he knows how to do it in such an accessible fashion. Lasco cuts up the narrative into interesting, often funny but also insightful bite-sized pieces. Take the sections where he discusses “Bawal Umihi Dito,” our obsession with height, Instagramming food, why nobody tells bedtime stories anymore.
In the final chapter, he has a beautiful essay that ends: “We begin to overcome the feeling of smallness that sets back our geopolitical imagination. What our past should give us is not an enmity for those who oppressed us but an empathy for those who experienced oppression. What our past should give us is neither a feeling of victimization nor entitlement but a dignity of a people that has suffered much—but has overcome more.”
But he’s been writing throughout all that intense studying. “I’ve been scribbling essays since high school as part of school papers; I managed to publish in the much-sought-after Young Blood column on both ends of my medical training.”
Lasco started contributing regularly to the Opinion section in 2015. In fact, he is already an author. “In 2016, I published a hiking guidebook titled ‘Dayhikes and Nature Walks from Manila,’ but this is my first book as a writer of national affairs.”
Additionally, his unique combination of disciplines (writer/medical doctor/anthropologist) gives him an advantage: “Being a doctor I think makes me sensitive to health issues, while being an anthropologist makes me conscious of the need to bring out not just my perspective, but those of the people I encounter.”
But to get to those seven chapters, Lasco didn’t sit in his room and reflect on the nature of nationhood—he went out there and traveled from province to province to experience what his fellow Filipinos are experiencing. It has not been all thrills and discoveries.
“I guess the saddest—if not the most shocking—thing is that some of the things I wrote in 2016 or 2017 could have been written today, almost word for word, especially as regards political issues like the drug war, corruption and our divisive politics. I hope that 10 years from now, when we look back, we would have made some progress, and that we need not defend fundamental matters like human rights.”
Insights
He wanted to compile his columns but also make a book agile enough to still be relevant. He broached the idea of Karina Bolasco, Ateneo Press director, at a 2018 conference in Hiroshima. He worked hard on the book and Ateneo Press continued to work on it through the COVID-19 pandemic.
There were insights that he came to possess from writing the book. “Acknowledging the complexity of the Filipino should always be the starting point for thinking, and writing, about them,” he said.
In his recent columns, Lasco has been outspoken about his criticism of how the government has been handling the different crises the Filipinos have faced. How then to solve those problems?
“It is indeed an impossible question but part of the answer is justice: We have not really held our leaders and their enablers accountable, allowing them to escape, lie low and then resurface to do more mischief. In my essay ‘Memory as resistance,’ I stress the importance of fine-grained memory because tyranny is not built by one man alone; it takes a village.”
He also emphasizes that we must not lose hope. “Some of our leaders’ actions and inaction can drive us to despair but we have Filipinos from all walks of life trying their best to do good in this difficult time: from entrepreneurs to medical front-liners.”
He has new books lined up: “a more academic book about the meanings of human stature, as well as an edited volume on drug use, the drug war and drug policy in the country. And I really hope I can write about my hikes.”
“The Philippines Is Not a Small Country” is an intelligent, accessible and actually funny book about what it means to be Filipino—even though it’s a complicated answer. Gideon Lasco makes it easy for you—but you still have to answer the question, as he did in the introduction: “I was especially mindful of young Filipinos, many of whom are unsure as to what the future brings, uncertain as to what to make of their national identity, and unclear as to how to critically engage with our nation’s problems. Ultimately, my earnest wish is that these essays will convey the fact that, indeed, the Philippines is not a small country, and despite the many challenges we face, our nation and its promise are larger than many of us imagine them to be.”
Available in paperback from the Ateneo de Manila University Press, Lazada and Shopee.
Nagorno-Karabakh: Declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the European Union
The EU welcomes the agreement reached on 10 October on a humanitarian ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The EU urges the sides to strictly abide by this agreement and calls on all actors, including external parties, to refrain from any actions that may lead to further casualties. In this respect, we note with extreme concern the reports of continued military activities, including against civilian targets, as well as civilian casualties and urge the sides to ensure full respect of the agreement on the ground.
The EU calls upon the sides to engage in substantive negotiations without delay under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, without preconditions and on the basis of the agreed upon principles.
The EU continues to support the work of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs in seeking a negotiated political solution to the conflict and will remain engaged in efforts towards lasting peace in the region.
Image Source : PTI Saanvi M Prajit, daughter of Wing Commander of Indian Air Force Prajit Babu and Manjma hailing from Ernakulam, who has been recognised by the Asia Book of Records and the India Book of Records, poses for a photograph, in Kochi.
Saanvi M. Prajit, a 10-year-old girl dished out 30 plus delicious food items including corn fritters, fried rice, uttapam, and chicken roast in less than one hour, earning her a place in record books.
The amazing feat by Saanvi, daughter of Wing Commander of Indian Air Force Prajit Babu and Manjma hailing from Ernakulam, has been recognised by the Asia Book of Records and the India Book of Records, her family said.
Her records have been established for the maximum number of dishes prepared by a child, they said.
Saanvi has cooked 33 food items in an hour which include idli, waffle, corn fritters, mushroom tikka, uttapam, paneer tikka, egg bulls eye, sandwich, papdi chaat, fried rice, chicken roast, pancake, appam, and many more.
The girl created the record on August 29 at the age of 10 years 06 months and 12 days.
“The Asia Book of Records authorities watched online the cookery event organised at her Visakhapatnam residence.
Besides, two gazetted officers were witness to the cooking of 33 items in an hour by Saanvi,” her mother Manjima told PTI.
Saanvi said she was able to achieve the feat with the support of her family, friends and well wishers.
The girl said she was inspired by her mother, a star chef and a Reality cookery show finalist.
Manjima said as a child, Saanvi has always been fascinated by the kitchen and took to cooking at a very early age alongside her mother and grandparents.
Saanvi also has participated in Children’s Cookery shows and has won recognition for her effort in the culinary field.
She also has a YouTube channel showcasing her attempts in cooking simple and tasty dishes.
The equality bills by their very name give one the impression that they are a step in the right direction.
Who doesn’t want equality? We all want to eliminate discrimination. Pointing out the bills’ shortcomings, therefore, should be looked at positively.
We have to admit that our society is not different to other western democracies. We live in a pluralistic and secular society where different voices and opinions want to be heard.
While the Church preaches absolute truths to safeguard the dignity of the human person and promote the common good, in a secular society truth becomes relative and subjective. Secular voices insist on privileging no religion – on silencing the voice of religion. Secularisation is unconsciously pervading our culture and dictating the way forward.
It is in the context of such an environment that we need to seriously debate the equality bills. By insisting that everyone is equal we seem to be emphasising the value of equality and giving less importance to the value of diversity.
In the book by George Carey and Andrew Carey, We Don’t Do God, it is stated: “By insisting on compliance on matters that are morally questionable in the eyes of some citizens, the state is moving beyond democracy to authoritarianism, thus creating an unhealthy culture”.
To tolerate does in no way mean to submit or deny one’s point of view. In order not to offend, very often, we feel refrained from speaking out about our views – from practising our religion in public.
Quoting from the editorial of the Daily Telegraph, the Careys point out that, in Britain, “The right to hold religious beliefs, and to act in keeping with one’s faith, is being set against the right not to offend – and is losing. This is a dispiriting trend in a free society”.
Our faith and Catholic doctrine enrich our society
Shall the equality bills, therefore, when they become law, bring about conflict between equality and diversity? Is the ‘supremacy clause’ going to be in conflict with one’s conscience?
Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights gives prominence to the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It also gives one the right to manifest one’s religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Due to the rapid transformation of our society, which is becoming more cosmopolitan and multicultural, we tend to downgrade our Christian tradition. Rather than looking with pride at our Christian roots and being grateful for all that the Church has been doing throughout the years, we try to belittle her impact.
The predominance of our Catholic religion on other faiths is not a question of privilege as some seem to think. It is a fact that our Catholic faith is part and parcel of our Maltese identity. Our Christian roots have grown and spread because of the strong faith of our forefathers. Why denounce or downplay our Christian foundation? Why curtail the Christian ethos of Church schools?
Unless we stand up and vehemently defend the right to publicly practise our religion, we shall one day find ourselves struggling to practise what we believe in. Religion is not a private affair. Quoting once more from the Careys: “For Christians, the whole life is indivisible. We cannot retreat to a privatised ghetto because the Gospel concerns the whole of life. There is no ‘privatised’ morality because the whole life is based on morality. Faith is necessarily public”.
Let not those in power fall into the trap of secularism. Let not politicians be shy to publicly proclaim their beliefs for, no, religion is not a private matter. We have churches in every town and village not as museum pieces or to dominate but as a witness and a reminder of our dependence on the Supernatural.
Our faith and Catholic doctrine enrich our society and they will continue doing so if we only allow them. Our Catholic schools with their religious character have been in the forefront to promote justice, inclusion and the common good.
Let us not in the name of equality and tolerance divest ourselves of our diversity and religious identity. Promoting Christian values and inculcating in our young ones a Christian ethos is not a privilege but a mission entrusted to those of us who profess the Catholic faith.
Independent journalism costs money. Support Times of Malta for the price of a coffee.
The equality bills by their very name give one the impression that they are a step in the right direction.
Who doesn’t want equality? We all want to eliminate discrimination. Pointing out the bills’ shortcomings, therefore, should be looked at positively.
We have to admit that our society is not different from other western democracies. We live in a pluralistic and secular society where different voices and opinions want to be heard.
While the Church preaches absolute truths to safeguard the dignity of the human person and promote the common good, in a secular society truth becomes relative and subjective. Secular voices insist on privileging no religion – on silencing the voice of religion. Secularisation is unconsciously pervading our culture and dictating the way forward.
It is in the context of such an environment that we need to seriously debate the equality bills. By insisting that everyone is equal we seem to be emphasising the value of equality and giving less importance to the value of diversity.
In the book by George Carey and Andrew Carey, We Don’t Do God, it is stated: “By insisting on compliance on matters that are morally questionable in the eyes of some citizens, the state is moving beyond democracy to authoritarianism, thus creating an unhealthy culture”.
To tolerate does in no way mean to submit or deny one’s point of view. In order not to offend, very often, we feel refrained from speaking out about our views – from practising our religion in public.
Quoting from the editorial of the Daily Telegraph, the Careys point out that, in Britain, “The right to hold religious beliefs, and to act in keeping with one’s faith, is being set against the right not to offend – and is losing. This is a dispiriting trend in a free society”.
Our faith and Catholic doctrine enrich our society
Shall the equality bills, therefore, when they become law, bring about conflict between equality and diversity? Is the ‘supremacy clause’ going to be in conflict with one’s conscience?
Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights gives prominence to the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It also gives one the right to manifest one’s religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Due to the rapid transformation of our society, which is becoming more cosmopolitan and multicultural, we tend to downgrade our Christian tradition. Rather than looking with pride at our Christian roots and being grateful for all that the Church has been doing throughout the years, we try to belittle her impact.
The predominance of our Catholic religion on other faiths is not a question of privilege as some seem to think. It is a fact that our Catholic faith is part and parcel of our Maltese identity. Our Christian roots have grown and spread because of the strong faith of our forefathers. Why denounce or downplay our Christian foundation? Why curtail the Christian ethos of Church schools?
Unless we stand up and vehemently defend the right to publicly practise our religion, we shall one day find ourselves struggling to practise what we believe in. Religion is not a private affair. Quoting once more from the Careys: “For Christians, the whole life is indivisible. We cannot retreat to a privatised ghetto because the Gospel concerns the whole of life. There is no ‘privatised’ morality because the whole life is based on morality. Faith is necessarily public”.
Let not those in power fall into the trap of secularism. Let not politicians be shy to publicly proclaim their beliefs for, no, religion is not a private matter. We have churches in every town and village not as museum pieces or to dominate but as a witness and a reminder of our dependence on the Supernatural.
Our faith and Catholic doctrine enrich our society and they will continue doing so if we only allow them. Our Catholic schools with their religious character have been in the forefront to promote justice, inclusion and the common good.
Let us not in the name of equality and tolerance divest ourselves of our diversity and religious identity. Promoting Christian values and inculcating in our young ones a Christian ethos is not a privilege but a mission entrusted to those of us who profess the Catholic faith.
Independent journalism costs money. Support Times of Malta for the price of a coffee.
