Voiceless: why millions of Americans won’t be able to vote on November 8

by David Kavanagh

Following months of incessant campaigning by this year’s presidential candidates, registered American voters will make their way to the ballot box this Tuesday to finally decide who will replace outgoing president Barack Obama from next year on.

With the race to the White House close and controversial, supporters from both sides of the partisan divide have been urging people to vote since early voting stations started opening their doors last month.

In America, voting is not compulsory.

Previous election years have seen particularly poor voter turnout as a result. In 2012, the numbers stood at under 55% of the eligible population, or around 4% less than in 2008.

Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton addresses a rally at Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio. 2016. Source: Timothy A. Clary/ AFP/ Getty

But these statistics can be misleading. While political apathy or general laziness can be in part to blame for the lack, the truth is that millions of Americans cannot register to vote to begin with.

“If instead of looking at Americans over 18 that vote you consider the share of registered voters who show up on election day, the US jumps from 30th place among 34 developed countries [in voter turnout ranking] to sixth,” writes The Guardian’s Mona Chalabi.

“There is a simple reason for this: a lot of adults in the US simply cannot register to vote. And their absence will affect this presidential election.”

Criminal disenfranchisement
An estimated 6.1 million adults have had their right to vote taken away due to criminal convictions as of this year, a figure that has risen drastically since the mid 1970s.

In the US, convicted individuals can continue to suffer ‘collateral consequences’ after they have completed their original sentences, resulting in some people never having their right to vote fully restored, among other legal restrictions.

In a number of states, such as Florida, Iowa and Kentucky, this ban is complete and permanent, and results in what opponents often refer to as a form of ‘civil death’ that makes it difficult for ex-offenders to reintegrate into society after serving their terms.

A disproportionate amount of people affected by this system of punishment also belong to minority groups, with one in three adults with criminal convictions being African American.

Restrictive voting laws
In June 2013, the Supreme Court found Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional and struck it down, effectively weakening the entire Act.

Since then, 14 states have introduced new voting restrictions and strict voter identification laws that both make it harder to register to vote and limit early voting.

Again, in some cases this has been found to hit minority communities unfairly, with some states, like North Carolina, implementing restrictions that were found to specifically suppress the vote of African Americans

NAACP members protest as North Carolina legislators debate a ‘discriminatory’ voter ID law. April 2013. Source: Gerry Broome/Associated Press

Unauthorised migrants
According to Human Rights Watch’s Antonio Ginatta, over 20 million unauthorised migrants have lived in the US for at least 20 years.

In that time, they have been provided with no avenues by which to legalise their status and register to vote.

A further 728,000 who came to America as children have lived there for five or more years and are therefore eligible to legally remain and work in the country under a program implemented by the Obama administration.

Despite this, they still cannot become citizens or access the right to vote that comes with it.

Minorities unheard
It goes without saying that a large proportion of those who cannot vote on November 8th belong to a minority group. Their limited representation may ultimately be felt in the election results.

“These groups all have one thing in common,” writes Mr Ginatta.

“Those who cannot vote in November, for one reason or another, are disproportionately Black or Latino. Whoever takes the reins of US government in November should work to end unreasonable restrictions on voting rights.”

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter 

The battle for Mosul: what happens after?

by David Kavanagh

Two years after Islamic State captured and declared the city of Mosul in northern Iraq part of its expanding caliphate, US-backed Iraqi forces have finally commenced a massive joint offensive to take it back.

In their victory, they will strip the militant jihadist group, which has been losing ground across Syria and Iraq for months, of its final major stronghold in the latter country, liberating the city’s besieged 1.5 million residents from an IS reign characterised by violence and terror.

The ideal outcome minimises civilian casualties and ushers in a new peace for the city and, over time, Iraq as a whole. The grim reality is far more complex. The battle for Mosul, while an important step in defeating IS, will result in further tragedy, the scale of which depends on how relevant forces approach both the immediate conflict and its aftermath.

The battle in a nutshell:
Over the coming weeks and possibly months, Iraq and its allies, a force of 30,000 combatants made up of Western trained and advised Iraqi military, Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Sunni tribalists, will march on Mosul in Iraq’s largest military operation since the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Children watch as a convoy of military vehicle pass through their town on the way to Mosul. October 13 2016. Source: ABC News

The plan is to attack the city from virtually all sides, bottlenecking the force of an estimated 4,000 to 8,000 IS extremists that remain inside its limits and cutting off all their potential supply routes.

In the days leading up to this offensive, the Iraqi military dropped tens of thousands of leaflets over the city, informing residents that they would “not target civilians” and warning them to stay away from areas known to be frequented by IS members.

Undoubtedly, the 1.5 million people still trapped in the city, around half of which are children, face a tough and dangerous future. Many have stocked up on essential supplies, but it is unsure exactly how long the fighting will go on for.

At the same time, they are in danger of being caught in crossfire or used as “human shields” by desperate IS fighters who have been known to employ such tactics.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has urged civilians to hold on nonetheless.

“I am announcing today the beginning of these heroic operations to liberate you from the brutality and terrorism of ISIS,” he said in a televised speech before the commencement of the assault.

“God willing, we will meet soon on the ground of Mosul where we will all celebrate the liberation and your freedom.”

A potential humanitarian disaster:
As the wheels start turning, the United Nations and numerous aid groups are preparing for what may become one of the largest and most complex humanitarian relief efforts this year.

The hundreds of thousands of civilians expected to flee the city and its surroundings will require urgent medical and humanitarian aid, including food, water, shelter and security, calls for which have been ongoing for months.

A boy sits with his father in the ruins of his home. Village of Imam Gharbi. October 13 2016. Source: ABC News

In late September, representative for the UN’s refugee agency in Iraq Bruno Geddo warned that funding would be needed before the conflict began to keep up with relentless demands as it unfolded.

“The first lesson is: It is too late when you receive funding when the crisis hits the television screens, which has normally been the pattern in the past in dealing with humanitarian crises,” he said.

“It is going to be a huge challenge but we are planning to try our best to meet this.”

While some refugee camps have already been set up around Mosul, there are concerns they will not be able to accommodate everyone.

Some of those displaced will likely join the millions of others who have crossed into nearby countries like Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Syria in search of safety, and possibly push on further into Europe, where a recent spate in refugee numbers has led to controversy and division.

As the battle wages, humanitarian groups will need extensive support from the international community to help the civilians caught up in all of this.

When the battle concludes, likely with an IS defeat, concerted efforts must be made to rebuild the city and ensure it does not fall again. This is easier said than done for a number of reasons.

Sectarian division:
A majority of Mosul’s population identify as Sunni Muslims, a group historically at odds with their Shiite counterparts.

In Iraq in particular, Sunni Muslims have often felt disenfranchised and discriminated against by the Shiite-dominated government and military, raising concerns that sectarian conflicts could break out between Mosul’s residents and the liberating Iraqi forces either during or after the battle.

This risk is exacerbated further by the inclusion of Shiite militias, separate from the Iraqi army, in the offensive, according to local Sunni politicians and representatives of Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Iraq’s Prime Minsiter, Haider al-Abadi Source: smh.com.au

Prime Minister al-Abadi, who replaced his controversially divisive predecessor Nouri al-Maliki in 2014, has stressed this will not be the case.

Whether or not he’s right to be so optimistic is yet to be seen.

IS will retaliate:
This year has seen IS lose large swathes of territory in multiple frontline skirmishes against big military opponents.

While the US believes the extremist network will suffer a definitive and “lasting defeat” in this coming battle, the groups resilience against ongoing Western coalition air strikes over the past few months suggest it won’t go down easily.

Losing Mosul, its last remaining major stronghold in Iraq, may instead see the group further revert to using the guerrilla and terrorist tactics with which it terrorised the world to begin with.

This includes ramped up indiscriminate shootings and suicide bombings, the most of recent of which killed 55 people across Iraq last week.

In summary: post-battle uncertainty
It is not guaranteed that Iraqi forces will be able to maintain control of Mosul after it falls, given that post-battle plans concerning the governing of the city have not yet been completed.

These efforts will need to focus specifically on rebuilding but also ensuring the continued security of the city’s residents.

“Even the best-executed military operation could unleash new [sectarian or other] tensions,” noted the editorial board of the New York Times last week.

“It it also not clear whether the allies are prepared to handle the humanitarian needs of hundreds of thousands of civilians who might flee the fighting.”

Peshmerga soldiers warm themselves at a fire before the offensive. Source: Orla Guerin/ Twitter

In bigger picture terms, the liberation of Mosul from IS will not in itself destroy the jihadist organisation or diminish the terrible effects corruption and sectarian violence have had on countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria post US-intervention.

When the dust has cleared, reliable and inclusive institutions will have to be rebuilt alongside the ruins of Mosul, especially if peace in greater Iraq is ever to become a certainty again.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Overpriced tuberculosis drug unavailable to countries needing it most: MSF

by David Kavanagh

A promising tuberculosis drug that has had approval for usage for over 2 years and could effectively treat over 300000 newly infected people has only been utilized in 180 cases, according to medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

In a statement released last week, the group criticised Japanese pharmaceutical company Otsuka for overpricing its experimental drug delamanid and not doing enough to ensure the most vulnerable have access.

Tuberculosis (TB) is one the world’s deadliest diseases, killing an estimated three people per minute and infecting approximately one third of the global population. It is also the leading killer of people diagnosed with HIV.

A TB patient in Daru Hospital, Papua New Guinea, where TB is nearly an epidemic. Source: Philippe Schneider/ World Vision

As one of only two TB drug treatments developed and made available in the past 50 years, the other being Johnson and Johnson’s bedaquiline, delamanid is said to be potent against some of the most lethal strains of the disease, including multidrug-resistant TB and extensively drug-resistant TB.

Otsuka currently provides the drug, which has to be taken alongside other costly medicines, to a handful of countries for US$1700 per treatment course.

TB advisor for MSF’s Access Campaign Dr Grania Brigden said most governments, especially those in the developing world, deem this pricing unaffordable.

Furthermore, Otsuka has to date registered the drug in only four countries, including Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the UK, all of which house a very low number of drug-resistant TB cases.

“Otsuka should prioritise expanding access for people whose lives could be saved by delamanid,” said Dr Bridgen

“The price for delamanid needs to come down to an affordable level, and Otsuka should also register delamanid quickly in all countries where the drug has been tested… [and] in countries with the highest burdens of drug-resistant TB.”

Surprised by MSF’s criticisms, Communications director for Otsuka’s global TB program Marc Destito said Otsuka needed MSF, which has been treating multidrug-resistant TB since 1999, to work alongside it in order to improve the situation.

“The price of delamanid was mutually agreed with the Global Drug Facility (GDF) and is the lowest price that we can offer to cover our high manufacturing costs,” he said.

A patient diagnosed with TB holds his x-ray picture. Kyrgyzstan. Source: Helmut Wachter/ 13photo

“We are trying to create a sustainable business model to try to entice more companies to get involved in the neglected disease area.

“We are actively working to register delamanid in high-burden countries including Russia, India, China and South Africa but there are many regulatory hurdles to overcome.

“Some countries are not part of GDF, others do not allow special importation of drugs and some lack the regulatory capacity to deal with the processes.”

Last week, Otsuka signed a deal with the Stop TB Partnership, an international body that aims to coordinate various actors in the fight against TB, and cited a desire to increase access to low and middle-income countries.

A public-private partnership between the two groups would include a variety of services designed to assist with the incorporation of delamanid into existing national healthcare programs.

Only countries following relevant WHO guidelines and eligible for financing by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria would be included in this.

MSF’s HIV and TB policy advisor Sharonann Lynch told the Pharma Letter the agreement would mean very little if the drug remained too expensive and inaccessible.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Tax havens a major contributor to rising inequality: Oxfam

by David Kavanagh 

The use of tax havens by hundreds of multinational corporations worldwide is one of the main causes of rising global inequality, according to a recent 44-page report by international not-for-profit Oxfam.

Based on research by economist Gabriel Zucman, An Economy for the 1% reveals that corporate tax-dodging costs developing countries at least $100 billion annually.

In an opinion piece for Al Jazeera, Oxfam International’s executive director Winnie Byanyima called on the international community to step up its effort at curbing tax avoidance and bridging the extreme wealth gaps between the world’s rich and poor.

The Tondo slum sits just beyond high-rise buildings in Manila, Philippines. 2014. Source: Dewald Brand/ Oxfam

“Trickle-down economics is a fallacy… the rich can no longer pretend their wealth benefits the rest of us,” she wrote.

“Our governments – which are meant to represent our interests – need to shun the vested interests of the richest by stopping the race to the bottom on tax and pulling back the curtains on shady financial dealings.

“If inequality is not dealt with, we could see more social unrest across the world, a brake on growth and all the work that has been done in the last quarter-century on poverty halted – potentially reversed.”

Wealth gaps widening
Last year, the World Bank announced that global extreme poverty had fallen from 29% in 1999 to under 10% (or about 702 million people living below the line) in 2015.

But while poverty has generally decreased, the world’s wealth has risen drastically, and inequality is higher than it has ever been.

In 2010, 388 individuals possessed as much wealth as the world’s poorest 50% (or 3.6 billion people by today’s population).

Only five years later, that number substantially decreased to 62 individuals owning the same amount.

Furthermore, by Oxfam’s estimates, if the gap between rich and poor had not widened as drastically as it did between 1990 and 2010, an additional 200 million may have also escaped poverty, bringing the stats down more so.

What are tax havens? How do they contribute to global inequality?
Put simply, tax havens are financial institutions, shelters, shell companies or offshore accounts that corporations and individuals can use to store their funds in (at least on paper) without having to pay national taxes within other countries.

They exist in places such as the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg and are used by at least 350 multinational corporations (according to the 2014 Luxleaks), including business giants like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Starbucks, and Walt Disney to name a few.

At present, approximately $7.6 trillion of individual’s wealth sits in tax haven accounts offshore, a sum that would generate about $190 billion if it were subject to taxation.

The United States government alone would be owed around $620 billion worth of federal taxes if its biggest 500 corporations were not keeping a further $2.1 trillion of wealth overseas.

A tall statue representing Uncle Sam stands outside a tax preparation office. Queens, NY. April 14, 2014. Source: Anthony Behar/Sipa USA

These numbers may increase even more – between 2000 and 2014, corporate investment in tax havens expanded.

While defenders of tax havens say they facilitate a smoother flow of capital around the globe, opponents argue that when corporations work around taxes and financial regulations put in place by governments, the less fortunate are generally affected the most.

According to Oxfam US policy director Gawain Kripke, this is because the large loss of funds that results from already wealthy corporations avoiding taxes deprives governments of revenue needed to provide basic services that could benefit the wider population.

“It’s starving key programs that help everybody, but especially poor people, get on their feet,” Mr Kripke said.

“This is true in both rich and poor countries, but you see it most acutely where poor countries have no health care system, where large numbers of students are either getting no education or a very poor quality education.

“That’s where it becomes a moral issue.”

Furthermore, since so many firms aren’t paying their fair share, ordinary people are required to shoulder the burden and pay increased taxes from their own wallets.

What is to be done?
Efforts to mitigate the severe consequences of tax avoidance have already started with the international community enshrining their opposition to inequality and poverty in the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals and G20 nations agreeing to some measures to make tax-dodging more difficult.

According to Mrs Byanyima, however, a lot more has to be done.

This week, Oxfam representatives will be attending the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland to pressure governments and firms to “play their part”, a seemingly important venture given that nine out of 10 WEF partners exist in at least one tax haven themselves.

“The second order challenge is how to create black lists and pressure on tax havens to at least be more transparent,” said Mr Kripke.

“If not to shut it down, to make it more difficult or impossible to use strategies that many wealthy people and corporations are using to avoid taxes.”

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Double-edged sword: how reporting terrorist violence can aid those that commit it

by David Kavanagh

Coming into 2016, journalists and news organisations working in Pakistan find themselves at the centre of an interesting but increasingly dangerous situation.

The Pakistani government has supplied them with a list of 72 outlawed terrorist groups and officially banned reporting on terrorist attacks perpetrated by these groups.

This comes as another measure enforced as part of Pakistan’s ever-escalating struggle against terrorism, which kickstarted when extremists murdered 141 people, including 132 children, at a school in Peshawar in December 2014.

Designed to prevent fear-mongering and the glorification of terrorism within the country, the media ban has resulted in Taliban and other militants targeting journalists over what they perceive to be unfair and imbalanced reporting.

Journalists in Pakistan protest the assassination of colleague Zaman Mehsud by a Taliban gunman, November 2015. Source: Ashraf Ali/ ABC news

While an extreme example, the difficult position the media in Pakistan is currently trapped in – between government regulation and focussed acts of violence – mirrors a larger ethical debate that often comes up in the news media industry: does reporting on the actions of terrorist groups help them get what they want?

Before this question can be answered, it is important to look more closely at what terrorism actually is and what groups employing terrorism tactics hope to achieve.

What is terrorism? What do “terrorists” want?
The academic literature on terrorism and counter-terrorism that vaulted up in popularity post-9/11 is multifaceted and hotly debates varying definitions of terrorism.

Some even suggest that there is no such thing as an inherent terrorist group, and rather only groups that can use particular strategies typically regarded as terrorism.

A revolutionary group staging a coup may, for example, make use of terrorist tactics such as car bombings or assassination, and still not be regarded as a terrorist group because they don’t do it all the time.

To keep it simple, however, prominent scholar Timothy Shanahan describes terrorism as the “strategically indiscriminate harming or threat of harming members of a target group in order to influence the beliefs and/ or emotions of an audience group in ways judged to be conducive to the advancement of some political, religious… [or other] agenda.”

Under this definitional umbrella, there are three primary characteristics of terrorist violence:

1. It is politically motivated
2. It acts as a form of symbolic communication
3. It instrumentalizes its victims

In other words, terrorist acts make use of its victims to send a symbolic and politically motivated message to a target audience. It is not expressly designed just to kill or maim the victims it immediately reaches, but rather to communicate to a larger group.

US journalist Steven Sotloff was beheaded by IS militants on September 2, 2014. Pictured here in Bahrain in 2010. Source: BBC news

The Islamic State beheadings of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff (among others) in 2014, and the devastating attacks in Paris in November last year, were carried out in protest of US and French involvement – primarily in the form of airstrike campaigns – in the ongoing war in Iraq and Syria.

On another level, IS carries out these sorts of violent attacks against the West because the West both symbolically and physically opposes the doctrines of extreme Sharia law it espouses; by their understanding, the two entities cannot co-exist.

Violence, especially when it is heavily reported on, is the best way to make this known.

The news media is a “double-edged sword”
Ubiquitous and ever-growing mass news and social media gives journalists and civilians alike the ability to reach and communicate with billions of people in a matter of seconds.

Before the advent of traditional technologies such as TV and radio, let alone the game-changing entity that is Web 2.0., news and updates about important events in the world were spread by telegraph, paper, or word of mouth.

Today, many studies show that although it might seem like the world is becoming an increasingly violent place – with horrible news emerging daily from at home and from far-off war torn nations like Iraq and Libya – in actuality, it’s becoming more peaceful.

The real difference is that media technologies have made it much easier for us to access and disseminate information than before.

While once a violent group might have had to wait days or weeks for news of their actions and associated political messages to spread, now we can know about them even as they are happening.

Thousands tweeted live updates, for example, as the IS-affiliated gunmen began wreaking havoc throughout the streets of Paris; it was a digital storm the media picked up in mere moments.

In this context, the media acts as a sort-of “double-edged sword”.

Jund Al-Aqsa, a splinter group of the Syrian Al-Nusra Front, lists its official Twitter accounts. Social media is near as much a tool for extremist groups as it is for everyone else. Source: Twitter

Where on one hand, reporting on terrorism ensures news practitioners stay true to their commitment to informing the public about the what, where, how, why, and who relating to ongoing events and issues that could potentially affect their everyday life, on the other hand, they’re playing straight into the hands of “the enemy”.

Without the news media to spread their message, the impact of terrorist violence – spreading fear and division and encouraging sympathisers to join the cause – falters.

It begs the tired cliche: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?  Would terrorist groups continue to commit acts of violence if no-one was going to hear about it?

In the modern arena, the answer to that question may not even matter. With social media constantly brimming with billions of opinions and shares, news now spreads whether the mainstream journalists are involved or not.

That said, established news organisation exist with a level of authority the average joe doesn’t command. If the BBC reports an attack, you can ultimately trust that an attack has happened.

News framing: how the media talks about terrorism matters
Journalists in Pakistan are faced with two absolute options: either they abide by government censorship and stop reporting on terrorism attacks in an effort to shake the hold the Taliban and other groups have on the hearts and minds of the public, or they don’t, and rather continue fulfilling their journalistic duty to tell the truth.

Outside of this severe situation, the answers about what to do when it comes to reporting on terrorism aren’t (thankfully) as black and white.

In the world of professional and ideally ethical journalism, you must consider deeply every word you write or say.

How a journalist writes or says something can determine whether their report will have a positive or negative social outcome.

Irresponsible reporting can have dangerous consequences. Source: CNN

This concept of a journalist making decisions in portraying an event – through the language, narrative and images they consciously decide to include (or exclude) in a story – is called news framing.

While more commercial outlets might be tempted to include emotive or exaggerated language in an attempt to win ratings and bring in the revenue, describing an Islamic terrorist as an “evil Muslim” or IS as an “apocalyptic death cult“, for example, ethical reportage should encourage neutral language.

Emotional fear-mongering, after all, is very much what a terrorist organisation would want. IS does what it does because it wants its targets to be afraid.

If the West engages with IS militarily, it is likely because IS coaxed them into it.

Furthermore, language that unnecessarily associates a particular group, such as moderate Muslims, with a particular warped ideology or stereotype, is also greatly discouraged.

Rampant Islamophobia in the post-9/11 world is also something groups like IS encourage. If it can cause its enemies to split internally and fight amongst themselves, half the battle is already won.

As should be becoming evident by now, at the heart of responsible reportage about terrorism should lie fine ethics and consideration about the way the world is framed.

The media is a double-edged sword, but it is up to rational journalists and healthily critical audiences to decide which side to sharpen.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Threat overblown: there’s too much talk of terrorism in the media

by David Kavanagh

More so than before the tragic events of September 11, 2001, media reporting around the world has become unnervingly inundated with stories concerning terrorism and the groups that perpetrate terrorist violence.

In fact, the amount of media coverage given to terrorist activities on a daily basis far outweighs that given to other arguably pressing issues such as climate change and extreme poverty.

In the US specifically, terrorism has taken over cable news, with CNN reportedly mentioning “terrorism” and “ISIS” a combined 831 times between November 21 and December 21 in 2015.

By comparison, in that same period, CNN discussed “climate change” 135 times, “poverty” a mere 34 times, and “CISA”, a contentious piece of anti-privacy legislation of import at the time not at all.

The danger posed by ISIS has been blown far out of proportion by the world media. Source: CNN

In an interview with NPR, US President Barack Obama accused notorious (and also over-reported on) billionaire businessman turned Republican candidate Donald Trump of exploiting blue-collar fears and concerns about Islamic State, and said that the media wasn’t helping either.

“If you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you,” he said.

This is a continuing reality, not only in the US but around the globe, despite the fact that terrorism is not actually as much of a threat as the media leads the public to believe.

An ABC chart combining statistics from the Global Terrorism Database and the Gun Violence Archive shows that while terrorism has resulted in 3521 US deaths in the over forty-year period between 1970 and 2014 (including 9/11 – which accounts for 2996 of these), gun-related violence in America killed at least 9940 people in 2015 alone.

In a speech following a mass shooting in Oregon last October, President Obama said the attention given to terrorism over other issues is substantially skewed.

“We spend over $1 trillion and pass countless laws and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil — and rightfully so — and yet we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths,” he said.

Visibly upset, President Obama makes a speech following a shooting that killed 13 at a community college in Oregon. October 2015. Source: Kevin Lamarque/ Reuters

“How can that be?”

Furthermore, most of the deaths that do occur as a result of terrorism around the world occur in non-OECD or third world countries, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria.

According to a 2015 report by the Institute for Economics and Peace, since 2000, less than 3% of terrorism-related deaths occurred in Western countries.

Even so, anti-Islamic sentiments – taking the form of threats and violence against Muslims all around the world – and fear about the possibility of Islamic State terror attacks in the West dominate public debate.

Globally, these fears have in turn led to the adoption of different pieces of legislation that although intended to protect the interests of National Security, are seen by some as threats to civil rights and freedoms.

We are forced to wonder whether it really is necessary for the mass media to report on terrorism as much as it does.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Turning the tide: why the victory in Ramadi matters

by David Kavanagh

Earlier this week, following months of intensive preparation, Iraq’s armed forces successfully recaptured the western city of Ramadi from the Islamic State militants who had held it since May.

The vital offensive saw members of the Iraqi military and allied militias, supported by a campaign of US-led airstrikes, meticulously clear the city of an estimated 400 IS fighters while avoiding complex networks of booby traps, IEDs, human shields, and other forms of resistance.

In so doing, Iraq has won what analysts are calling its first major victory against the violent extremist group since it began terrorising the region in mid-2014 in an effort to create its own Sharia-governed “caliphate” (or state).

Victory in Ramadi was declared on Monday. Source: AFP/ Ahmad al-Rybaye

Since last summer, IS has already lost a number of Iraqi towns and cities, such as Sinjar and Tikrit, and is also on the defensive in neighbouring Syria where Kurdish Peshmerga forces are pushing the group back.

However, the liberation of Ramadi is of particularly great strategic significance for a number of reasons.

Ramadi: the vein of Baghdad
Located in the Euphrates river valley in Iraq’s west, the city of Ramadi is the capital of primarily Sunni Muslim Anbar province, the second largest province in the nation.

Referred to by some experts as the “vein of Baghdad”, Ramadi is in close proximity and grants access to the borders of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria (and by extension Raqqa, IS’ main stronghold in the latter), as well as the Iraqi cities of Baghdad, holy Shiite Karbala, and IS-held Fallujah.

In a propaganda tape released after IS initially took Ramadi back in May, its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi stated that their next targets would be Karbala and Baghdad.

Evidently, Ramadi’s central position gives whoever controls it a crucial strategic advantage in the ongoing war.

Not only can Iraqi forces now sever some connections between different IS-dominated locales, but it can also launch further offences in the surrounding area.

A much-needed confidence boost
Prior to the victory in Ramadi, the Iraqi military and its allies had suffered a list of humiliating defeats in the battle against IS, losing the cities of Tikrit and Mosul and substantial territory in Anbar in 2014.

In Mosul specifically, two divisions of Iraq’s army, numbering 30,000 men, were routed by only 800 IS extremists.

As the conflict that has so far killed thousands and displaced around 3.2 million civilians continued, trust in the authority of a government that had already been marred by deep sectarian division and corruption fell drastically.

In fact, in many locations, the militant group have used local dissatisfaction and pre-existing conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims to recruit new fighters. 

While success in Ramadi may not completely turn around public opinion in itself, it provides a breath of much-needed optimism for the country going into next year.

Following news of the victory, people all across Iraq waved Iraqi flags in celebration.

Celebrations in Baghdad following the Ramadi victory. December 28, 2015. Source: Getty Images/ Haydar Hadi

Where to now?
With US Secretary of State John Kerry committing continued US support, Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has already vowed to rid the nation of IS entirely in 2016, starting with the northern city of Mosul.

“If 2015 was a year of liberation, 2016 will be the year of great victories, terminating the presence of Daesh [another name for IS] in Iraq and Mesopotamia,” he said in a televised address.

“We are coming to liberate Mosul, which will be the fatal blow to Daesh.”

In an exclusive interview with Reuters, Iraq’s Finance Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said the successful capture of Mosul, the largest population centre currently controlled by IS, would effectively mark the end of the group’s caliphate in Iraq.

However, this cannot be achieved without the help of the Peshmerga, the armed forces of the autonomous northern region of Iraqi Kurdistan.

A Kurdish Peshmerga fighter launches mortar shells towards IS-controlled Zummar, near Mosul. September 15, 2014. Source: Reuters/Ahmed Jadallah

“Mosul needs good planning, preparations, commitment from all the key players,” Mr Zebari  said in Baghdad on Monday.

“Peshmerga is a major force; you cannot do Mosul without Peshmerga.”

While concise planning of the next military action is vital, it is also important that effort is put into rebuilding areas already liberated.

Coordination with local police forces and tribal leaders will be necessary to help displaced families return to their homes and to ensure locations remain secure in the future.

Read further: Iraq’s battle for Ramadi isn’t just about defeating Islamic State by The Conversation.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Brunei, Somalia, Tajikistan: the countries that banned Christmas

by David Kavanagh

As a majority of the world waits in festive anticipation for Christmas to come about once again, a few would-be celebrants in at least three countries so far are not quite as lucky.

The populations of Brunei, Somalia, and Tajikistan this year face severe government-enforced bans on any form of celebration relating to the Christian holiday.

While this is by no means the first instance of anti-Christmas sentiments and restrictions on yuletide revelry emerging, here’s a closer look at what exactly is going on this time.

Brunei
Last year, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, one of the richest men in the world, introduced Sharia law to the tiny, oil-rich nation of Brunei.

Met with far-reaching condemnation from many international human rights organisations, the country, which sits neatly on a small corner of the island of Borneo, became the first in South-East Asia to be officially governed by strict Islamic doctrine.

Fearing that the Christian holiday of Christmas could negatively impact Muslims throughout the sultanate, religious leaders this month declared that any festivities, other than those hosted by Christians in a non-excessive or open manner, would be met with punishment.

Brunei’s all-powerful Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah introduced Sharia law last year. Source: Ahim Rani/ Reuters

Christians make up about 9% of Brunei’s 430,000 citizens.

“Using religious symbols like crosses, lighting candles, putting up Christmas trees, singing religious songs, sending Christmas greetings… are against Islamic faith,” imam sermons in Brunei’s local presses read.

Although penalties are not as outrightly severe as others espoused by Sharia law, such as death by stoning, those that violate the ban could be met with a five-year stint in prison.

To enforce this, authorities have been ordered to step up checks throughout the country.

This has resulted in most people in Brunei fearing there’d be repercussions if they were to speak out against the decree.

“The ban is ridiculous,” one unnamed Bruneian Muslim mother told the ABC, despite this.

“It projects this image that Islam does not respect the rights of other religions to celebrate their faith.

“Islam teaches us to respect one another and I believe it starts with respecting other religions, even if what is being banned are ornamental displays.”

In protest, others have taken to social media.

The hashtag #MyTreedom, part of a larger campaign aimed at drawing attention to oppression against Christian populations worldwide, has been flooded with Christmas-themed imagery and messages.

Somalia
Like in Brunei, Somalia’s decision to ban public Christmas and New Year festivities is grounded in religious uncertainty and fears that the Christian holiday could lead Muslims astray.

The East African country, which borders Ethiopia on the horn of Africa, has a population that is almost entirely Muslim and has been governed by Sharia law since 2009.

While Christmas is not celebrated much in Somalia anyway, save for during parties thrown just for the sake of partying, this is the first year that it has been officially banned.

“Having Muslims celebrate Christmas in Somalia is not the right thing, such things are akin to the abandonment,” top official at the Somalian justice and religious affairs ministry Mohamed Kheyrow said.

Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke leads the government that banned Christmas in Somalia this year. Source: Getty Images

According to the BBC, an increasing number of Somalis that grew up in the West are returning home as the country recovers from civil war, bringing Western traditions with them.

Fears pertaining to this, as well as concerns that Christmas gatherings could be targeted by al-Shabab, an Islamist extremist group operating in the region whose edicts expressly denounce Christmas, are the driving argument behind this ban.

Last Christmas, al-Shabab launched an attack on African Union headquarters near the capital Mogadishu, killing four.

Concessions will be made for foreign diplomats, aid workers and soldiers staying in their homes or at UN or African Union compounds, so long as they celebrate privately.

Tajikistan
The Central Asian country of Tajikistan, bordering Afghanistan, China, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan, has tightened curtailments during the festive season for somewhat differing reasons to Brunei and Somalia.

Although Muslim’s make up a majority of the population, the former Soviet state remains a nominally secular republic.

Its primary motivation for banning gift-giving, fireworks, festive food and Christmas trees in education centres throughout the country stems from a uncertainty about the benefits of Russian, and particularly Soviet, influences.

In fact, Tajikistan has been toning down the number of Russian-inspired traditions it celebrates for some time now.

In 2013, it banned the Russian version of Santa Claus, known as Father Frost, from appearing on TV at all.

Russia’ Santa Clause, Father Frost, was banned from Tajikistan television two years ago. Source: Tass/ Barcroft Media

Measures against other holidays deemed to threaten the local culture have also been enforced since, with some reports suggesting people found dressed up in costume on Halloween were detained by police.

Uncertainties about Tajikistan identity extend beyond the government in this case, causing division among the population.

At the end of 2011, on New Year’s Eve, 24-year-old Parviz Davlatbekov was murdered while dressed up as Father Frost by an unknown group in the city of Dushanbe.

These assailants reportedly yelled “infidel” before stabbing the young man to death.

But it’s not all bad news
While the list of countries opposing Christmas celebrations for religious or other reasons continues to change, others have lifted restrictions in recent years.

China, Cuba, and Albania have all witnessed a growing trend of support for the tradition in both public and private realms.

In places like Pakistan and Iraq, festivities are thrown despite constant threats from violent insurgents and other obstacles.

The Christmas spirit remains strong.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Falcon 9 re-entry: what the successful landing means for the future of space travel

by David Kavanagh

Private spaceflight company SpaceX has made history today by coordinating the first ever successful and up-right landing of its powerful First Stage Falcon 9 rocket in Cape Canaveral, California.

The unmanned, 23-storey-tall rocket had been sent to deploy 11 satellites for telecommunications giant ORBCOMM on Tuesday as part of the first flight organised by SpaceX since one of its ISS-bound cargo rockets was destroyed minutes after launch in an accident in June.

Although Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezo’s Blue Origin, a primary competitor to SpaceX, achieved a similar feat during a landing test last month, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is the first rocket to deliver a payload for a commercial orbital mission and safely return.

But why does it matter?
Falcon 9 rockets, like all big space exploration vehicles, are expensive to produce and have, up to now, always been rendered unusable upon re-entry, either because they crash into the sea or are burned up in the atmosphere.

The upgraded variant used during the ORBCOMM-2 mission instead landed smoothly on its specially designed deployable legs.

Business magnate and high-tech entrepreneur Elon Musk co-founded SpaceX in 2002 and endeavours to, among other space-based missions, eventually turn space tourism into reality.

Ultimately, having access to reusable rockets that make use of advanced systems of precise navigation, guidance, and thrust control should make the operational and time costs involved in these sorts of tasks far more affordable since the expensive machines would not have to be rebuilt for every launch.

SpaceX CEO and co-founder Elon Musk at the MIT AeroAstro Centennial Symposium in October. Source: Dominick Reuter

It also gives SpaceX a noticeable advantage over its rivals in the extremely competitive private space launch industry.

“Reusability is the critical breakthrough needed in rocketry to take things to the next level,” said Musk at the MIT AeroAstro Centennial Symposium in October.

While the construction of a stable armada of reusable rockets will take some years and great coordination, today’s Falcon 9 success demonstrates that it is possible.

As Wall Street Journal’s Andy Pasztor put it, this historic landing really does have the potential to “shake up [the] space industry.”

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Cooperation key to ending child marriage in Africa: HRW

by David Kavanagh

Human Rights Watch has today released a 20-page report calling for African governments to better coordinate efforts at ending child marriage across the continent.

This comes almost three months after African and global leaders adopted the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, part of which committed them to ending the practice within the next 15 years.

Through on-the-ground investigation and engagement with victims of child marriage, the report determined that children who are forcefully married off before the age of 18 are often faced with devastating life-long consequences that violate their human rights as a result.

This includes increased risk of exposure to physical and sexual abuse from their partners, serious health issues, such as HIV, or early death from childbearing.

It also contributes to girls being cut off from education altogether at an early age and becoming further trapped in poverty.

16-year-old Helen stands with her 50-year-old husband in a village near Juba, South Sudan. Source: Brent Stirton/ Getty Images for HRW

According to Girls Not Brides, a global activist partnership between over 550 civil society organisation from over 70 countries, 15 million girls are forced to marry every year around the world.

A majority of them seem to be in Africa which hosts 15 out of 20 of the countries with the highest child marriage rates.

In sub-Saharan Africa alone, 40% of girls are married before adulthood.

The UN’s Children’s Fund (UNICEF) predicts that by 2050, 310 million girls will have been forced to marry in Africa, a significant increase from the current 125 million.

HRW’s senior Africa women’s rights researcher Agnes Odhiambo said that although those in power have since recognised the problem, a lot more has to be done.

“Government leaders across Africa often say the right things about child marriage, but have yet to produce the political commitment, resources, and on-the-ground help that could end this harmful practice,” she said.

In late November, the African Union held its first ever African Girls’ Summit on Ending Child Marriage designed at encouraging legal reform, sharing information about preventative practices and highlighting the effects child marriage can have on individuals and communities.

Children watch an educational video at an Agape AIDS Control Programme outreach event in Tanzania. Source: Marcus Bleasdale/ VII for HRW

However, HRW research in places like South Sudan, Malawi, Zimbabwe and Tanzania suggests a lack of comprehensive national strategies, coordination and consensus ultimately undermines the efficacy of government efforts.

In fact, in at least 20 African countries, child marriage is still legal.

Poor education, poverty that compels parents to “sell” their children into marriage, and stigmas against adolescent pregnancy outside of marriage further compel people to partake in the practice.

“African governments should make a commitment to comprehensive change that includes legal reform, access to quality education, and sexual and reproductive health information and services,” said Mrs Odhiambo.

“Governments should set the minimum age of marriage at 18 and make sure it is fully enforced, including by training police and officials who issue marriage certificates.

“Since government officials can’t bring about change alone, they should work with religious and community leaders who play an influential role in shaping social and cultural norms.”

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter