New initiative tackling racism in NZ health system
NZ health system
An initiative to tackle racism in the health system has received more than $130,000 in funding.
The money was awarded by the Health Research Council, and will be used to develop an anti-racism framework to guide policy advisers and decision-makers.
Maori health committee chair Suzanne Pitama told Kate Hawkesby it’s a groundbreaking initiative.
“The deterrents of health in New Zealand are things like poverty, access to quality care and one of the other deterrent to health is racism.”
An initiative to tackle racism in the health system has received more than $130,000 in funding. The money was awarded by the Health Research Council, and will be used to develop an anti-racism framework to guide policy advisers and decision-makers. Maori health committee chair Suzanne Pitama told Kate Hawkesby it’s a groundbreaking initiative. “The deterrents of health in New Zealand are things like poverty, access to quality care and one of the other deterrent to health is racism.”
How schools can foster civic discussion in an age of incivility
foster civic discussion in an age of incivility
What is the role of classrooms in an era of political polarization and rising extremist ideologies, hate crimes and violence?
Schools have the opportunity, and arguably, an obligation to address civic engagement and political civility. The extent to which schools foster political deliberation, engagement, understanding and empathy has far-reaching implications for our democracy.
But can schools really do that?
Canadians have become more aware of the troubling realities of the full legacy of educational systems in Canada and how they have worked.
We need principles, not rules, to fight antisemitism: the IHRA definition and the politics of defining racism
fight antisemitism: the IHRA definition and the politics of defining racism
The definition of antisemitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in May 2016 and adopted soon thereafter by the UK government has been widely debated, first in the UK, and then across Europe and North America.
The debate has been accompanied by many heated discussions around what does and does not constitute antisemitism, particularly in connection with the definition’s adoption by the Labour Party in September 2018.
Yet, in the heat of argument, little has been said about the implications of defining racism for legal and quasi-legal purposes, or about the difficulty of separating the two domains from each other.
In August 2018, I published the first extended scholarly critique of the IHRA definition: “Legal Form and Legal Legitimacy: The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as a Case Study in Censored Speech.”
Campus racism: How to start the conversation
Seattle is known to be a relatively liberal city, but does that mean there isn’t an issue with racism? Author Lawrence Ross gave a workshop and lecture titled “Know Better/Do Better” last Thursday and explained that there is no time for “fluff” in difficult issues such as this.
The workshop, which was organized by the Office of Minority Affairs and Diversity and the Race & Equity Initiative, was aimed at faculty members. It was a practical, interactive workshop based around working with people “you wouldn’t feel comfortable inviting to dinner yet” to come up with applicable solutions to campus racism.
Some of the key issues included lack of representation of minority groups on campus, lack of accountability for perpetrators, and the assumption that there is not a problem at the UW because it’s in an accepting city. Often people adopt the childish stance, consciously or not, that if they can’t see it, it doesn’t exist.
“Campus racism is not news,” Ross said. “Minority students deal with daily stereotypes everywhere.”
This sentiment was echoed by members of UW Greek life, who coordinated Ross’ appearance and lecture at the UW.
“The UW does have a lot of work that needs to be done, it does have a lot of implicit biases, there’s a lot of underlying racist comments that do happen for many students,” Khyree Watson of the National Panhellenic Council (NPHC) said.
The open access lecture was coordinated by students from the NPHC, the UW’sPanhellenic Association and the United Greek Council (UGC) with partnership from the ASUW. The aim was to raise awareness and to get students talking about a polarizing subject, with an end goal to provide a safe space for varied demographics to have the conversation about racism.
“It’s really important to try to find that common ground where we can really include and start working together and utilize our different connections, in a sense to build the UW community,” D’andre Garcia-Stubbs of the NPHC said.
The Greek community at the UW was keen to get involved in something as poignant and topical as racism to help to curb preconceived perceptions of fraternities and sororities by the media.
“There’s always been tension around the Greek community,” Wendy Wang of the UGC said. “It stems from what we think people in the Greek community should look like, and this created the notion of, ‘I don’t belong here.’ It’s very important to learn about people of color to create better understanding.”
We vehemently reject hate and racism in all forms
reject hate and racism in all forms
There has been a rise in hate crimes all over America, and here in the tri-county region there is a recent rise in efforts to recruit our neighbors to join the Ku Klux Klan. Notices have been placed in driveways and on doorsteps across the state of Maryland and in Calvert, Charles and St. Mary’s counties.
There is no secret about what the KKK’s message is and we, as civil rights leaders, reject the notion of white supremacy and hate for our fellow men and women. The KKK seeks to intimidate those in our community who work hard to bring the community together, and we embrace diversity in all dimensions. The mission of the KKK is clear — to divide and conquer.
As one of the fastest-growing regions in the state, we are hopeful that people are moving here because they see the Southern Maryland region as a great place to live, work and play for all who choose to live here. Our vision is that all in our communities vehemently reject hate and racism in all forms as we do.
Black Pete: the scandal we Dutch can’t stay silent about any more
Black Pete: the scandal we Dutch can’t stay silent about any more
Last month in the city of Leeuwarden, in the north of the Netherlands, 34 people – mostly men – stood trial, charged with one of the oddest crimes in recent history.
The crime had been committed a year earlier. Here are the circumstances: in mid-November, as the tradition has it, Sinterklaas, or Saint Nicholas, was due to arrive in Dokkum, a nearby town in the region of Friesland.
Each year children flock to see the Sint (Saint) come off his boat – it’s a highly popular televised event. And each year, more and more activists set out to protest against the tradition.
What they protest against is not Sinterklaas himself – who rides a grey horse called Amerigo and hands out presents on his birthday. No, the problem is Black Pete.
Originally Black Pete was to Sint what Luca Brasi was to Don Corleone: his muscle man, his enforcer.
In the olden days, if children had behaved badly during the year, Pete would give them “the switch”.
Or worse, he would stuff them in a sack and take them away. An elderly white man plays Sinterklaas.
Pete is played by a white man too, dressed in minstrel clothing with his face painted black.
Drake University’s fight against racism must continue after robocalls go silent
Drake University’s fight against racism must continue after robocalls go silent
I don’t know why a hate group targeted Drake University with robocalls spewing hatred for people of color. Nor do I know who is leaving cowardly notesunder the doors of students of color.
I know this: If Drake is to move forward, the students, faculty and staff need to get uncomfortable.
Let me be more specific: White people, especially white men, are going to have to look within harder than they ever have before.
Over the past couple of years, events have forced me to do a lot of self-examination about the privileges I enjoy as a heterosexual white man in our society.
For years, openly and internally, I resisted accepting the idea that I had it easier than anyone else because of some of the hardships of my childhood.
But over time, I started to see that even with a chaotic childhood, I had more advantages as a white baby boy than a child of color might have had.
I thought no racial prejudice lived in me because I knew white nationalism, neo-Nazis and other hate groups were so obviously wrong.
Law of Defamation, Newspaper Publication & Journalistic Improprieties
Defamation means to take away or destroy the good fame or reputation; to speak evil of; to charge falsely or to asperse. According to Winfield, ‘defamation’ is the publication of statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person. It is “libel” if the statement be in permanent form and “slander” if it consists in significant words spoken or gestures. In the matter of: Parmiter V/s Coupland, 1840 (6) MLW 105, it was observed that, defamation means a publication, without justification or lawful excuse, which is calculated to injure the reputation of another, by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Further, in the matter of: Myroft V/s Sleight, 1921 (37) TLR 646, it was observed that, a defamatory statement is a statement concerning any person which exposes him to hatred, ridicule or contempt or which causes him to be shunned or avoided or which has tendency to injure him in his office, profession or trade. In India, by virtue of report in the matter of: Manisha Koirala V/s Shashi Lal Nair & Ors, 2003 (2) BCR 136, following test was laid down in order to determine whether or not a particular statement is defamatory:
A. A statement concerning any person which exposes him to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has tendency to injure him in his office, profession or trade is defamatory;
B. A false statement about a man to his discredit is defamatory; and,
C. Words which tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, are defamatory.
Essential ingredients of the tort of defamation:
a. Malice (The words must have been published maliciously);
b. They must be defamatory;
c. The words must have reference to the plaintiff; and,
d. They must be published.
Decision in the matter of: Subramanian Swamy V/s Union of India, Ministry & Ors, (2016) 7 SCC 221:
In the matter of: Subramanian Swamy (Supra) it was observed that-
a. A defamatory statement is one which has tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers; which tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally and in particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike, or disesteem. The statement is judged by the standard of an ordinary, right-thinking member of society. (See: Bata India Ltd. V/s A.M. Turaz & Ors, 2013 (53) PTC 536, and, Pandey Surindra Nath Sinha V/s Bageshwari, AIR 1961 Pat 164)
Hate Was Not a Winning Ticket
Winning Ticket
If Trump’s election in 2016 was a victory for the demagoguery of racist nationalism, the midterms marked a quiet but meaningful repudiation of that vision.
Looming over the campaign trail was the “migrant caravan,” which Trump painted as an invading boogeyman, illustrated with vitriolic racial caricatures.
But Trump’s last-minute racist television ad did not seem to have its intended effect.
There was no dramatic sweep, but a number of midterm victories showed that the constituencies most historically disenfranchised at the ballot box—youth, immigrants, and communities of color—could still be a linchpin in a broken election process.
Though some of the marquee elections ended in close losses, and Democrats lost ground in the Senate, progressive candidates will inject key state, local, and congressional seats with much-needed fresh blood.
What is defamation and where do we draw the line in Australia?
A number of high-profile Australian defamation cases are being heard this month.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is suing Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm, while Australian actor Geoffrey Rush will have his time in court from Monday in a case against newspaper The Daily Telegraph.
Defamation cases are increasingly in the spotlight, but what exactly do they entail?
What is defamation?
Defamation refers to the process of defaming someone, so to speak.
If someone feels published material seen by over one person has lowered their reputation in the eyes of the public, they have grounds to file a defamation case.
One way of defending a defamation claim is by proving the truth of whatever claim that material is making.
“If you tell the truth about someone, that is a defence to defamation,” The University of Sydney Law School’s Professor David Rolph told SBS News.
“People are only entitled to the reputation they deserve, not the reputation they have.”
Another defence is the right to what is known as “fair comment” or “honest opinion”.
“If you express your opinion about a matter of public interest and it’s based on true facts, then you are entitled to the belief that you have,” Professor Rolph said.
High-profile Australian cases
Senator Hanson-Young and actor Rush are far from the first public figures to become embroiled in defamation cases.
Former Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen sued the Nine Network for $400,000 in 1986, while Jeff Kennett got the same amount of money from the Nine Network for when he was Victorian premier in the mid-1990s.
More recently, Australian actress Rebel Wilson sued Bauer Media for $4.7 million over articles she said damaged her career by depicting her as a liar. Her payout was later reduced by 90 percent after appeal.
Former Liberal MP Sophie Mirabella was earlier this year awarded almost $300,000 after she was found to have been defamed by a rural Victorian paper.
Can the average person be defamed or defame someone?
Yes and yes.
A study this year by the Centre for Media Transition at the University of Technology found just one in five plaintiffs in Australian defamation cases between 2013 and 2017 were public figures, and just one in four defendants were media companies. Over half the defamation cases (51 per cent) were digital, the study found.
“Social media platforms, which allow us to be publishers to the world at large, have increased the opportunities for people to damage the reputations of others in front of a much wider audience,” Professor Rolph said.
