Former CNN Commentator Made a Pro-Trump “Real News” Video

Last weekend, political commentator Kayleigh McEnany left her position at CNN and by Sunday, she hosted a news segment about President Donald Trump that was posted on his Facebook page. It claimed to be the “real news,” but it looks more like state-run media in countries that have limited press freedom–like Russia or China. “Thank you for joining us as we provide the news of the week from Trump Tower here in New York,” McEnany said at the start of the segment. She went on to list some statistics about the Trump Administration, like the recent unemployment numbers and what Trump has done for veterans. She also claimed that Trump should be credited with creating more than 1 million jobs since taking office; however, she failed to note that recent job growth mirrors the same trend that existed in the last six months of the Obama presidency.

Wow. Feels eerily like so many state-owned channels I’ve watched in other countries https://t.co/dqsLEfuLj8

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 6, 2017

The video segment was filmed in front of a wall with the Trump campaign logo and most people thought it was pretty creepy. McEnany has also been named the new spokesperson for the Republican National Committee.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

During a vacation to Berlin, a pair of Chinese tourists stopped at the historic Reichstag building and took photos performing the infamous Nazi salute. The duo were promptly detained by the German police on the scene and held on a bail of 500 euros for violating a German law aimed at distancing the nation from its horrific mid-20th-century history.

Police guarding the building, which now houses part of the German Parliament, noticed the tourists taking turns posing and snapping pictures and promptly intervened, according to their statement. The pair, a 36-year-old and a 49-year-old participating in a European tour, were allowed to return to China with their group even though their crime could carry a three-year sentence, according to the Washington Post.

The Reichstag is a particularly sensitive location because of its role in the Nazi rise to power. When the Reichstag caught fire in 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party blamed the fire on Dutch Communists and used it as leverage to access more power. In 2011 a Canadian tourist was also arrested and fined for performing the salute in front of the building, according to the Washington Post.

The incident is yet another example of Germany, and other European nations, criminalizing and condemning Nazi history and its recent resurgence. In this case, the tourists violated provisions of the German criminal code instituted after World War II that ban the salute and many other Nazi symbols, signals, and materials.

Since the war ended, Germany has made strides to distance itself from its history and to educate the new generations on the mistakes made by previous generations. The German public school system has a comprehensive education program on the Holocaust that has only gained momentum in the past few decades, according to PBS.

Nazi flags and symbols are banned across nearly every major country in Europe including Austria, Hitler’s home nation. Earlier this month the Switzerland Supreme Court upheld a conviction of a man performing the salute and yelling “Heil Hitler” outside of a Jewish synagogue in Geneva, according to the New York Times.

Not only is Europe cracking down on the distasteful behavior, but the Chinese government is worried as well. The government is testing out new systems to persuade its people to respect local laws and customs when traveling abroad. One new system would keep track of troublesome tourists and rank them based on severity of their behavior while reminding them to behave properly when they land, according to the Washington Post.

So while the behavior may not surprise the Chinese government, it is certainly frustrating for European nations, and particularly Germany, to constantly deal with tourists making ill-advised Nazi references. As the world sees a resurgence in white nationalism and racial strife these instances are part of a larger global problem that likely has no end in sight. Countries across the globe must tackle issues of discrimination, racism, and their individual histories that are often filled with those same problems.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Tourists Arrested Over Nazi Salute at Reichstag appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Muslim Woman Running for Senate Faces Verbal Attacks

Democrat Deedra Abboud is running for senate in Arizona. She is hoping to run against Republican Senator Jeff Flake. But recently, she has been verbally attacked because she is Muslim. Abboud is an attorney in Phoenix and has reportedly endured harassment ever since she announced her campaign this spring. Recently, she posted a Facebook status talking about religious tolerance, and people responded by attacking her religion. “Nice try but your first love is Satan (AKA Allah) and your second love is to a litter box your ‘people’ come from,” one user wrote. “BAN ISLAM IN THE USA…WE HATE YOUR FILTHY DEATH CULT,” another one said. Abboud is originally from Arkansas but moved to Arizona and converted to Islam 19 years ago. After the comments became publicly known, even Senator Flake came to Abboud’s defense. “Hang in there,” he wrote. “Sorry you have to put up with this. Lots of wonderful people across AZ. You’ll find them.”

To clarify,he’s not “a flake” but Senator Flake,a Republican.
Hats off 4 standing against bigotry where others would have exploited the opp. https://t.co/HCITu7XPBQ

— Hend Amry (@LibyaLiberty) July 19, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Protests began Tuesday evening in Hamburg, Germany, ahead of the G-20 summit where leaders from 19 countries and the EU will gather on Friday and Saturday to discuss global issues, including trade and climate change.

Thousands of G-20 protesters gathered in Hamburg to protest capitalism, environmental inaction, and the G-20 summit itself. The protesters believe the summit is undemocratic because a select group of world leaders is making decisions that will impact the entire world. German police fired water cannons to disperse a group of about 500 protesters on Tuesday, according to the UK news outlet The Daily Express.

On Wednesday, 1,000 performance artists clad in clay-covered clothes crept and crawled through the streets of Hamburg. The performance by artist collective “1000 Gestalten” (1,000 figures) was meant to represent individuals’ advancement of themselves rather than society as a whole, and to get people engaged in the political process, according to the group’s website.

The demonstrators, coated head-to-toe in gray clay, inched their way down the street with dull expressions on their faces. Eventually, they stripped off their gray clothing to reveal colorful clothes–and for some, naked bodies–underneath as a symbol for joyous liberation.

Germany: Actors smeared in clay protest #G20 summit https://t.co/UgnAmmrVmT pic.twitter.com/IbmCdu8PjL

— RT (@RT_com) July 6, 2017

Peaceful protests continued on Wednesday and Thursday, including a march resembling a block party with music and dancing.

In Germany, they protest the #G20 with dragons on top of cars, beer, and serious, serious techno. pic.twitter.com/egGxSKMqVy

— James H-H (@jamesonthewaves) July 5, 2017

Stores boarded up their windows in preparation for property destruction and looting.

Hamburg: stores closed/boarded up in anticipation of (anti-NATO/IMF) #G20 protesters,”Hamburg macht dicht” #G20HAMpic.twitter.com/jrWIdn3OJc

— Kristina Dei (@2kdei) July 6, 2017

One group of protesters dressed as the heads of state present at the summit to protest the leaders. Another group carried a sign reading “Welcome to Hell,” a phrase which became the moniker of Thursday’s march.

G20 Welcome to Hell – My pictures of yesterday are online. Escalated After Police attack https://t.co/pclzlbMUTn #g20 #nog20 #w2h #nog20en pic.twitter.com/FEiePPHhWA

— Fabian Schumann (@schumann_fabian) July 7, 2017

According to the Guardian, the “Welcome to Hell” march was supposed to travel from Hamburg’s harbor toward the convention center where the summit is being held, however police stopped the protesters from proceeding shortly after the march began.

Hamburg police deployed water cannons and tear gas against protesters Thursday evening around 7 p.m. Some protesters began tossing bottles and other objects back at police, according to The Daily Express.

Demonstrators clashed with police in Hamburg during an anti-G20 protest, with tear gas and water cannon being used #G20 pic.twitter.com/eYyTIWksqk

— Sky News (@SkyNews) July 6, 2017

Protests at the G-20 summit are nothing new. During the 2010 G-20 summit in Toronto, peaceful protests were interrupted by a group of anarchists who destroyed police cars, store windows, and other property. Police used batons, tear gas, pepper spray and plastic bullets against protesters, and detained more than 1,000 people.

While the G-20 has seen protests before, the events leading up to this year’s summit were especially tense given protesters’ opposition to President Donald Trump. Trump visited Poland’s President Andrzej Duda in Warsaw, Poland, on Thursday and gave a speech questioning “whether the West has the will to survive.”

Trump then flew to Germany later that day for the G-20 summit, arriving amidst the protests in Hamburg, where he met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The president declined to say what he and Merkel discussed behind closed doors. However, Merkel told the German parliament on June 29 that “we cannot expect easy talks in Hamburg” on climate issues.

On Friday, the first day of the summit, demonstrators resumed peaceful protests with sit-ins and marches.

RAW: Police cleared a sit-in protest ahead of the opening of #G20 summit (Video: Sebastian Kroeck) pic.twitter.com/96Ai6X1WE7

— dwnews (@dwnews) July 7, 2017

“You are 20, we are plenty,” reads a banner shown at a #G20 protest rally in #Hamburg. #G20HAM17pic.twitter.com/7yEKqGfRiE

— Arafatul Islam (@arafatul) July 7, 2017

With the start of the G-20 summit, Trump will continue to meet with fellow heads of state, including his first face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet for the first time at the G20 summit in Hamburg pic.twitter.com/LQmSKkWQks

— Sky News (@SkyNews) July 7, 2017

If one thing is clear, it’s that demonstrators from Germany and around the world are dissatisfied with the G-20 summit and the direction in which the world’s top leaders are moving.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters and Police Clashed Ahead of G-20 Summit in Germany appeared first on Law Street.

The parliament in Germany passed a controversial bill last Friday that would give social media companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter 24 hours to remove explicitly hateful speech and “obviously illegal” content before facing a fine of up to 50 million euros ($57 million).

Holocaust denial, dissemination of Nazi symbols, racist agitation, and antisemitic language are considered illegal under Germany’s criminal code and would qualify for prompt removal under the Network Enforcement Act, or “Facebook law,” as some are calling it.

The law, which will take effect in October after Germany’s elections, is the toughest of its kind. It also states that social media companies will have seven days to remove other, less offensive posts, and will have to submit a public report on the complaints they have received every six months and explain how they dealt with each instance.

German Justice Minister Heiko Maas has said he wants to treat Facebook as a media company, thereby making it legally liable for hate speech on its platform.

“Freedom of opinion ends where criminal law begins,” Maas said, adding that hate crimes in Germany have increased by 300 percent in the last two years.

“These [posts] are not examples of freedom of speech. They’re attacks on freedom of speech. The worst danger to freedom of speech is a situation where threats go unpunished,” Maas said while addressing the need for the legislation.

Germany already has some of the world’s strictest regulations regarding libel, defamation, and hate speech. However, in light of recent attacks and instances of homegrown terrorism across the continent, German and European lawmakers are facing pressure to further limit radicalization and offensive speech online.

In 2015, the European Commission created a voluntary code of conduct that called for web companies to remove videos that incite terrorism or hatred.

After the attacks in London, both British Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron said they are considering laws similar to Germany’s to fine companies that “fail to take action” against terrorist propaganda and violent content.

Facebook said in a statement, “This law as it stands now will not improve efforts to tackle this important societal problem.” And in another statement from May, the company said that the measure “provides an incentive to delete content that is not clearly illegal when social networks face such a disproportionate threat of fines. It would have the effect of transferring responsibility for complex legal decisions from public authorities to private companies.”

Because of its war-torn past, Europe has been more willing to place restrictions on freedom of speech in favor of limiting propaganda and hate speech than the United States. However, critics and human rights groups say this law may be going too far.

“Many of the violations covered by the bill are highly dependent on context, context which platforms are in no position to assess,” said David Kaye, the U.N. Special Rapporteur to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “The obligations placed upon private companies to regulate and take down content raises concern with respect to freedom of expression.”

Joe McNamee, the executive director of the digital rights group EDRi, said that the law could establish a precedent for “wholesale privatization of freedom of expression,” with “large internet companies deciding what they want the public discourse to be.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Germany Passes Law to Fine Social Media Companies that Fail to Remove Hate Speech appeared first on Law Street.

North Korea is Firing Missiles Again

Yesterday, North Korea fired an intercontinental ballistic missile that could potentially reach the U.S. The U.S. then carried out a joint military exercise with South Korea to show off its power and send a warning message to North Korea. But the North just replied by saying that it would not stop developing its nuclear abilities as long as America’s “hostile policy” and “nuclear threat” persist. The missile traveled 578 miles, according to the South Korean military. It stayed in the air for about 37 minutes. That means that it could potentially reach Alaska.

The North’s plan is to mount a nuclear warhead on the missile. The timing of the launch was also significant. “The American bastards must be quite unhappy after closely watching our strategic decision,” a North Korean state media agency quoted its leader Kim Jong Un as saying. “I guess they are not too happy with the gift package we sent them for the occasion of their Independence Day. We should often send them gift packages so they won’t be too bored.”

North Korea’s state media claims the country now has the power to strike the United States with a nuclear warhead https://t.co/UQ9uGZ2Ebc pic.twitter.com/m9c4phzFm7

— CNN (@CNN) July 5, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 5, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Brzezinski and Scarborough Speak Out About Trump Feud

President Donald Trump faced bipartisan criticism after launching a Twitter attack yesterday on the hosts of “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. Many Republicans have expressed disappointment and embarrassment that the president would use such derogatory language. “I see it as embarrassing to our country,” said Maine Senator Susan Collins. It points to the problematic view he has of women, according to Republican pollster Christine Matthews, who spoke to the New York Times. But Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the president’s words as “fighting fire with fire” and said they were appropriate.

Please just stop. This isn’t normal and it’s beneath the dignity of your office.

— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) June 29, 2017

This morning, Scarborough and Brzezinski said that officials from the White House called them and said that the National Enquirer, whose owner is a friend of Trump, would run a hit piece on them. According to Scarborough and Brzezinski, Trump would shut down the story if he apologized to them. The couple also said reporters from the Enquirer have been calling Brzezinski’s children and friends.

Here’s the clip:

This is a chilling story. https://t.co/HYJgBnajOy via @Morning_Joe https://t.co/6UCEHzfOET

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) June 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Ehe für alle (marriage for all) may soon become the law of the land in Germany after Chancellor Angela Merkel softened her stance on same-sex marriage during an interview on Monday. Merkel said the Parliament ought to carry out a “vote of conscience” on the issue. The body intends to do so on Friday.

Germany is one of the only Western European countries that has yet to legalize same-sex marriage. The country allowed same-sex couples to enter civil partnerships in 2001 and numerous legal battles since then have also won couples the right to inherit items and property. The bill, proposed by the left and green parties following Merkel’s call for a free vote, would add to this list the rights to marry and adopt.

The bill is expected to pass easily on Friday, in part because many believe this law is long overdue. A YouGov poll estimates that two thirds of Germans would advocate for a law allowing LGBTQ individuals to wed and over half of Germans support adoption.

A political move, more than a historic one?

Amid the excitement surrounding the vote, many are speculating that Merkel’s pivot emerged as a political play in her campaign for Germany’s September election, in which she is running for a fourth term.

Merkel, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union, has long resisted demands for same-sex marriage to be passed. “For me, personally, marriage is a man and a woman living together,” Merkel said. But, in recent months, she has faced pressure to follow in the footsteps of more progressive parties on this issue.

Her main opponent in the race, Martin Schulz, is the chosen candidate for the Social Democratic party. On Sunday, Schulz promised that same-sex marriage would be legalized in any government involving his party. Family “is not only father, mother, child,” Schultz told supporters. Family is “there wherever people take responsibility for each other.”

We will push through marriage equality in Germany. This week.

— Martin Schulz (@MartinSchulz) June 27, 2017

Two other parties, the Free Democratic Party and the Green Party have said they would not form a coalition with Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) if same-sex marriage was not on the agenda.

Merkel’s call for the vote may have broadened her pool of potential voters, however she risks alienating the CDU’s sister party: the Bavarian conservative Christian Social Union (CSU).

“Germany has more paramount issues to address,” said CSU legislator Peter Ramsauer.

Despite the political motivations behind this decision, many Germans, Europeans, and LGBTQ advocates have expressed their delight that Germany will likely soon join the ranks of countries where same-sex couples can legally marry and establish families–and just in time for the end of Pride month.

For my English speaking followers: German parliament will vote on gay marriage tomorrow – on the 48th anniversary of Stonewall. #Ehefueralle

— Stina ⛱ (@Stinalotte) June 28, 2017

Now only 48% of EU citizens live with marriage equality. From Friday it will be 64%.

#Ehefueralle

— Filipe Henriques (@FHenriques) June 28, 2017

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Merkel Softens Stance On Same-Sex Marriage, Prompting Snap Vote appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome back to another round of our RantCrush news quiz! Each Friday we put out this post quizzing our lovely readers on the big stories of the week. Every story can be found in our RantCrush Daily Newsletter. If you’re not getting our newsletter click here to sign up, and enjoy the quiz below!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Newsy Are You?: June 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Will Trump Pull Out of the Paris Climate Deal?

This morning, news broke that President Donald Trump is expected to pull out of the Paris climate agreement. During his recent European trip, he had said he would announce his decision over the next few days. If confirmed, the decision to leave could have a disastrous impact on the environment and public health, but also on America’s status as a world leader. China is far ahead of the U.S. when it comes to developing renewable energy sources, so there are concerns that the relationship between Europe and China could deepen, at least when it comes to environmental collaboration.

Pulling out of #ParisAgreement is a massive moral, economic & leadership failure for Trump admin. Loss of business, jobs, & intl standing.

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) May 31, 2017

Trump has reportedly been torn between those who want him to stay in the deal, like his daughter Ivanka and tech billionaire Elon Musk, and those who want to leave, like EPA head Scott Pruitt and Steve Bannon. European leaders seemed frustrated after meeting with Trump. His stubbornness when it comes to climate change discussions is especially noteworthy–Germany’s Angela Merkel called their talks “very difficult, and not to say very unsatisfactory.”

In 100 years, Trump withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement will be considered the seismic event. This election will be a footnote.

— Ellie Mae O’Hagan (@MissEllieMae) May 31, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 31, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Angela Merkel Implies that Europe Can No Longer Rely on the U.S.

After his recent trip, some European leaders seem a little sick of President Donald Trump. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently hinted, without specifically mentioning Trump’s name, that European countries can no longer consider the U.S. a reliable ally. During a rally held inside a Bavarian beer tent on Sunday, she said, “The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days.” She added that Europe “really must take our fate into our own hands.”

Frmr CIA Dir McLaughlin: Trump creating rift w/ Germany and Europe “is one of the most damaging things I have seen in…years and years.”

— Steve Peoples (@sppeoples) May 30, 2017

During his visit to Europe, Trump said he might pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement–the most unified effort to combat climate change to date. Trump has also expressed support for Brexit and encouraged other countries in the European Union to explore leaving the coalition. As a result, many Europeans see Trump as a potential threat to regional stability. But now it seems like his recent comments and behavior in Europe could actually unite Europe–even Merkel’s rivals in the upcoming national elections have supported her response. This morning, Trump hit back against Germany with a tweet (of course).

We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

After a long investigation, Munich police have arrested two leaders of a Croatian-based crime ring responsible for up to a fifth of all burglaries committed across Germany. The investigation into the criminals began in January 2016, when German police witnessed a group of three young women skillfully break into a home in the Munich suburb of Lehel. The crime ring was reliant upon young women, who were less likely to be seen as suspicious and less likely to receive harsh jail sentences in the event that they were caught.

According to Reinhold Bergmann, the commissioner for organized burglary crime, these women were traded among the families of the crime ring, often through marriage, and were forced to commit the robberies against their will. Police arrested twenty of the young women used as “worker bees” by the crime ring in Munich, as well as two mid-level gang members in western Germany. The women and girls who worked for the organizations were trained to say that they were teenagers upon arrest, presumably so that they would be tried as minors, but it remains to be seen how many truly are teenagers as most of them have forged identification documents. Details about how these young women were recruited into the organization are still unclear but those that were married into the family (rather than those who were blood relations) may have been victims of human trafficking. This organization was built upon home burglaries but their operations appear to reach much further and deeper than the stereotypical mafia clan.

Detectives arrested members of the group in northern Spain this July and the arrests this week will chip away at the organization, but there are believed to be dozens of other “tentacles” of the group still operating in Belgium, France, Italy, and beyond. Millions of dollars worth of property has been stolen in Germany, much of which seems to have been funneled into the mansions in Croatia where the police found the two leaders this week. Some small items including jewelry and watches were recovered in the mansions, but the majority of the stolen property will never be returned.

This week’s arrests are a feather in the cap of Munich’s police department but they also raise questions about exactly how powerful this organization is. No doubt police forces from multiple countries are working together but it is difficult to share information across time zones and language barriers, especially when so few details about the scope and reach of the organization have been revealed. Hopefully these arrests will be the first in a larger chain but for the moment, Germany is the only nation that seems to truly be effectively combatting these crime families.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Story of the “Worker Bees”: Key Arrests in Germany’s Largest Burglary Ring appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Students Boo Betsy DeVos’ Commencement Speech

Yesterday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was met by booing and chanting students when she gave a commencement speech at Bethune-Cookman University in Florida. At times the jeering was so loud it drowned out her words, and several students stood up and turned their backs on her. The speech was supposed to last for more than an hour, but she wrapped it up after 20 minutes. The school’s president, Edison Jackson, warned the students that unless they stopped their behavior, their degrees would be mailed to them, and at least one student was escorted out.

Many in Bethune Cookman University graduating class turning their #BackstoBetsy Davos during commencement speech @NBCBLK pic.twitter.com/tUQTvW7ZxH

— Mariana_Atencio (@marianaatencio) May 10, 2017

Students criticized their school for giving them such short notice on who their commencement speaker was going to be, and on Tuesday, a group of students delivered a petition with what they claimed were 60,000 signatures to stop DeVos from speaking. But university officials said only 6,000 signatures were properly filled out. Now a lot of people are upset with the school for inviting DeVos in the first place, and also for giving her an honorary doctorate.

@FecklessBube @mollyhc @BuzzFeedNews The insult to those students has been foisted upon them by their tone deaf leadership. DeVos should never have been invited.

— Mike Prater (@emsprater1) May 10, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A German couple is suing Facebook after the company denied them access to their deceased daughter’s account. While legal disputes over inheritance are nothing new, questions over digital legacy and online reputations are growing more common in the age of information.

According to German news outlet Deutsche Welle, a subway train struck and killed the plaintiffs’ 15-year-old daughter in 2012. It remains unclear whether her death was an accident or if the girl committed suicide. Her parents hope that by gaining access to her Facebook account they might be able to shed light on the circumstances surrounding her death.

In 2015, a court in Berlin granted the couple access to their daughter’s Facebook account, stating that digital possessions ought to be as inheritable as material possessions. Facebook, however, refused to comply with the court order and appealed the decision. The social media giant argued that while they sympathized with the parent’s demands, it would violate the privacy of users who had messaged the teenager under the expectation their conversation would remain private.

Facebook does have a set of guidelines that users can follow if they are concerned about what will happen to their account upon their passing. Facebook memorializes accounts of deceased people and gives users the option to name a legacy contact. However, the plaintiffs’ daughter was not old enough to name a legacy contact.

Even if she had been old enough to name her parents as legacy contacts, they still would not have been allowed to log into the memorialized account or check her messages. Deutsche Welle reported that the girl’s parents did know her password but that her account had already been memorialized by the time they tried to log in.

Increasingly, law firms and will writers are offering advice on how to protect one’s digital legacy, but the case in Germany highlights the fact that there are limits on one’s ability to control their online presence once they pass. Individuals have the option to create (or not create) an online profile. However, once an account has been created, control over that account may not be exclusive to the user depending on the service.

Clearly, the phrase “you can’t take it with you” has added meaning in the information age but legal questions about digital legacy have salience in life as well as death. Additionally, one can have a digital legacy without ever having created an online account.

In 2010, a Spanish man filed complaints with the national Data Protection Agency against a local newspaper, Google Spain, and Google Inc. When that man’s name was searched, Google turned up an auction notice for his repossessed house. He argued that because the matter had been resolved, the search result was irrelevant and violated his right to privacy. In 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled in favor of the man’s “right to be forgotten.”

While the European Court ruled that the “right to be forgotten” is limited and should not be used to make “prominent people less prominent or criminals less criminal” other courts have enforced the digital right more broadly. A Japanese court stirred up controversy when it recognized a convicted child sex offender’s “right to be forgotten.” The court ruled that in spite of his crimes, the man should be allowed to rehabilitate his life “unhindered.”

Digital legacies have come to define people in life and in death. As long as the law continues to lag behind technology (it likely always will), questions of who controls online reputations remain points of fierce contention.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Controls Your Digital Legacy? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

New Report Likens Texas Solitary Confinement to Torture

A new report from the Human Rights Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law states that solitary confinement in Texas violates international standards for human rights and amounts to torture. According to Ariel E. Dulitzky, a law professor who co-wrote the report, prisoners that were interviewed in the study suffered psychological problems after being in solitary. They were not allowed to have any contact with other inmates or access to health care, and changes in the execution schedule meant that some prisoners had to prepare for death more than once.

Hey Texas! What are we doing, exactly? Violating international human rights standards? Torturing people? Let’s not! https://t.co/koUEYiRFE9

— Haley Samsel (@haley_samsel) April 27, 2017

Inmates were also not allowed to have any physical contact with family members, even when they were heading to their execution. According to the study, the state of Texas is unique in that it uses all of these policies, while other states may only use one or two. Also, it seems like Texas is using solitary confinement as a general practice, rather than for a specific reason like safety or punishment. But a strong lack of transparency or will to cooperate on behalf of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has obstructed any change.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

People are Outraged at “Stealthing”

There’s a name for a man removing a condom during sex without his partner’s consent: stealthing. The phenomenon is reportedly on the rise in the U.S., according to a new study by Alexandra Brodsky in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. Rape victims’ organizations say this kind of behavior needs to be classified as rape. And a lot of people are outraged that this is a “thing.”

Given that “stealthing” puts a victim at risk of pregnancy or disease, and that many people only consent to sex with a condom, this is “experienced by many as a grave violation of dignity,” the study says. And according to Sandra Paul, who is a specialist in sexual crimes, this could amount to legal rape. “There has to be some agreement that a condom is going to be used or there is going to be withdrawal. If that person then doesn’t stick to those rules then the law says you don’t have consent,” she said.

It’s both affirming and terrible to write about an under-acknowledged form of gender violence and hear a chorus of “me, too” in response

— Alexandra Brodsky (@azbrodsky) April 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

American and German hate speech laws are clashing this month after the approval of a German bill that permits fines of up to 50 million euros on social networking sites that fail to remove hate speech and fake news content from their platforms. The bill still needs to be approved by parliament, but if it does pass, it will be the first concrete step by a government to limit and penalize fake news production.

Companies will have 24 hours to take down content that has been flagged by users before the fines kick in. They will also be obligated to file quarterly reports and turn in “malicious” users–an issue that may prove thorny, as demonstrated by Twitter’s recent lawsuit against the federal government.

American-based sites including Facebook and Twitter have been scrambling to fight fake news over the past year but have struggled to walk the line between freedom of speech and hate speech. In Germany, where the legacy of the Nazi reign has created some of the strictest hate speech laws on the books, that line has been far more defined for decades. Under German law, volksverhetzung, which can be translated as “incitement to hatred,” is a crime punishable by heavy fines or several years of imprisonment. These punishments are usually applied to Holocaust denial and overt racist threats but by shifting the focus to social media, Germany is taking on a wider and more varied range of bigoted behavior. German justice minister Heiko Maas told the German media that “there should be just as little tolerance for criminal rabble rousing on social networks as on the street.”

The bill has already come under fire from advocates of free speech, including the EU’s digital commissioner, Andrus Ansip of Estonia. Ansip declared that over-regulating social media will harm innovation and that instead, the EU should encourage self-regulation. However, German supporters of the bill argue that websites have been neglecting reports of abuse coming in from users and that a harsher penalty is the only way to ensure that the sites will truly take fake news and hate speech seriously. The German Jugendschutz, a ministry dedicated to protecting minors online, found that Facebook only removed 39 percent of reported criminal content. Twitter removes an even smaller percentage of reported content–an estimated one in a hundred reported messages. Facebook has refuted the Jugendschutz statistic, arguing that its own analysis showed a higher rate of removal, but Twitter has not pushed back with the same vehement denial.

Tracing and deleting fake news and hate speech is a challenging task, especially for networks like Facebook and Twitter that serve hundreds of millions of users across dozens of countries every day. There is so much content to sift through that it is not surprising the social network teams are struggling to rapidly and accurately take down fake news. However, a worthwhile task shouldn’t be abandoned simply because it is difficult. The true challenge is not taking down abusive content, it is determining whether the strict German definition of hate speech can be applied in an era where even the team in the Oval Office has made disparaging and racist remarks on social media.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What Germany’s New Hate Speech Law Means for Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Sessions Threatens Sanctuary Cities

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said yesterday that the White House will follow through on the executive order to withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, meaning cities where local law enforcement officials limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Sessions made this announcement during the daily press briefing at the White House yesterday, which some saw as a sign that Trump wants to move on and divert attention from the failed health care bill. “They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets,” he said.

Democratic officials in states like California and New York forcefully spoke out against the AG’s comments, with California State Senator Kevin de Leon saying that he uses “unconstitutional threats and blackmail to prey on anxieties.” There are also worries that a crackdown on undocumented immigrants will make immigrants less likely to report crimes to police, for fear of retaliation. The total amount of money withheld could be more than $4.1 billion. In New York, a lot of that federal money is used to prevent terrorist attacks, so the order could make cities less secure.

#JeffSessions and @WhiteHouse continue #AlternativeFacts streak. Truth is sanctuary cities are less dangerous than nonsanctuary cities.

— Kevin de Leόn (@kdeleon) March 27, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump met with the leader he once said was “ruining Germany” at the White House on Friday: German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In their first face-to-face visit, Trump and Merkel were expected to discuss a number of topics that concern Germany, the U.S., and the rest of the world: NATO, Russia, the European Union, refugees, and North Korea.

Merkel came to Washington with a business-centric agenda in mind. She was accompanied by top executives from BMW, Siemens, and other top German businesses that trade with the U.S. In a recent interview with a German newspaper, Merkel said she planned to stress to Trump the importance of the U.S. and Germany’s trade relationship. “I’ll make that clear,” she said.

But it wasn’t all business-as-usual, like this very awkward moment:

Photographers: Can we get a handshake?
Merkel (to Trump): Do you want to have a handshake?
Trump: *no response*
Merkel: *makes awkward face* pic.twitter.com/ehgpCnWPg7

— David Mack (@davidmackau) March 17, 2017

During a press conference that followed their two-hour private conversation, Trump and Merkel largely focused on areas the U.S. and Germany cooperate on–trade and defense. Trump praised Germany for its work-training programs. But echoing a point he repeatedly made as a candidate and early on in his presidency, Trump said Germany and other NATO members must “pay their fair share.”

Merkel agreed that Germany must do more to meet its commitment to the defense alliance–each NATO member is expected to pay two percent of its GDP per year, a mark all but the U.S. fall short of–and promised that she would make sure it does. The press conference was tense at times, which is hardly surprising, given the history of animosity between the two leaders.

At a campaign event last March, Trump said “the German people are going to end up overthrowing this woman,” in reference to Merkel and her open-door refugee policy. “I don’t know what the hell she’s thinking.” Trump has called Merkel’s refugee policy, in which she welcomed roughly a million refugees to Germany, a “catastrophic mistake.”

Some other notable snippets from the press conference:

• Trump said he is “not an isolationist,” but a “free trader” and a “fair trader.”
• Trump said immigration is a privilege, not a right.
• Merkel said globalization “ought to be shaped in an open-minded way but also in a very fair way.”
• When asked by a German reporter if he ever regrets his tweets, Trump said: “very seldom.”

With populist movements gaining traction in the U.S. and Europe–many with isolationist, anti-globalization, and anti-establishment elements–Germany is a valuable democratic partner for America, as it has been for decades. But Trump’s apparent embrace of anti-EU forces, and of Britain’s exit from the EU, has many U.S. allies questioning his commitment to the traditional western order.

One thing is clear: Trump still believes Trump Tower was wiretapped by President Barack Obama during the 2016 campaign. When asked about his claim, which has been struck down by U.S. intelligence officials and high-ranking Republicans, Trump said he and Merkel, who the NSA has reportedly spied on, “have something in common, perhaps.” Visibly taken aback, Merkel said nothing.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and Merkel Meet to Discuss NATO, Trade, and Russia appeared first on Law Street.

Turkey on Tuesday warned it might impose economic sanctions against the Netherlands, as a diplomatic rift between the two countries intensifies. The ongoing spat comes at a time of political uncertainty for both countries: anti-Muslim sentiment is on the rise in the Netherlands, which held an election on Wednesday, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan faces a referendum vote next month that could greatly expand his powers. Here is what you need to know about the deepening conflict, and what it could mean for the future.

Roots of the Conflict

Last weekend, Erdogan dispatched members of his cabinet to the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium, European countries with high numbers of Turkish migrants, to stir up support for next month’s referendum. A “yes” vote in the referendum would broaden his already considerable governing powers. Turkish ministers planned to fly to Rotterdam to give a speech to Turkish migrants living in the Netherlands, hoping to galvanize support for Erdogan in the weeks before the vote.

But on Saturday, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte blocked Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu from flying to Rotterdam. “This decision is a scandal and unacceptable in every way,” Cavusoglu said. Pro-Turkish protesters swarmed the country’s consulate in Rotterdam soon after, hurling stones and bottles; police were seen beating some protesters with batons. “To all Turks in the Netherlands who agree with Erdogan: Go to Turkey and NEVER come back!!” Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-right candidate whose anti-Muslim rhetoric has influenced Dutch politics, tweeted on Saturday.

Rhetoric Heats Up

On Sunday, after the barring of Cavusoglu, Erdogan, who is accused of jailing dissidents and journalists, responded by comparing the Dutch to Nazis and fascists. “Listen Netherlands, you’ll jump once, you’ll jump twice, but my people will thwart your game,” he said, warning that Turkey would respond in the “harshest ways.” Erdogan added: “They don’t know diplomacy or politics. They are Nazi remnants. They are fascists.”

In retaliation to Cavusoglu’s ban, Turkey blocked access to the Dutch embassy in Ankara and its consulate in Istanbul. On Monday, Turkey officially severed high-level diplomatic relations between the two countries. And on Tuesday, the deputy prime minister suggested that Turkey might impose economic sanctions on the Netherlands in the near future.

Broader Consequences

As Europe deals with a number of consequential elections this year, the last thing it needs is a spat with its neighbor, and aspiring European Union member, Turkey. The conflict has soured quite quickly. Yet deeper, more wide-ranging consequences could follow in the coming months. Germany, Austria, Belgium, and Switzerland have all followed the Netherlands in blocking rallies related to Turkey’s referendum.

Germany might have the most to lose. Turkey recently agreed to a deal with Germany, which has also barred Turkish ministers from giving political speeches, to stop migrants from the Middle East from entering Germany. Turkey could pull out of the deal if the row with the Netherlands and Germany worsens. In fact, on Wednesday, Cavusoglu suggested as much, saying, “we are evaluating the refugee deal.” With an election in September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel can’t afford to lose Turkey’s cooperation in stemming the migrant flow, which has fueled the anti-immigrant message of her opponents.

Meanwhile, Erdogan, whipping up support back home, is posturing himself as being cornered by Europe’s bullying, which could underscore his anti-western and, many observers say, anti-democratic governing style. As he seeks to strengthen his power in next month’s referendum vote, Erdogan’s aggressive actions in Europe could bolster his standing at home, but weaken ties with Europe at a time when cooperation is more vital than ever before.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What you Need to Know About the Netherlands-Turkey Standoff appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday morning thousands of Twitter users, including verified accounts like BBC North America, Forbes, and tennis star Boris Becker, saw their accounts tweeting out a message in Turkish along with images of swastikas. Someone hacked Twitter and gained access to the accounts through the third-party app Twitter Counter, an analytics service.

The message that was sent out was propaganda in support of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and translated as “#NaziGermany #NaziNetherlands, a little #OTTOMAN SLAP for you, see you on #April16th.” The tweets also contained a link to a pro-Erdogan video on Youtube.

My twitter account was hacked !!! I never posted this as I obviously don’t speak Turkish…. pic.twitter.com/G7pNuH1UFj

— Boris Becker (@TheBorisBecker) March 15, 2017

The message was accompanied by emojis of swastikas and on some accounts the hackers had changed the user’s profile pictures into a Turkish flag or other Turkish symbols. April 16 is referendum day for Turkey–voters will be deciding whether or not to give the president even more power.

The Germany and Netherlands hashtags are referring to Erdogan’s recent beef with leaders of the two countries, he recently called them “Nazi remnants” and “fascists.” Erdogan had sent government officials to countries with large Turkish populations to rally support ahead of the referendum vote, which Germany and the Netherlands resisted.

Earlier this morning our Twitter account was hacked. We’ve now deleted the hacked tweet and investigating what happened. Apologies & thanks

— AmnestyInternational (@amnesty) March 15, 2017

Twitter Counter is based in Amsterdam and was also hacked in November, when some verified accounts like PlayStation and the New Yorker started sending out spam tweets telling users how to gain more followers. “We are aware of the situation and have started an investigation into the matter,” its chief executive, Omer Ginor, said. Twitter said in a statement that the hack was limited only to accounts that use Twitter Counter. “We removed its permissions immediately. No additional accounts are impacted,” the statement said.

We identified an issue affecting a small number of users. Source was a 3rd party app and it has been resolved. No action needed by users.

— Twitter Support (@Support) March 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hackers Tweeted Swastikas and Turkish Message From Thousands of Accounts appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to a new workweek and to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

USTA Accidentally Played Nazi-Era Anthem at Tennis Match

The United States Tennis Association had an incredibly embarrassing moment on Saturday when a banned verse of the German national anthem was accidentally played at the Fed Cup quarterfinal in Hawaii. The banned part of the anthem hails from Nazi Germany and was used as Nazi propaganda. It’s unclear how the mistake happened and Germany responded with outrage. The German team’s coach, Barbara Ritter, called the incident “inexcusable.” The USTA issued an official apology to Germany and said it won’t happen again. But for German player Andrea Petkovic, the damage was already done, as the incident happened right before her match. “I thought it was the epitome of ignorance, and I’ve never felt more disrespected in my whole life,” she said.

The USTA extends a sincere apology to the German Fed Cup team & fans 4 the outdated National Anthem. This mistake will not occur again. pic.twitter.com/4LyG3ACe5u

— USTA (@usta) February 11, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

After a news-filled Monday, are you caught up on the biggest stories in the world of law and policy this morning? If not, don’t worry, we did all the hard work for you. Sit back, and enjoy, RantCrush readers. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Germany Declares Berlin Attack an Act of Terror

On Monday night, a truck crashed into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 and injuring 48. Of those 48, 18 are reportedly critically wounded. Now, German officials have announced that they’re viewing the attack as an act of terrorism. It reminded many of a similar attack in Nice, France, in July when a truck plowed into a Bastille Day celebration and killed 86.

At least one man has been arrested in connection with the attack, but authorities aren’t sure that he’s the man who drove the truck–it’s possible that the attacker is still at large.

Chancellor Angela Merkel gave a press conference on Tuesday, calling for unity in this time of uncertainty. But the attack in Berlin, as well as the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey, have many people nervous about the current state of world affairs.

Today:
– Turkey assassinates Russian diplomat
– Terrorist drives truck into Berlin crowd near chuch
– Terrorist attack in Zurich

New normal

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) December 19, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 20, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

During a speech on Tuesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel proposed a ban on full-face veils, eliciting raucous cheers from the audience. “Here we say, ‘Show your face,'” she said during her 80-minute speech. “So full veiling is not appropriate here. It should be prohibited wherever legally possible.” Her shift in tone on what her country would accept amid a rising tide of anti-immigration sentiment in Germany and elsewhere in Europe could be an appeal to far-right voters before the federal elections next year.

The speech was made to acknowledge her acceptance of the nomination of the center-right Christian Democratic Union, the party she has led since 2000. Though the party suffered an embarrassing loss to a far-right party in a local election in September, Merkel was nominated to head the CDU with convincing support: she won 89.5 percent of votes from 994 delegates. A few weeks ago, Merkel announced she will be running for a fourth term.

During her speech, which ended with a 12-minute standing ovation, Merkel hinted at the rising tides of populism, and the recent challenges to liberal democratic ideals. “A good quarter century after the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the two blocs, many people have the feeling that the world has gone off the rails,” she said.

And while she managed to avoid naming President-elect Donald Trump explicitly, she did nod in his direction. “We are dealing with a world situation — and that is especially true after the American elections — in which the world must first sort itself out,” she said. “Especially when looking at important things like NATO and the relationship to Russia.” Trump questioned the U.S.-NATO alliance during his campaign.

Since Merkel allowed nearly one million migrants from the Middle East, many from Syria, into Germany last year, she has had to deal with rising criticism at home and abroad. Germany will weigh in on her leadership during next year’s elections, and many see Tuesday’s speech as a way to placate the fears that are fanning far-right, nationalist movements, and assure those voters that she will be staunch to defend German values. In addition to supporting a full-face veil ban, Merkel said Shariah Law could never supplant German justice.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Germany Ban Full-Face Veils for Muslim Women? appeared first on Law Street.

When a 22-year-old Syrian man at a train station in Leipzig, Germany posted a message on a social media site asking for a place to crash, two fellow Syrian refugees scooped him up and brought him to a third friend’s apartment. The man, Jaber Albakr, was on the lam after police raided his apartment, suspecting him of plotting a terrorist attack.

As Albakr slept on Sunday night, the three Syrian friends, realizing that he was the fugitive who had evaded the police, tied him up with electrical cords, and alerted the authorities. They arrested him Monday morning, and now, the three Syrians who tied him up are being hailed as “heroes.”

Anti-migrant sentiment has gripped Germany like it has the rest of Europe. Political groups running on nationalist, insular, platforms have sprung up from London to Leipzig. But on Tuesday, after three Syrian asylum seekers thwarted a fellow Syrian immigrant (who was granted asylum as one of the 890,000 migrants allowed into Germany last year), it was those least trusted by some Germans who perhaps saved the lives of many.

Leipzig is the largest city in the eastern state of Saxony, the base of a prominent anti-immigrant group, Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West (PEGIDA). Messages from groups like PEGIDA were overshadowed on Tuesday by the heroism of Syrian refugees. Leipzig Mayor Burkhard Jung called what the Syrians did a “very courageous act.” In the German newspaper Bild, one of the Syrian saviors voiced his appreciation for Germany: “I am so grateful to Germany for taking us in. We could not allow him to do something to Germans.”

The identities of the Syrian friends have not been released by authorities. Investigators in the case said Albakr seemed to be targeting a Berlin airport. They found over three pounds of explosives in his home, as well as evidence of ties to the Islamic State.

Franz Josef Wagner, a columnist for Bild, heralded the Syrians’ actions in an op-ed published on Tuesday. He began his piece with “Dear Heroes” and noted that they may come from a different culture, “But beyond language and tradition, you know what good and bad are. That makes you friends.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Syrian Refugees Deemed ‘Heroes’ After Thwarting Leipzig Terror Suspect appeared first on Law Street.

The past week in Germany has been rife with bloodshed and full of dread. At four public sites across the country starting last Monday, 10 people have been killed and scores more injured–some critically–in suicide bombings, stabbings, and in one instance, an ax-wielding teenager. On Sunday evening, in the most recent attack on German soil, a 27-year-old Syrian man blew himself up and injured 15 others at a fair in Ansbach, a town 90 miles north of Munich.

As information from the investigation into the attack trickled in on Monday morning, one troubling tidbit came to light: the man, identified by a neighbor as Mohammad Daleel, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, or ISIS, on a cell phone video shot just moments before he detonated his backpack full of explosives, according to Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann.

“I believe that after this video we cannot doubt that this attack was an Islamist terror attack,” Herrmann said. In the video, the suspect says Germans “won’t be able to sleep peacefully anymore,” while describing his impending attack as a “revenge act against Germans because they are standing in the way of Islam.”

In the early stages of the investigation into the attack–the week’s second to take place in the German state of Bavaria–it is unclear whether or not the man had directly communicated with ISIS, or if he had acted of his own accord, inspired by the ideology of the terrorist group. He is the second attacker in Germany this week to voice support for ISIS. The first came last Monday, when a 17-year-old Afghan asylum-seeker attacked people on a subway with an ax, injuring five. The attacker was the incident’s only fatality. 

The week’s attacks reignited the conversation in Germany over its refugee policy. In 2015, Germany absorbed nearly one million migrants, most of which were Muslims from war-torn countries like Syria and Afghanistan. As terrorist attacks have spread around the western world over the past year, far-right movements have gained traction, most of which run on the promise of stricter immigration policies. Three of the four attacks last week in Germany were carried out by asylum-seekers, and calls for less accommodating asylum practices are growing louder. Sunday’s suicide bomber sought asylum in Germany in 2014 but was denied due to his initial asylum request in Bulgaria, where he was to be deported to.

German officials involved in the investigation said the man had attempted suicide twice before and was in a psychiatric clinic at some point. His successful suicide and public attack was embraced by ISIS, who, through their media affiliate Amaq referred to him as a “soldier.” Since 2014, when its caliphate was officially born, ISIS has been directly responsible or has been the inspiration for 2,043 deaths in 29 countries.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Week of Terror: Latest Attacker in Germany a “Soldier” of ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

The German parliament passed a resolution on Thursday to recognize the 1915 mass killings of Armenian people as “genocide,” sparking a backlash in Turkey. The motion was put forward by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition together with one opposition party and passed with support from all parties in parliament.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was upset by the resolution and said that this will deeply affect Turkey’s relationship with Germany. He also recalled the Turkish ambassador from Berlin and said that further action in response to the resolution will be discussed later. The three biggest political parties in Turkey have already condemned the German decision, and the Turkish foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, tweeted: “The way to close the dark pages of your own history is not by defaming the histories of other countries with irresponsible and baseless decisions.”

According to the 1948 Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, genocide is the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” According to historians, the Ottoman Empire deliberately crashed down on Armenian people and other Christian minorities, starting in April 1915. They estimate that as many as 1.5 million Armenians were killed in the genocide. While Turkey acknowledges that many people died, they claim that the deaths were the result of war and that the numbers are exaggerated.

Learn more: The Armenian Genocide: A Battle For Recognition

Denying that the genocide happened has long been a part of the national consciousness in Turkey, and is so sensitive that it is illegal to even talk about. Even though many large nations–such as France, Austria, Canada, and Russia, recognize the events as such–many still do not. And that is largely for political reasons–when countries have recognized the genocide, Turkey has been quick to withdraw its ambassadors or end military collaboration. This is why it’s a pretty sensitive time for Germany, as it seeks a friendly relationship with Turkey to seal a deal over the immigrant crisis facing the EU.

With the deal, Turkey will take back refugees that make it to Greece illegally. In return, Turkey will get additional aid from the EU, Turkish citizens will be able to travel through Europe more easily, and talks about Turkey joining the EU will be sped up. The goal is to stop the human trafficking that has led to so many deaths on the seas as refugees seek entry into Europe. However, human rights groups and organizations like Doctors Without Borders have criticized the deal, saying that sending people back simply forces refugees to suffer in Turkey while also reducing them to numbers.

Angela Merkel did not participate in the vote, but later said: “There is a lot that binds Germany to Turkey and even if we have a difference of opinion on an individual matter, the breadth of our links, our friendship, our strategic ties, is great.”

More than 40 U.S. states label the Armenian genocide as such, but the nation as a whole does not. Many see the lack of recognition as an attempt to maintain friendly relations with Turkey in order to maintain a strategic ally within the Middle East. President Obama has not referred to it as a genocide while in office, although he did prior to becoming president.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkey Angered by Germany’s Recognition of the Armenian Genocide appeared first on Law Street.

During a recent stretch of 107 consecutive hours, Portugal ran on clean energy. No coal. No crude oil. No natural gas. Instead, over a period of four days, sunlight, wind, and hydropower helped Portugal set the latest milestone by a European country in using renewable energy sources.

“This is a significant achievement for a European country, but what seems extraordinary today will be commonplace in Europe in just a few years,” James Watson, CEO of SolarPower Europe, told the Guardian.

Portugal’s achievement is the latest in a string of clean energy milestones recently reached by European countries. Earlier this week, wind and solar led the way in powering Germany for an entire day, at one point even leading to negative power prices because of an energy surplus. Last week, the UK saw four separate instances of energy generated without coal. The last time that happened was 1882.

The leading renewable energy source for European countries is wind, and as new targets are met domestically in places like Denmark and Spain–two of Europe’s leading clean energy producers–their governments will export surpluses to the rest of the continent.

In Portugal, 48 percent of the energy generated in 2015 came from renewable sources. Approximately 22 percent of that came from wind. European countries, including Portugal, are doubling down on wind power to help meet clean energy goals set at the Paris climate conference last year. When it comes to wind, Germany leads the way.

Last year, Germany expanded its wind power capacity by 6,013 megawatts (MW). Compared to the rest of Europe, Germany is expanding its wind power capacity at a much higher clip. The next three highest increases in 2015 were Poland (1,266MW), France (1,073MW) and the UK (975MW).

Based on headlines alone, it can seem like Europe is the global leader in clean energy production. But that’s not entirely the case.

“In terms of overall [renewable] generation, the U.S. leads the pack,” said Daniel Simmons, the Institute for Energy Research Vice President for Policy, during an interview with Law Street. “But one of the things that’s hard for Americans to wrap our heads around is the size of Europe or one European country versus the U.S. There’s just a big difference.”

Portugal, for instance, has around 11 million people living on a 35.6 thousand square mile parcel of land with a long coast on the Atlantic, which, as coastal regions experience more frequent and more intense gales, is advantageous for wind generation. In contrast, the United States has nearly 330 million people living on 3.8 million square miles of land, most of which is land locked.

Simmons said a challenge that separates the United States from Europe is the proximity of the country’s high-density population pockets–cities on the coast–to the regions of the country where the bulk of wind energy is produced–the landlocked center.

“People don’t live near the best wind resources,” he said.

In a place like Denmark–Europe’s clean energy crown jewel–people live closer to where wind energy is generated. Dispersal is easier and more efficient. In Portugal and Germany, clean energy can power the entire nation for a day or more because of their relatively small size and the proximity of their population centers to wind–and hydro–generating regions.

Regardless of the geographic reality or political will to aim for a long stretch of clean energy production in the United States, Europe has shown that a future free of fossil fuels is indeed possible, one renewable powered day at a time.

Read More: The Mystery of Wind Energy in Texas

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Portugal Powered for Four Days by Clean Energy. Could America Do the Same? appeared first on Law Street.

First, it was a song and video, satirizing him as a “big boss” whose neck swells at the sight of press freedom. Then: a poem read by a German comic on television that skewered him, making his blood boil, finally inciting him to respond. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is unhappy with the recent barbs aimed at him by public figures in Germany, and has embarked on a courtroom assault to punish those who have launched satirical attacks against him, stirring up important questions for Germany to mull over: Is it unlawful for a German citizen to offend a foreign leader? Can Germans be silenced from abroad?

The latest development in the notoriously thin-skinned Turkish leader’s crusade against German critics came Tuesday when a court denied his injunction against Mathias Döpfner, the head of one of Germany’s largest media outlets. Döpfner wrote a letter–championing “freedom of expression, art and satire”–in support of Jan Böhmermann, the comic who performed the scathing poem on German television in April.

Tuesday’s ruling is a blow to Erdogan’s silencing campaign. Ralf Höcker, the lawyer representing Erdogan in Germany, said his efforts to silence the “online lynch mob” are about “human dignity, namely to protect it.” The Cologne state court backed Döpfner’s right to free speech, calling it “a contribution to building public opinion in a controversial debate.” A spokeswoman for Axel Springer, the media company Döpfner is chairman of, called the case “baseless.”

Erdogan’s legal case rests on an 1871 German law that prohibits the mocking or offending of a foreign leader. In summoning the obscure, forgotten law, he joins an esteemed club of heads of state whose critics have been silenced in the past: Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran and former dictator Augusto Pinochet of Chile.

The law was first brought back from obscurity in April, when Erdogan called on a German court to prosecute the comic, Böhmermann, on the basis of the 1871 law. Some Germans expressed ire at their own leader, Merkel, for her inaction in denouncing Erdogan’s attempts to suppress free speech.

“We champion that our partners and allies guarantee freedom of opinion and the independence of justice to the same extent as they are in Europe and other countries of the democratic world,” Merkel said in April, during a press conference in which she granted Turkey the go-ahead in its legal case against the satirist Böhmermann. The trial has yet to begin, as prosecutors are still investigating the case.

Erdogan’s move to silence his German critics comes at a time of increased cooperation between his government and that of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as the European Union tries to stem the flow of refugees uprooted from the Middle East. A favored route of the Syrians, Iraqis, and Afghanis seeking refuge in Europe goes through Anatolia, from Turkish ports to Greek ones, then into Eastern Europe and beyond. Many asylum seekers hope to eventually reach Germany, which has Europe’s strongest economy and most lenient refugee stance.

The deal between Turkey and the European Union–with Merkel as its foremost representative–went into effect in March. As the enforcement of the agreement rests largely on Erdogan, he has used his newfound leverage as a tool to extend his penchant for silencing critics beyond his own borders and into Germany. How that leverage will manifest itself in the future is certainly worth keeping an eye on.

And while Germans wait for the outcome of Böhmermann’s case, they will not stop satirizing Erdogan. Instead, they’ve found more creative outlets for their ribbing: Erdogan-Burgers, anyone?

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkey’s President vs. German Satirists: A Battle Over Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Eight men have been arrested following the hundreds of robberies and assaults that occurred on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Germany. Over 600 criminal reports were submitted regarding New Year’s Eve in Cologne, and over half of those reports involved sexual harassment or assault. A large number of the victims who reported their attacks described their assailants as Middle Eastern, which triggered fears of backlash against Germany’s refugee population. Angela Merkel has remained firm in her commitment to refugee acceptance and integration but the attacks in Cologne may provide a critical groundswell of support for anti-immigration groups. At this time, one 26-year-old Algerian asylum-seeker is in custody for groping a woman and stealing her phone but the refugee status of the other suspects in custody is mostly unknown. Read on for a closer look at the events of New Year’s Eve and what they may mean for Germany in the coming years.

The Attacks across the City

Over 1,000 drunken men gathered outside of Cologne’s central train station, adjacent to its famous cathedral, to ring in 2016. It was within that neighborhood that a large part of the attacks took place, as young women emerged from the train station and headed off into the night. Groups of men who were reported to be of “North African/Arab” origin surrounded young women, groping and assaulting them. Dozens of men would circle women, both those walking alone and those in groups, forcing them to “run a gauntlet” to escape. In addition to sexual attacks, hundreds of people reported theft of money, phones, and valuables.

The identities of the attackers were initially unclear but in the days following the attacks, a significant number of the victims described their attackers as young men of Middle Eastern origin. The majority of the women targeted were German nationals. One woman reported that her rapist told her “German women are just for sex.” Media reports of the incidents were initially only running in local newspapers but within a few days, the story of the horrific night had spread worldwide.

The police have stated that they have never dealt with this kind of situation before and had not created a plan of action to combat such wide-scale criminal activity occurring at once. The preceding year, police officers were deployed in the same volume and had no problems with crowd control. However, with the influx of people outside the station, there were so many attacks happening simultaneously around the central station that security forces were essentially powerless to stop them. The violence was not confined to Cologne, as hundreds of other sexual assault cases poured in from across Germany on New Year’s Eve. However, the collective nature of the attacks in Cologne and the authorities’ disturbingly lackluster response on the ground outside the station mark them as unique. In the wake of the New Year’s Eve attacks, several German cities cancelled other winter celebrations out of fear of similar widespread violence.

Unexpected Implications

Continued Anti-Immigration Sentiment

Right wing protesters, already against the influx of refugees, have doubled down on their positions. During a recent protest, they clashed with police in riot gear, screaming at police officers for not defending local women–although it was unclear if they meant defending them from assault or defending them from refugees. One supporter of the anti-immigration Pegida movement went so far as to refer to the attacks as “bad for the women, but good for us, because the people are being woken up.” Anti-immigration rallies were held across the country in the wake of the attacks, with hundreds of people carrying signs reading “Rapefugees Not Welcome.” Although few of the women who were assaulted have come forward with anti-immigrant positions, Pegida and other groups have taken it upon themselves to be their voices.

Unfortunately, many onlookers worry that the transparent racism and xenophobia of Pegida undermines the validity of the victim’s reports. One young woman named Selina publicly discussed her attack and her attackers (men of Middle Eastern descent who spoke Arabic and did not seem to understand German) and was accused of being racist by a variety of internet sources. Women seeking justice for the crimes committed against them should feel comfortable reporting physical descriptions of their attackers but in the case of  the Cologne attacks, where race and violence are inextricably linked, those who report their attack may become targets for the vitriol of those who assume they are prejudiced.

An Attack on Women

Two weeks after the attack, The Irish Times published an editorial on the violence in Cologne which stated that

Perpetrators of sexual assault against women do have one thing in common, and it’s not religion or ethnicity, it’s gender…Perpetrators of sexual assault are typified by their diversity. But the common denominator is men. Until we are honest with ourselves about that, and until prevention focuses on stopping men from assaulting women – not blaming one demographic of men, or outlining ways in which women can avoid potential assault – we are kidding ourselves. What happened in Cologne, that mass act, was primarily unusual in its collective nature. But all over the world, in every village, town and city, mass acts of misogyny are fragmented daily, manifesting as individual assaults. We ignore them, because they are not as newsworthy. Victims of sexual assault are just as diverse. Being raped transcends all demographics.

A majority of news outlets have chosen to classify the attacks in Cologne as an issue of sexual assault and violence rather than an issue of race. Evidence from police data shows that refugees have, in fact, committed less crime than native Germans since arriving in the country, therefore outside of the right wing rallies, few news outlets have traced the crimes to be associated with race. While the German government has prioritized deporting refugees who are found guilty of sexual and physical assault, women’s advocacy groups argue that this is not about immigration policy–it is about protection for women. The events of Cologne are being attributed to a massive spike in the number of young men in Germany, which changes the demographics of security.

Regardless of race or socioeconomic status, men are more likely to commit violent acts than women. Considering that the majority of sexual assault cases involve the assault of women by men, the shifting gender dynamics of Germany may affect the country’s future. Cologne has been labeled a potential watershed moment for legal reform and creating protections for all women against all forms of sexual harassment and abuse. As Germany adapts to its new population, the legal processes and security of the nation will have to change in tandem. The brutality of New Year’s Eve in Cologne may inspire German officials to create comprehensive legal protection for women who are sexually harassed and assaulted.

Conclusion

The attacks in Cologne will be remembered as an unprecedented night of terror but the implications of the attacks go beyond criminal activity. Angela Merkel’s decision to welcome over a million refugees (and potentially more in the coming year) into Germany was controversial and she will likely have to keep defending it for years to come. Asylum seekers engaging in criminal activity only fuels the fears of Germans who were already opposed to the influx of refugees. The entire refugee population should not be held accountable for the actions of a few, but as security services are sorting through hundreds of potential suspects who often match the description of Middle Eastern refugees, right-wing xenophobes are gaining public support. The German police presence will need to adapt and expand to deal with its swelling population if they want to avoid a repeat of Cologne in the coming years but that will require not only a new style of training, but an increase in the number of staff they have available for deployment at any given time. Cologne will not only be an important marker for the history of women’s rights and violent crime, it may serve as the trigger for an new era of policing in Germany.

Resources

CNN: Eight in Pretrial Custody in Cologne New Year’s Eve Mass Robberies, Sex Assaults

CNN: Cologne, Germany: Hundreds of Sexual Assault Charges from New Year’s Eve

BBC: First Suspect Held Over Sex Assault Claims

The New York Times: As Germany Welcomes Migrants, Sexual Attacks in Cologne Point to a New Reality

Huffington Post: Here’s What We Know So Far About The Sexual Assaults At Cologne’s Train Station

Daily Mail: Migrant Sexually Assaulted 25-year-old Victim after Telling her ‘German Women are Just There for Sex’

NBC News: Cologne Sex Attacks ‘Good for Us,’ Anti-Refugee Protesters Say

Breitbart: Cologne Sexual Assault Victim called a Racist and Harassed after Identifying Her Attackers

The Irish Times: Cologne Assaults a Mass Act of Misogyny

The Local: Police: Refugees Commit Less Crime than Germans

TIME: Reaction to Cologne Attacks Should Focus on Women’s Rights

Psychology Today: Male Aggression: Why are Men More Violent?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Impacts of Widespread Sexual Assault in Cologne appeared first on Law Street.

Approximately 1,000 drunk men kicked off the New Year with a non-consensual furor by sexually assaulting dozens of young women outside of the central railway station in Cologne, Germany on New Year’s Eve.

In between launching dangerous fireworks at one another, the men reportedly groped, molested, robbed, and threatened women near the city’s iconic cathedral. According to the police, one woman was also raped.

German police: New Year assaults may be linked to crime ring https://t.co/TuqZxax5n7 #Cologne #Germany #immigration pic.twitter.com/xwX9cM77Iw

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) January 6, 2016

Police received a total of 90 criminal complaints from witnesses and possible victims who said women were being surrounded by groups of “20-30 men” of “Arab or North African origin.” Those speculations about their ethnicities has prompted some to label the perpetrators as possible refugees, leading to an intense debate over migrants within the country.

Germany is one of the most welcoming European nations for refugees, and in 2015 alone the country took in 1.1 million asylum seekers. So far there have been no additional measures introduced to prevent their continued arrival, which has begun to bother citizens as sentiments shift with increasing terror threats, and anti-immigration rallies have broken out.

So far there has been no verifiable proof that the drunken mob was in fact full of refugees. Cologne’s Mayor Henriette Reker, who is a prominent pro-refugee politician, isn’t too fond of the hasty conclusions about who the perpetrators were. In between expressing her outrage over the attacks Reker said,

It’s absolutely improper for us or for people who are judging this objectively to immediately link a group that appears to come from North Africa with refugees.

Unfortunately, the mayor then severely backtracked by pissing off feminists with her advice to women on how to avoid future attacks.

Reker said in a statement that women could protect themselves by keeping “a certain distance of more than an arm’s length” from unknown men. She then reiterated her comments to a German public service broadcaster Tuesday saying,

Women would also be smart not to go and embrace everyone that you meet and who seems to be nice. Such offers could be misunderstood, and that is something every woman and every girl should protect herself from.

Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

The notion that women are somehow to blame, or could have prevented unwanted sexual advances is just preposterous. But rather than get sucked into a rant on the harms of victim blaming, let’s chalk Reker’s comments up to ignorance.

However, Germany’s crisis as whole remains unsettling. The mass assault was horrific and seemingly unprecedented, and the authorities are still scrambling to catch the men involved–in fact no one is even really sure how many men were involved. The added prejudice toward migrants, and the sexist comments from the city’s mayor all amount to one huge train wreck, which is seems to be a pretty fitting word given that this all started outside of a rail station.

Hopefully Germany can find justice for these women and prevent attacks like this from happening in the future.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 1,000 Men in Germany Spent NYE Sexually Assaulting Women appeared first on Law Street.

“You can agree with her or not, but she is not taking the easy road.”

So said the accompanying video to TIME Magazine’s announcement that Angela Merkel, the first woman to serve as Chancellor of Germany, was its choice for 2015’s “Person of the Year.”

TIME editor Nancy Gibbs announced the win, saying, “For asking more of her country than most politicians would dare, for standing firm against tyranny as well as expedience and for providing steadfast moral leadership in a world where it is in short supply, Angela Merkel is ‘TIME’s Person of the Year.'”

Merkel is more than deserving of such a title, given that since she assumed her position in 2005, she has led Germany with a compassionate yet sturdy hand, and is now one of the most respected leaders in the whole world. Most recently, she opened Germany to hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees when many other countries barred them, and steered Europe through dealing with Greece’s debt crisis.

She is also the first woman to be named Person of the Year since 1986, when Filipino president Corazon C. Aquino took home the trophy. In all, you can count the women who have won as individuals (since it was established in 1927) on one hand– excluding 1975 when it ambiguously went to “American women”.

A few women have won as part of a group, including Melinda Gates (with her husband, Bill, and Bono in 2005) and Soo Mei-ling (along with her husband, the Premier of China, in 1937). Still, it has been nearly 90 years since TIME began this annual tradition, and women barely make up 10 percent of the names.

The criteria for winning is making what TIME considers the largest impact on the world that year, whether it was for better or for worse, and I’m pretty sure there have been more than 10 women since 1927 who have made significant impacts on the world. Some men, like Barack Obama, have even won it twice. He beat out activist Malala Yousafzai in 2012 for his second win. Joseph Stalin has also won it twice, but he definitely falls under the “for worse” category (so does Adolf Hitler, 1938’s “Man of the Year”).

So on one hand, props to you, TIME, for breaking your own cycle and naming an admirable woman a title she has deserved since 2005. On the other, why aren’t women more represented?

People have, naturally, questioned Merkel’s win, especially since the reader’s choice poll had Bernie Sanders winning by a large margin.

TIME readers wanted bernie sanders but instead TIME went with mrs. austerity: angela merkel smh… https://t.co/LG8ETgecYm

— Nicolas G. V-F (@soccerplayer626) December 11, 2015

Angela Merkel Named TIME’s Person of the Year, Bernie Sanders Snubbed https://t.co/V02LEtwtW7 via @YouTube — Gregzilla (@IamGREGZILLA) December 11, 2015

The @TIME Person of the Year means nothing at all to me but how did Angela Merkel win it over Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders?

— Chris Booth (@extra_ChrisB) December 9, 2015

Listen here, Bernie supporters: I’m a big fan of Bernie Sanders. I feel the Bern daily. But Bernie has yet to make significant impacts on the world at large, though he has made strides in the United States. Merkel has been affecting the globe for a while now. I’m sure Bernie will get his chance to be “Person of the Year,” hopefully after a few more women win it. And as for you, Donald Trump…

I told you @TIME Magazine would never pick me as person of the year despite being the big favorite They picked person who is ruining Germany

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 9, 2015

Get over yourself.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Angela Merkel Becomes One Of A Handful Of Women To Win “Person of the Year” appeared first on Law Street.

Votes swinging based on bribes, secret deals made in backrooms, corruption at the highest levels. No, this is not about the next presidential election–not yet anyway. Instead this is how the last few World Cups have allegedly been awarded. To many jaded sports fans familiar with the International Olympic Committee or NCAA, this is not surprising. Even for the naïve, allegations of corruption in FIFA are not startling. What was unexpected though was that the powerful people at FIFA would actually be caught. With the recent arrests, the narrative of the story has shifted from if the tree is rotten to how far up that rot goes. Read on to learn about the scandal rocking FIFA and what it means for the future of the World Cup and its decisionmakers.

FIFA

To understand the FIFA scandal, it is first necessary to understand the organization itself, and its former leader, Sepp Blatter.

What is FIFA?

FIFA–the Federation Internationale de Football Association–was founded in May 1904 by the international football associations of seven countries. The organization continued to grow, but remained entirely European until 1909 when South Africa joined and the United States followed in 1912. FIFA went through hard times during WWI and nearly fell apart altogether, however it endured and began expanding anew.

In 1930, FIFA staged its first World Cup, an event it had been building up to ever since soccer was first played at the Olympics in 1908. In the ensuing years, the organization and its membership grew while also dealing with issues such as travel causing many of best teams to not participate in the first few World Cups. By the 1970s FIFA had really emerged on the world stage incorporating members from Europe and South America in growing numbers as well as many new members from former colonial holdings. Under the much-maligned supervision of Sepp Blatter, FIFA has grown into a powerful global entity with 209 members worldwide, divided into six regional confederations, and with unquestioned clout.

Who is Sepp Blatter?

Sepp Blatter first became part of FIFA in 1975, after leaving his job at a Swiss watchmaker. He spent the next 40 years serving in a variety of roles since his start, namely as secretary general for 17 years and then president of the organization since 1998. Under his leadership FIFA’s crowning tournament has been played on two new continents, Asia and Africa, and become a multi-billion dollar tournament.

Despite his role in dramatically growing the game’s presence worldwide, Blatter is known as much for controversy. In the past he has made numerous inappropriate comments and been repeatedly accused of corruption in the court of public opinion. The awarding of the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 contest to Qatar seemed to be the ultimate examples of his duplicitousness.

Still, even with this reputation and after the recent arrests of senior FIFA members, Blatter was able to avoid indictment and was actually elected to a fifth term as FIFA president. However, following persistent criticism of himself and FIFA as a whole, Blatter finally relented and resigned his post in 2015. Nonetheless, Blatter will remain in his position until a new election takes place either later this year or early next, meaning the reign of Sepp Blatter at FIFA is not over just yet.

A History of Bribery, Corruption, and Kickbacks

While allegations of corruption and bribery have long haunted Blatter and by extension FIFA, this has had little or no effect on the all-important bottom line. In the last four years alone, FIFA has generated $6 billion in revenue; however, how the money is used has come under greater question. While this money was earmarked for soccer development worldwide, it was instead used for FIFA’s leaders’ own ambitions.

Acting on all the rumor and speculation concerning FIFA’s backroom dealings, the U.S. Justice Department indicted nine of the organization’s leaders for bribery amounting to $150 million. The arrests were part of a larger joint raid made along with Swiss authorities that also saw five corporate executives arrested and charged with racketeering, conspiracy, and corruption. The British are also considering filing their own charges.  The video below explains the FIFA scandal and arrests in detail.

Picking a World Cup

The World Cup is easily the most popular sporting event across the world. In 2010 for example, 200 million people tuned in for the draw or group selection process, not even an actual game. For comparison’s sake, the amount of people who watched the Super Bowl in 2015, a record for the event, maxed out at approximately 121 million people.

How the Process Works

Until 2002, every World Cup was played in either Europe, North America, or South America. However, this finally changed when Japan and Korea co-hosted the event. This also led to a major change in how the hosting country is selected. In 2006, FIFA instituted a system in which the tournament would be rotated among its six regional confederations.

While this was scrapped in 2007, a similar rule was put into place that same year stating that all countries in a particular regional confederation would be ineligible to host two World Cups following the event hosted by a neighboring country. In other words, if the U.S. hosted the 2018 World Cup, other countries in its region, such as Mexico, would not be eligible to host a World Cup until 2030 at the earliest.

The voting process itself is the responsibility of the executive committee, which is made up of 24 people. These include the president and vice president of FIFA, as well as seven other vice presidents representing each continental soccer federation and one from one of the home nations of the United Kingdom. To clarify, there are actually only six continental confederations–Antarctica is left out in the cold, thus the need for the seventh member. Lastly are 15 members elected from the 209 member countries, who are appointed to four-year terms.

These members are in charge of who gets the right to host the World Cup. The voting process involves each country interested in hosting the event giving a presentation on television before the committee. Once all the prospective hosts have presented their cases, the executive committee votes by secret ballot until a winner is declared. In the case of a tie, it is up to the president of FIFA to cast the deciding vote.

Corruption at Every Turn

As can be expected from a process of this nature, corruption is rampant. Of the many accusations, members selling votes is most common. In the most recent World Cup bid process, actual evidence of this phenomenon emerged. Two undercover British journalists were approached and offered votes in exchange for bribes. The notion of corruption however, should not be a surprise, in fact the way FIFA is constructed basically lends itself to this.

While not every country votes on who will host the World Cup, each has a say in another important way. Every member votes for the organization’s president. This is a system that can encourage small countries that are more dependent on FIFA stipends to be more likely to sell their vote in exchange for more support. This is the case because the amount of support each country receives has nothing to do with its size. Thus, for example, a massive country like China can receive less money from FIFA than a small country such as Bermuda.

In addition, aside from money, small countries can also expect other benefits for supporting certain people or countries’ bids. This comes in the form of recognition, namely FIFA along with having a poorly defined system for allocating funds also has an unclear definition of what makes a nation. For example Gibraltar, a small rock governed by the U.K. but claimed by Spain, nearly won recognition as its own nation despite only having a population of 29,000 people. The following video highlights the most recent FIFA presidential election.

Trouble With the Machine

The controversial decisions to award Russia the World Cup in 2018 and Qatar the event in 2022 are hardly the first incidents with picking a host country. In 2002 when Japan and South Korea co-hosted the event there were minor issues with the travel required between the venues causing the organizers to never again hold a multi-country event.

The controversy only ratcheted up for the next World Cup in 2006, when allegations concerning bribery surfaced when Germany won an upset bid for the tournament over supposedly favored South Africa. Recently, details have emerged of specifically what this bribery entailed; in this case it far exceeded the norm. In 2006 Germany is alleged to have temporarily lifted an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia and to have shipped the country weapons in exchange for its vote. It is also accused of using the lure of investment from German companies such as Volkswagen, to get Thailand and South Korea to also support its candidacy.

Controversy continued when the tournament moved to Africa. In 2010 South Africa finally succeeded in its bid for the World Cup. According to a recent report, Morocco actually received more votes but, through a series of bribes, South Africa was declared the winner. At the center of this scandal was former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner, who reportedly took bribes from both countries for the votes he controlled, he may also have taken money from Egypt who was also bidding for the tournament that year.

Like a perpetual storm cloud, problems followed the World Cup when it arrived in soccer mecca Brazil. The issues evolved far beyond just bribery and affected society as whole. Just a few of the major problems included the forced eviction of thousands of poor residents, social unrest, police brutality, unfinished infrastructure projects, unused stadiums, worker deaths, and lasting social inequality that was actually exacerbated by the tournament.

Russia and Qatar

ll these issues bring us back around to the next two proposed hosts for the World Cup: Russia and Qatar. Russia was awarded the tournament despite continued human rights abuses as well as its flagrant invasions of Ukraine and Georgia. Additionally, like Brazil before it, while Russia agrees to host the lavish tournament, people at home will be feeling the cost. Russia plans to spend at least $20 billion–a new record–despite the Ruble losing half its value in the last year and U.S.-led sanctions taking their toll on the Russian economy, as well.

Then there is Qatar, whose selection to hold the 2022 tournament was so preposterous that it played a huge role in authorities finally stepping in to clean up FIFA’s corruption. Qatar plans to spend $220 billion on the tournament, which will make that record-breaking Russian figure look minuscule. Also, in an effort to avoid the average 106 degree temperature there, the World Cup in Qatar will be moved to winter. On a human level, most of the work is being done by migrants who are working in slave-like conditions and dying in droves. This does not even take into account the laws against things such as drinking alcohol or homosexuality.  The following video explains many of the negative issues as a result of the World Cup in Qatar.

With this as the backdrop and with the still-simmering scandal, it comes as little surprise then that bidding for the 2026 tournament has been put on hold. Additionally, despite FIFA saying there is no legal ground on which to take hosting duties for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups away from Russia and Qatar, many are eager to explore that option as well.

Conclusion

The FIFA scandal far exceeds the traditional borders of sport. The organization is so powerful that it has the ability, directly or indirectly, to boost an unpopular leader and even legitimize states. It also has sponsorships from some the world’s most powerful corporations and is the most popular sport globally. With this in mind then, the recent arrests of FIFA’s top leaders were surprising only in the fact that they actually happened. These men and this organization have been basically untouchable for decades.

Thus, while the U.S. and Swiss indict leaders and promise further action, it is hard to believe any of it will actually happen, or at the very least stick. Even the resignation of Sepp Blatter, despite the ardent support of Vladimir Putin, comes with a caveat. Blatter was elected in a landslide right before his resignation and was allowed to leave on his own terms instead of in hand cuffs, as many feel should be the case.

While its leaders fall like dominoes, FIFA will likely survive this scandal as it survived two world wars, membership issues, and a host of other problems along the way. The real question in the wake of this scandal is, will any of these arrests, indictments, or resignations make this seminal organization less corrupt and more honest? Based on the system in place and its recent elections the answer looks like no.

Resources

Top End Sports: Host Country Selection

MLS Soccer: What is FIFA, Who is Sepp Blatter, and What is All the Fuss About?

Goal: World Cup Bidding Process Explained

FIFA: History of FIFA

Time: These Are the Five Facts That Explain the FIFA Scandal

Five Thirty Eight: How FIFA’s Structure Lends Itself to Corruption

Reuters: Germany Sold Arms to Saudi Arabia to Secure Its Vote for 2006 World Cup

Sports Illustrated: Morocco Beat South Africa in Vote For 2010 World Cup

World.Mic: Seven Big Problems the World Cup Left Behind in Brazil

LA Times: So Many Things Wrong With Qatar World Cup 2022

CNN: FIFA to Suspend Bidding For 2026 World Cup Amid Corruption Scandal

BBC: Vladimir Putin Expresses Support for Blatter

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FIFA Scandal is No Surprise if You’ve Been Paying Attention appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday May 9^th a transformer fire broke out in New York. While this was a seemingly innocuous event, there was more to the incident than just a fire. It broke out at the site of a nuclear power plant, located only about 35 miles from Manhattan. While the fire never spread to the nuclear power plant itself and there was no immediate threat of a nuclear meltdown, the potential danger was concerning. Yet these risks are just part of the balancing act that is required to harness nuclear power for energy. Read on to learn about the development of nuclear energy, its risks, and its rewards.

History of Nuclear Power

Developing the Technology

The first notions of atoms can be traced all the way back to the ancient Greeks, who philosophized about tiny, unseen elements which combine to form the world around us. But the real work on nuclear energy essentially started in the early years of the 20th century. In the late 1930s, German scientists, following the previous example set by Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, bombarded uranium with neutron, causing it to split. The experiment and subsequent efforts revealed that during the fission process some mass is converted into energy.

In 1942, Fermi took the next step by achieving a self-sustaining chain reaction underneath the University of Chicago’s athletic stadium. This step effectively ushered in the nuclear age. During WWII this field was mainly focused on harnessing the power of the fission reaction into some type of weapon. However, following the war focus returned to producing energy from the reaction, as part of the Atomic Energy Commission created by Congress in 1946. The first reactor to produce electricity was in Idaho on December 20, 1951. The first nuclear powered plant that created power for public use in the United States was in Shippingport, Pennsylvania in 1957.

How do nuclear power plants work?

There are two types of nuclear power plants and they work in separate ways to generate power. In a pressurized water reactor, water is pressurized but not allowed to boil. The water is then streamed though pipes and turned in to steam which powers the generators. In this type of reactor, the water creating the steam and the water in the reactor do not mix.

The other type is known as a boiling water reactor. As the name implies, in this case the water is allowed to boil and turns into steam through fission. The steam, like in the pressurized reactors, turns the generators, which create electricity. In both systems, the water can also be reused once it has been reconverted from steam back into its liquid form.

The Nuclear Power Industry

Following the opening of the plant in Pennsylvania, the industry continued to grow rapidly throughout the 1960s as corporations across the U.S. saw the possibility of a power source that was viewed as a cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly than traditional sources, such as coal. However, this trend began to reverse in the 1970s and 80s as the popular opinion of nuclear power became negative and many of the strong selling points of nuclear energy became areas of concern.

Nevertheless, as of January 2015, 31 countries were operating 439 nuclear power plants worldwide, although the number of operating plants can fluctuate slightly based on different definitions of the term “operable.” The United States has the most plants at 99, almost twice as many as the next country France, which has 58. The plants themselves are located predominately in what are commonly considered the more developed countries. One of the major explanations for this phenomenon are the high costs required to build a nuclear power plant. Another major factor in the peaceful use of nuclear power is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been one of bedrocks for peacefully spreading, and at times hampering, the spread of nuclear power worldwide. The first step can probably be traced back to a speech given by President Dwight Eisenhower. This speech, coined the “Atoms for Peace” speech, provided a blueprint for effectively managing nuclear proliferation following WWII. It also paved the way for spreading nuclear technology in a positive way.

While many of the suggested measures from Eisenhower’s speech were not taken, the International Atomic Energy Agency was born out of his ideas. This agency provided the prospect of nuclear knowledge in exchange for agreeing to safeguards and arms limits. While it worked in some cases, it could not halt the military aspect of nuclear research. It did however help give rise to the NPT.

The NPT divided countries into the proverbial nuclear weapon haves and have nots. Its requirements were also essentially the same, in return for allowing inspections countries were giving technical knowhow. While there are many criticisms levied against the NPT, it did work to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, while helping some nations gain nuclear power as an energy source.

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Despite all the efforts made to safeguard nuclear energy, there are still many concerns over the safety of nuclear power plants. This danger has manifested itself several times over the course of the nuclear power age, both internationally and abroad.

The worst nuclear power plant disaster in history was in Chernobyl, Ukraine which was then part of the Soviet Union. During the disaster, 50 people were killed at the plant and as many as a million more were exposed to the radiation. The amount of radioactive fallout released into the air, as a result, was 400 times more than what had been released in the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

Domestically, the worst nuclear energy disaster was the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. During the crisis on an island in Pennsylvania, a full nuclear meltdown was narrowly avoided and no one was killed. Nonetheless, the stigma created from the ordeal was a key contributing factor to the decline of new nuclear plants in the U.S. during the 1970s and 80s.

The most recent disaster came in 2011 in Fukushima, Japan. During this disaster a massive earthquake, followed by a tsunami, damaged the nuclear reactors in Fukushima. This led to a nuclear meltdown that killed as many as 1000 people trying to evacuate the area.

These are just three examples, but there are more, both in the U.S. and abroad. While nuclear energy has been lauded for its sustainability and limited impact on the environment, the threat of a nuclear meltdown is a major consideration in regards to expanding the technology going forward.

The Future of Nuclear Energy

With last week’s fire at a nuclear facility rekindling fears over the dangers of nuclear technology, what exactly is the future of nuclear energy both domestically and abroad? In answering that, two aspects need to be considered, namely nuclear waste and security.

Waste

Although nuclear energy is often touted as a clean alternative to other energy sources, such as coal and natural gas, it has its own waste issues. In the U.S. alone each year approximately 2000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste are generated. Troublingly, there is no permanent repository for this nuclear waste so it remains stored on site, potentially vulnerable to attack and leakage.

The waste issue continues further down the supply chain as well. The mining of uranium, which occurs mostly outside of the U.S. and therefore also partly nullifies any argument in relation to energy independence, is a very harrowing experience. A number of chemicals are used to mine Uranium which poison both the surrounding environment and the workers involved in the extraction.

Security

Along with waste is the issue of security. It has already been shown that the security of a nuclear power plant can be jeopardized by human error and natural disasters. However after 9/11 there have been fears of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility. While the nuclear plants are supposedly protected by measures designed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), there are acknowledged vulnerabilities.

Air and sea attacks could be problematic, as well as multiple coordinated attacks on a facility at once. Spent nuclear rods are particularly vulnerable to attack as they sit outside of controlled nuclear reactors. While the NRC has made strides in some of these categories, especially in regards to potential air strikes, concerns remain that it still falls short in other categories such as potential land and sea assaults. Furthermore, force on force tests–staged attacks on nuclear plants–showed at least 5 percent of plants are still not adequately protected even after changes were made to increase protection following 9/11.

These fears include other worries that stem from the Soviet collapse of the early 90s. These are centered on what are termed as “loose nukes”– unaccounted nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union. Similar concerns may also arise as civil wars continue in countries such as Iraq or Syria who at one time were known to be pursuing nuclear weapons.

Staying the course?

Coupled with waste and security concerns are also cost considerations. Nuclear power plants are very expensive to maintain and suffer a failure rate, in regards to financing, of over 50 percent, meaning tax payers are often required to bail them out. In light of all these considerations and with other truer sustainable energy sources it would seem the days of nuclear energy would be numbered.

This assumption is wrong however, as already 70 new plants are under construction with 400 more proposed worldwide. While many of these will never leave the drawing table, the rise in construction and planning of new nuclear plants points to nuclear power’s proven track record in at least one regard–battling CO2 emissions and producing power on a scale that currently far exceeds any other renewable options.

This option is particularly attractive to countries with state-run governments that can commit to long term investments and are desperate to move beyond major polluters such as coal-power plants, such as China. Meanwhile in Western democracies while some construction is planned, many are working toward phasing out nuclear power altogether. In this regard Germany is leading the pack and has pledged to be completely nuclear free by 2022. The following video explores the future of nuclear power:

Conclusion

Nuclear energy seems to be the ultimate compromise. While it is cleaner than coal or gas plants, it still produces radioactive waste that has no long term storage location and takes thousands of years to decay. Conversely it has a proven track record and while it may cost more to build new nuclear facilities than any other energy source, the energy produced far outpaces many alternatives. Thus, the world with its ever growing energy demands is left to maintain the delicate balance. We are still in the nuclear age, although how long we’ll stay here remains uncertain.

Resources

Primary

Department of Energy: The History of Nuclear Energy

Additional

United States History: International Atomic Energy Agency

Physicians for Social Responsibility: Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive The Truth About Nuclear Power

CNN: After Explosion at Nuclear Plant, Concerns of Environmental Damage

Duke Energy: How Do Nuclear Plants Work?

European Nuclear Society: Nuclear Power Plants Worldwide

Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today

Foreign Policy: Think Again Nuclear Proliferation

CNBC: 11 Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters

World Nuclear Association: Fukushima Accident

Union of Concerned Scientists: Nuclear Plant Security

BBC News: Nuclear power Energy for the Future or Relic of the Past?

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nuclear Energy: Worth the Risk? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States spends more money on health care than any other developed country. At the same time, studies find that patients in other countries enjoy better quality and more accessible health care than Americans. Why is American health care so expensive and what are the underlying issues that hold the United States back from necessary reforms? Read on to learn more about the U.S. healthcare system and how it stacks up internationally.

How does the U.S. healthcare system compare internationally?

According to the 2014 Commonwealth Fund analysis of the U.S. healthcare system in comparison to other industrialized countries, the United States ranks last among peer nations. This poor ranking is not a one-time thing, as almost all previous editions of the report from 2004-2010 also ranked the American healthcare system the lowest in terms of both cost and quality. The report compares the United States to some of the most developed and industrialized nations in the world, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. All of these countries spend much less on health care and have higher-quality services.

What are the problems with the American healthcare system?

The United States adheres to a Selective Health Coverage (SHC) system, also called a hybrid healthcare system. Roughly half of healthcare spending comes from private funds, while the government covers the other half through federal, state, and local funds. The majority of healthcare costs are covered through private insurance companies that sell health coverage to employers and private individuals at different rates. The government provides coverage through Medicaid for low-income households, and Medicare for retired Americans.

High Costs 

As the United States has no universal health coverage, people mainly receive health insurance from their employers, the government, or purchase it through exchanges. The Affordable Care Act, which entered into force in 2013, made it easier to gain coverage, but 10 percent of Americans still lack health insurance.

As each insurance plan includes deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket costs, even with insurance, it could be quite expensive to seek medical services. In 2014, the average household spent $8,000 in medical costs, including monthly insurance payments, taxes, lost wages, out-of-pocket care, and other costs. These prohibitive costs mean that Americans may skip physician visits, treatments, tests, or follow-up care, even if recommended by their doctor.

The American healthcare system is one of the most expensive in the world. Around 18 percent of the country’s GDP goes toward healthcare costs. The Netherlands ranks next, but spends only 12 percent of its GDP on health care. The government spends by various estimates between $8,500 to $10,000 per capita annually, and still requires high out-of-pocket costs for its citizens. Other industrialized countries spend from $3,000 to $5,500 per capita and manage to cover more people and offer better services. Overall, the U.S. ranks last on the Commonwealth Fund’s rankings for national health expenditures. There are plenty of reasons for that, including but not limited to high costs associated with administrative hassles and duplicate testing. The United States is also the only developed country where medical costs contribute toward, and in some cases directly lead to, personal bankruptcy. Even such business giants as Starbucks and General Motors have acknowledged the disproportionately high costs of providing health care to their employees.

Low Quality 

The healthcare system in the United States isn’t very efficient. While most other countries have adopted some kind of unified system of communication with patients and other providers, the U.S. system’s administrative hassles were cited as a problem by the Commonwealth Fund. The overall health of the American population is worse than that of other industrialized countries. The U.S. ranks last on all three measures of healthy living, including mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60.

What types of healthcare systems do other countries have?

National Services

The most popular type of healthcare system in the developed world is a national health services system. In this type of system, necessary medical care is fully paid for by the government. Hospitals and clinics are publicly operated, but private sector institutions also exist. Private medical clinics may have specific regulations they must follow, while the government pays them certain fees. Or, private medical clinics could operate solely like businesses and profit by providing superior, more personal or elective medical care. Many countries employ this mode;, including the United Kingdom, Spain, and New Zealand.

In the United Kingdom, health care is largely supported by tax contributions that are then used by the government to cover the vast majority of its population’s medical costs. Private coverage also exists, often through employers, but these premiums are affordable as to allow competition with public health care, which is free of charge. The U.K. healthcare system ranks first on the Commonwealth Fund’s list among other industrialized countries, particularly when it comes to efficiency and access.

National Health Insurance System

In a national health insurance system, also called a single-payer system, the government pays for all costs, but doesn’t operate healthcare services. Canada, Denmark, Taiwan, and Sweden are among those countries that operate a single-payer healthcare system.

Taiwan has one of the best healthcare systems in Asia. Health providers are employed by the public or private sector, but are paid standardized fees, which eliminates price competition and adds quality competition. In 2010, Taiwan spent three times less (6.5 percent) than the United States (16 percent) in its healthcare expenditures, covering 99 percent of its population. Administrative costs are also extremely low (1.5 percent) in comparison with the U.S., which spends 20-30 percent of overall healthcare funds on administrative costs.

Multi-Payer Health Insurance System

This system of health care is operated by Germany, Japan, and France. According to this model, all physicians are paid from a special fund, which is designated for healthcare services. The rates are the same for all physicians, cutting administrative costs for government, and creating quality competition.

Germany is a great example of a system that provides quality and cost-efficiency. Health services in Germany operate through an alliance of around 240 not-for-profit insurance providers that cover about 90 percent of the total population and are paid from a specifically designated “sickness fund.” The other 10 percent are generally high-income households that prefer private health insurance with superior services and quality. Amazingly, government expenditures for health care in Germany are half those of the United States, and the quality of health care is very high. Insurance companies and medical providers are closely regulated by the government, while employers and employees assume shared responsibility to pay taxes towards the “sickness fund.” Such a system helps to decrease the government’s costs and and provide more people with health coverage.

Watch the video below to learn more about Germany’s healthcare system.

Why is health care in the U.S. so expensive?

The complexity and for-profit nature of the American healthcare system is the primary reason for its high cost. As insurance companies are concerned with profit, they are always looking for ways to minimize their expenses and make money.

Expensive Mix of Services

The United States’ healthcare system provides a very expensive mix of services:

• The U.S. sees more specialist visits than in other countries, which are two-to-three times more expensive than general physician visits.
• Specialists often order more diagnostic tests and medical procedures that rack up the total costs. In comparison, other industrialized countries offer considerably fewer MRI scans, C-sections, and other procedures that could be avoided and are not always medically necessary.
• Duplicate testing is another issue that plagues American health care. As physicians and specialists make money from procedures, they often order duplicate testing. For example, dermatologists can order  biopsies from several affected skin areas, even if only one such procedure is required  for diagnosis.
• American hospitals also contribute toward the country’s expensive mix of services. They admit fewer people and, therefore, charge higher prices for hospitalization. They treat elderly people in the intensive care units (ICUs), while other countries subscribe to more specialized, palliative care, which is less costly.

Administrative Costs

There are thousands of health insurance plans available in the market, leading to variations in coverage, deductibles, co-pays, premiums, and other features. Not only is this system confusing, but such a system increases administrative costs as all doctor’s offices, laboratories, and hospitals have to bill insurance companies and patients for each rendered procedure and each doctor’s visit. As insurance plans vary greatly, medical facilities and patients have to constantly phone insurance companies to clarify details of premiums to find out what procedures are covered by the insurance company. Such a system creates unnecessary administrative hassles and drives up overall costs. It’s estimated that the United States “wastes” half of the $361 billion spent on administrative costs by spending it on expenses that could be avoided and are not necessary.

Pharmaceutical Spending 

Medical facilities and insurance companies are not the only players in the healthcare market. Drug manufacturing companies charge higher prices in the U.S. than in other industrialized countries. For example, branded prescription drugs are twice as expensive in the U.S. than in the rest of the developed world. In 2011, the United States paid $985 per capita for prescription drugs and other medications. That’s almost double what most other high-income countries spent on pharmaceuticals. This difference is due to the fact that other industrialized countries are often able to negotiate lower prices as they purchase pharmaceuticals in large quantities to provide medications for the whole population.

Interestingly, innovations and new medical technologies also drive up the cost of health care. The United States has more high-tech medical equipment than other industrialized countries. On top of it, it also has more stand-by equipment than other countries. The need to pay for the maintenance of these state-of-the-art technologies results in higher prices for tests, scans, and analysis for patients.

More Chronic Diseases 

People in the United States are less healthy than in the majority of developed countries. Obesity and other chronic diseases are more common in the U.S. than in its peer countries. That means that insurance companies and the government will spend a lot of money on managing chronic conditions that often require constant treatment, high-tech tests, and frequent hospitalizations.

Will the American healthcare system change?

If the United States ranks so poorly in health care, why doesn’t it do something to fix the problems? The answer to that question lies in the intersection between money and politics.

Interest-Group Lobbying

Many profit from the current healthcare system, including drug manufacturers, medical equipment providers, specialist physicians, insurance companies, and others who have considerable influence on public policy. The interests of those who make a profit from the current healthcare system are well represented through lobbying. In 2009, around 4,525 healthcare lobbyists were hired by more than 1,750 companies, including 207 hospitals, 105 insurance companies, and 85 manufacturing companies. For example, Big Pharma spent $22 million on healthcare lobbying in 2011; Blue Cross Blue Shield and biotech companyAmgen spent $21 million each on healthcare lobbyingthat year. None of the players involved in the healthcare business wants to lose profits, so lobbyists are trying to block any efforts that can damage their clients, even if those efforts could bring better health care to millions of Americans.

What are the possible solutions?

Even after the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in January 2013, roughly 10 percent of Americans are still uninsured. In order to fix that problem, the United States could work toward implementing another system of health care, but that’s unlikely to gain much ground.

There have also been alternative solutions offered, such as the so-called “managed competition” model proposed by Stanford University Business School professor Alain Enthoven more than two decades ago. According to this model, insurance companies, physicians, hospitals, drug manufacturers, and other actors in the healthcare industry could come together to form an entity that has the responsibility to provide care for specific municipalities based on an annual allowance. This strategy could produce higher quality and lower costs simultaneously.

Another proposed solution is based on the implementation of a universal tax credit, similar to the child tax credit, that provides a $1,000 reduction in income tax to families that have a child. Money for this tax credit could be obtained from existing health insurance subsidies, like Medicaid and Medicare.

Conclusion

The United States’ healthcare system has not served its people well, especially when looked at in comparison to its peer nations. There are many faults to the current system, including high costs, inefficient practices, and an unwillingness by many to change. In order to effectively provide health care to as many people as possible, more changes need to be made. While the Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction, the United States is still at the bottom of the list when it comes to effective health care.

 Resources

Commonwealth Fund: How the U.S. Healthcare System Compares Internationally

CNN Money: Healthcare Lobbying Boom Continues

Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO: The U.S. Healthcare System: An International Perspective

Forbes: U.S. Health Care Ranked Dead Last Compared to 10 Other Countries

Forbes: Universal Coverage is Not “Single Payer” Healthcare

Forbes: Why We Should Replace Obamacare With a Universal Health Tax Credit

HealthPAC: How Other Countries Do it

Global Post: Eight Places That Do Health Care Better Than the US

Global Post: Special Report: Health Care in Taiwan

Atlantic: Why Do Other Rich Nations Spend So Much Less on Health Care?

Center for Public Integrity: Lobbyists Swarm Capitol to Influence Health Reform

Law Dictionary: How Many Americans Really Do Not Have Health Insurance?

U.S. News & World Report: Obamacare Enrollees, by the Numbers

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Health Care: Last Place Among Peer Nations in Latest Study appeared first on Law Street.

Despite China’s strong and consistent economic growth, there have been two areas that are clearly understood to be American-dominated spheres–military and finance. While America still holds a large lead over other countries in terms of military power–at least based on money spent–that other sphere of power may be waning. Although China has long been dismissed as lacking in infrastructure and innovation, that belief is likely about to change. With the formation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China is throwing itself into the financial arena. Read on to learn about China’s latest push for superpower status that has the potential to change the global financial system that has been in place since WWII, and casts into question the future of who controls the world’s purse strings.

History of the Current System

The history of the modern financial system began in 1944. While WWII still raged, representatives from the Allied powers met to decide the future of the global financial system. The result of this was the Bretton Woods Agreement, named after the town in New Hampshire where the meeting was held.

Bretton Woods Agreement

This agreement essentially pegged global currencies to the U.S. dollar. Countries were required to maintain a fixed exchange rate with the U.S., buying up dollars if their currency was too low and printing more money if their currency’s value was too high. It was a basic concept of supply and demand, but with physical currency.

This, in effect, made the United States the preeminent global economic world power. It also relied on the relationship between U.S. dollars and gold, because the dollar itself was tied to a gold standard. However, the Bretton Woods system came crashing down in 1971 when the U.S. experienced something known as stagflation–when a country simultaneously sees a recession and inflation–and was forced to abandon the gold standard. In an unforeseen result, the rising demand for the dollar had made it more valuable even though its value was pegged to a certain amount of gold. The resulting disparity led to shortage and the need to scrap the existing system. Despite the end of the Bretton Woods system, two of its guarantor agencies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, survived and continue to this day.

The IMF

The IMF was created as part of the Bretton Woods agreement. Its original purpose was to help countries adjust their balance of payments with regard to the dollar, which was the reserve currency. Once the gold standard was abandoned, the IMF offered members a variety of floating currency options, excluding pegging the value of currency to gold. Additionally, the 1970s saw the beginning of the Structural Adjustment Facilities, which are loans out of a trust fund offered by the IMF to countries. The IMF was instrumental in guiding a number of countries, particularly developing ones, through a series of crises including the oil shocks in the 1970s and the financial crisis in 2008.

World Bank

The World Bank was originally known as the International Bank for Reconstruction when it was created as part of the Bretton Woods Agreement. Initially, the bank was created to help with reconstruction in Europe, with its first loan going to France in 1947. However, over time and following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, it has changed its focus to fighting poverty. The World Bank’s footprint has also expanded from a single office in Washington, D.C., to offices all over the world, and it is now made up of five different development institutions. Like the IMF, it has also tackled issues as they have arisen over the decades, such as social and environmental challenges.

Criticisms of the IMF and World Bank

Although the IMF and World Bank have survived for more than 70 years, they have faced extremely harsh criticism. The IMF has been criticized far and wide. Mostly the criticisms boil down to the conditions upon which the IMF grants loans. Namely, many people believe the IMF intervenes too much in a country’s operations by forcing it to meet arduous standards before it will be given a loan. The problem here is there is no one-size-fits-all way for countries to operate and the parameters the IMF sets are sometimes seen as more detrimental to a country than its existing financial situation. There are also accusations of supporting corrupt regimes and a lack of transparency.

The World Bank faces several of these same criticisms and more. On top of not taking into account individual local situations, the World Bank has also been criticized for enforcing a de facto Washington consensus along with the IMF. In other words, by controlling the money, the World Bank and IMF can force countries to do what Washington wants. Additionally, the World Bank and IMF have been accused of helping large corporations at the expense of poor and developing nations. In particular, the debt associated with the loans, has left many recipients mired in a perpetual state of debt and therefore beholden to the IMF and World Bank structure.

The video below offers a detailed explanation of Bretton Woods, the IMF, World Bank, and the criticisms they face.

 The Asian Infrastructure Bank

With the existing state of finance the way it is, it comes as little surprise that China and other nations who do not agree with many American policies would seek to create their own institutions of last resort. This indeed is what China, India, and a number of other smaller countries now intend to do. This has led to the creation of the Asian Infrastructure investment Bank, or AIIB. Although the details of the bank are still murky it will essentially be a clone of the World Bank.

Aside from differing with the U.S. over policy, China and other nations are also upset over representation within the World Bank and IMF. The way the system is currently set up, an American is traditionally in charge at the World Bank and a European at the IMF.

The video below explains what the AIIB is, what it means for the U.S., and how it will impact the existing system.

With Friends Like These

While it is not that shocking that a rising country like China desires its own system and to be free of the constraints placed upon it by the United States and its allies, several other countries that have been quick to sign up for the AIIB have been surprising. These nations included a number of traditional American allies including Germany, France, the U.K., and South Korea. Nevertheless, while it is still unclear what these countries hope to gain from membership, the fact that they would willingly flout American criticisms and join with China is certainly a diplomatic blow.

Progress on the AIIB

Whereas China’s new bank appears as a smack in the face to the U.S., there is still much to be decided. First of all, there was already an Asian Development Bank, so if anything the AIIB seems to be replacing that more than the World Bank or IMF. Additionally and most importantly, the AIIB has not actually been created yet, so all these defections and statements are just plans, not concrete actions. Furthermore, while countries were upset at and critical of the IMF and World Bank as being puppets of U.S. interest, this new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is seemingly being designed specifically to make China its unquestioned leader. Thus it bears watching how long countries want to suffer under China’s yoke and if the grass really is much greener.

There are other projects in the works as well. The U.S. has a new trade proposal of its own for the Asian Pacific that would also aid in the development of infrastructure. The following video shows how the IMF and other groups plan to work with the AIIB in the future financial environment.

Conclusion

America’s position as the global hegemon seems increasingly to be challenged in every facet from sports to entertainment to now finance. For roughly 70 years America has been the guarantor of the world’s economy; however, that is beginning to change as revealed by its inability to prevent the financial crisis in 2008 and through tests from other countries such as China. The U.S. therefore, may have to adjust to its new position in a world, where it wields less control and enjoys less prestige. The only lingering question then is not if this degradation of power will occur, but how will the U.S. respond to it?

Resources

Primary

International Monetary Fund: History

World Bank: History

Additional

About News: Bretton Woods System and 1944 Agreement

Vox: How a Chinese Infrastructure Bank Turned into a Diplomatic Disaster for the United States

Economics Help: Criticism of the IMF

Globalization 101: Why the World Bank is So Controversial

Financial Times: Superpowers Circle Each Other in Contest to Control Asia’s Future

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Threat to the Financial System? appeared first on Law Street.

In discussions of international politics, we hear a lot of talk about nuclear weapons, but another deadly type of weapon often goes overlooked. Chemical weapons have both proven their deadliness on the battlefield and have been deployed with greater frequency in contemporary times. Nevertheless, just two-and-a-half years since President Obama made his infamous “Red Line” speech against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, this issue has drifted from the public consciousness. While interest has waned publicly, these weapons are still being used on battlefields across the globe, even as legislation and efforts are being made to eliminate them for good. Read on to learn about chemical warfare, the legal framework for using chemical weapons, and how successful efforts to eliminate them have been.

History of Chemical Warfare

While chemical weapons in rudimentary forms have been in use for millennia, it was only relatively recently that they were harnessed in a modern sense. Chemical weapons made their debut on the stage of WWI. During that war, toxic gases such as chlorine and mustard gas were released from canisters on the battlefield. The results were devastating for two reasons. Not only were chemical weapons responsible for over a million causalities on the battlefield, but they also left a strong impression on the public’s consciousness. The video below explains the use of chemical warfare, particularly in WWI.

Nevertheless the use of the weapons continued through the inter-war years, particularly in places such as Russia and Africa. Usage was ramped up again in WWII. In the Far East, the Japanese used a variety of chemical agents in their attempted conquest of China. Meanwhile, in the Atlantic theater, chemical weapons were used by a number of parties, most notoriously by the Nazis in their death camps.

Even after WWII chemical weapons continued to be used. In one of the most glaring instances, the United States used instruments such as Agent Orange in Vietnam. The Americans were not alone, as the Soviets later employed chemical weapons in Afghanistan. Iraq utilized the deadly agents in its war against Iran as well as against its own Kurdish citizens.

Additionally, the usage of chemical weapons by individuals and terrorist groups has become a concern too. The most prominent example came in Japan in 1995, when the Aum Shinrikyo cult used nerve agent Sarin in a Tokyo subway. Chemical weapons were also used by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan during the American occupation. Even ISIS has deployed chemical weapons in its battles against Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers.

The most recent high profile and controversial use occurred in Syria in 2013. In late March it was reported that the use of chemical weapons had been detected. While both the Syrian military and the rebels denied using the weapons, each blaming the other side, the usage of chemicals had crossed what President Obama called a “red line.”

While the episode in Syria was just one in a long line of chemical weapons attacks, it aroused concern over whether the existing framework to prevent the creation and use of chemical weapons was adequate. So, what is that framework?

Legality of Chemical Weapons

The horror of chemical weapon usage in WWI left a lasting image in the minds of many people. Thus in 1925, the first legislation aimed at prohibiting the dissemination of chemical weapons was passed. This was known as the Geneva Protocol and it prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare. However, the treaty proved inadequate in several ways as it allowed for the continued production of chemical weapons. Additionally, it also gave countries the right to use chemical weapons against non-signatories and in retaliation if weapons were used against them.

The Chemical Weapons Convention

Although seemingly inadequate, the Protocol nonetheless proved to be the only protection against chemical weapons for the next 65 years. Finally in 1992 however, the Chemical Weapons Convention was adopted. It was subsequently opened for signature beginning in 1993 and put into force in 1997. Unlike the Geneva Protocol, the CWC has a much clearer and all-encompassing goal: eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction.

Namely what the treaty calls for is the prohibition of the “development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by states parties.” The chemicals themselves are divided into three different schedules, which may sound similar to those familiar with the U.S. drug classification regime. In addition, the signatories are responsible for enforcing these protocols within their own countries. Along with stopping the production of chemical weapons, states are required to destroy existing stockpiles and production facilities. Lastly, states are obligated to create a verification system for chemicals and must open themselves to snap inspections by other members. The video below details which chemicals are banned and what the CWC requires of its members.

Chemical Weapons Prohibition Regime: Success or Failure?

So is the current chemical weapons convention (CWC) a success or failure? Different metrics tell different stories.

Arguments for Success 

Membership in the treaty certainly casts a positive glow. As of 1997 when the treaty took effect, 190 countries had joined with only five–Israel, Egypt, North Korea, Angola, and South Sudan–not yet ratifying the treaty. Furthermore, real progress has been made in implementing a number of the treaty’s goals. As of 2007, 100 percent of chemical weapons sites had been “deactivated,” 90 percent of which had either been destroyed or switched to peaceful use. Additionally, over 25 to 30 percent of stockpiles had been destroyed and 2,800 inspections had been carried out. The map below indicates countries’ signing status: light green indicates that the country signed and ratified the CWC, dark green indicates that the CWC is acceded or succeeded, yellow countries have signed but not ratified the CWC, and red countries are not signatories.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia

Arguments For Failure

Conversely, while those metrics point to success, there a number that tell the opposite story. The world has failed to meet the 2012 deadline originally set by the treaty for completely disarming all chemical weapons globally. The two main culprits were also two of the main catalysts behind the treaty in the first place: Russia and the United States. These two countries possess the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons, so their compliance with the treaty carries significant weight. The video below shows the failures of the U.S., Russia, and other nations to uphold the treaty’s protocols.

Along with failure to disarm is the question of favoritism. While the U.S. has been critical of other countries’ efforts to disarm, it has not pressured its close ally Israel to ratify the treaty, let alone destroy its acknowledged stockpile.

Other issues also exist. Several countries, despite having ratified the treaty, have not set up the international policing mechanisms necessary and required by the treaty to give it any actual power. Additionally, the inspection process itself has been described as unfair and inadequate. Because labs are transitioning from large factories to smaller compounds, it’s difficult to inspect and punish individual labs for producing illegal compounds. Furthermore, there are a number of non-lethal compounds used by the police–such as tear gas–that are not covered by the CWC and can be harmful. Lastly, while the treaty covers states, it does nothing to prevent groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda from using the harmful weapons.

Conclusion

As of June 2014, Syria completed the process of either giving up or destroying all of its declared weapons. This was seen as a major coup as most expected Syria to sandbag, especially after it missed prior several deadlines. Although Syria declared its chemical weapons, it is still suspected that other secret caches remain. Additionally, after the first acknowledged use–the event that overstepped the Red Line and led to the agreement between Russia, the U.S., and Syria–there were several more speculated incidents of chemical weapons use in Syria.

This points to the problem with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Like the Non-Proliferation Treaty for nuclear weapons, there is no governing body that can punish a country for violating it. This is because joining the treaty is voluntary and there is no punishment for not joining or even for joining then quitting. Moreover, most of the countries that did join never had chemical weapons to begin with, thus signing a treaty prohibiting them made no difference. The bottom line then is that when it comes to chemical weapons, much like nuclear or biological weapons, the onus is on the individual country to comply.

Resources

Primary

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs: Chemical Weapons Convention

Additional 

Fact Check.org: Obama’s Blurry Red Line

OPCW: Brief History of Chemical Weapons Use

Johnston Archive: Summary of Historical Attacks Using Chemical or Biological Weapons

American Society of International Law: The Chemical Weapons Convention After 10 Years

Arms Control Association: Chemical Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties

Washington Times: U.S. and Russia are Slow to Destroy Their Own Chemical Weapons Amid Syria Smackdown

Think Progress: Nobody Thought Syria Would Give Up Its Chemical Weapons. It Just Did

Military.com: U.S. to Destroy Its Largest Remaining Chemical Weapons Cache

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Forgotten WMDs: Chemical Weapons appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no gray area quite like international law. Historically speaking it’s a relatively new field, and every nation accepts various parts of it. But essentially there are a number of different treaties, measures, and conventions that mediate the ways in which our nations interact, both in war and peace. Nations have certain obligations, and despite the United States’ abysmal track record when it comes to international law, we’re held to them too. We don’t live in a vacuum. After the collective political hissy fit that 47 Senators just had in the form of a truly condescending letter to Iran, it’s time to remind Senate Republicans of that.

The United States has long been dismissive of international law, and understandably so. For example, we have refused to ratify the Rome Statute–the document that created the International Criminal Court–out of fear that our heads of state could ever be tried in an international court. In fact, the United States has long occupied a position upon a hypocritical throne, condemning the actions of others that don’t fall in line with international norms and agreements while seldom being held to other international standards ourselves. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. has been the world’s superpower for decades, and we’ve acted the part.

Just because the United States is the only real superpower doesn’t mean that we got there on our own. We have allies, most of whom belong to NATO and are located in Western Europe. Could we be a superpower without Germany, and the United Kingdom, and France? Probably. Would it be harder? Almost certainly. Here’s an example: yesterday, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus reached out to our allies asking them for help in the fight against ISIS. At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting Mabus stated with regard to our international allies’ cooperation in the ISIS fight, “we can’t do it by ourselves and they have to carry their fair share of the burden.” Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi (who also signed the letter to Iran) said:

We are going to have to insist on more of a contribution from our international partners. We keep the lanes open for them. Our friends in Europe, our NATO friends and our other friends are depending upon what you are talking about. We are going to have to collectively come up with a plan to convince our partners that it is in their interests too to make the financial sacrifice.

We could deal with ISIS without our international partners, most likely. But any politicians who put us in that position would face a lot of backlash for the political and financial ramifications.

What does this have to do with Iran, and the remarkable letter that Senate Republicans sent to Iran’s government? Well, it’s important to remember that this deal, like any aspect of international politics, does not exist in a vacuum. Most importantly, this isn’t just a negotiation between Iran and the U.S., it involves five other countries and will be endorsed by a U.N. Security Council Resolution. We would prefer not to piss off the U.K., Germany, and France for the aforementioned reasons. Although our relationship with China is rocky at best, it’s hands down one of our biggest trading partners. Finally, the hot mess that is Putin’s Russia is at the very least a major player on the world stage, and it would probably be in our best interest to not piss it off either.

So, when Senate Republicans wrote that laughably snappish letter to Iran warning about a future president overturning a deal they don’t like “with the stroke of a pen,” that indicates that said fictional future president wouldn’t just be screwing a deal with Iran–they’d be doing the same thing to the U.K., Germany, France, China, and Russia as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything would come of it–it would probably take a hell of a lot more to lose the loyalty of some of our closest allies–but it’s still not a good move for a new president to make.

That’s sort of the crux of the issue though. Either Senate Republicans don’t give a crap about the delicate balance of global politics, or they are so desperate to stick it to President Obama that they no longer care. Either way, the letter was an extraordinarily dumb move by a remarkably short-sighted group.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hey Senate Republicans: Iran Negotiations Involve Other Countries appeared first on Law Street.

Attitudes toward prostitution in the United States have long been based on the Judeo-Christian tradition arguing that selling sex is immoral; however, global trends arguing for sexual self-determination and changing attitudes toward the sex industry have become more popular. The United Nations Secretary General has even called for the decriminalization of sex work. These changes pose the question: how should the United States address the issue of prostitution?

The U.S. still criminalizes sex work, but the urgency of making changes in this sphere is evident in the growing sex worker rights movement that strives to define the legal status and rights of prostitutes. Read on to learn more about different models of regulating prostitution, and the arguments for and against them.

What are the real numbers behind prostitution?

Prostitution is “the act of offering one’s self for hire to engage in sexual relations.” In other words, it’s an exchange of a sexual act for money.

It’s hard to determine the real numbers behind prostitution due to the fact that sex work is criminalized in the United States. As most of the actors involved in this business operate underground, statistics are rather scarce. Some estimates of the current number of prostitutes range from 230,000 to 350,000, but others put the number closer to one million.

Prostitutes come from a variety of backgrounds. Indisputably, there are those who come from marginalized and impoverished environments, were sexually abused, homeless, poorly educated, or drug addicted. In addition, some women and men are coerced or trafficked into prostitution. Every year thousands of people are trafficked for the purposes of exploitation, including sexual exploitation. However, this doesn’t mean that all prostitutes are forced or trafficked. There are also those who chose to become involved in sex work of their own volition. These people can have different motivations to enter the sex industry, citing high earnings, flexible work hours, or genuine passion for this line of work.

Should prostitution be decriminalized, legalized, or none of the above?

Generally, you hear about three distinct approaches to prostitution: criminalization, decriminalization, and legalization. All of them are rooted in different ideological perspectives and include diverse goals and contrasting methods of achieving their desired objectives. Watch the video below to learn more about the ongoing debate over prostitution.

Criminalization

Prostitution is criminalized in most parts of the United States. Proponents of this view often believe that prostitution is immoral, and therefore label it as a criminal behavior. In their view, prostitution endangers marriages and is simply wrong. Prostitutes are viewed as criminals who behave illegally. The rhetoric of those who support criminalization is often centered on the notion that such alternatives as legalization will have devastating consequences on the American morale.

The supporters of criminalization also connect legal prostitution with increased sex trafficking, the spread of STDs, and a greater number of children being coerced into the sex industry. Watch the video below to learn more about Catharine MacKinnon’s arguments against the legalization of prostitution and its connection with human trafficking.

Decriminalization

Decriminalization means the removal of certain criminal laws related to the operation of the sex industry. When prostitution is decriminalized, consensual adult sexual activity in a commercial setting is no longer viewed as a crime. Decriminalization can be considered a half step toward legalization as individuals engaged in the business can be required to obtain a special permit or be subjected to penalties. Essentially, if a person is caught in the act, his punishment will be no more than a fine, something along the lines of speeding or a parking ticket.

At the same time, decriminalization doesn’t legalize sex work, but does instruct law enforcement to give low priority to prostitution cases. This approach intends to use the already existing legal mechanisms to support the health and safety of prostitutes. Many advocates of decriminalization cite labor and anti-discrimination laws as arguments to grant prostitutes certain rights, including freedom of choice and self-regulation.

Decriminalized systems often still impose criminal penalties for all other actors involved in the business, including clients and pimps. This perspective is rooted in the abolitionist movement that historically rescued women from prostitution and trained them for alternative careers. In this view, prostitutes are victims of male exploitation and supporters of this approach often consider prostitution demeaning to women.

The ultimate goal of decriminalization is to uproot the profession by targeting those who purchase sex in the first place. It’s believed that by eradicating the demand, the supply will subside on its own. The advocates of this form of decriminalization usually strongly oppose legalization that will make the sex business flourish instead of extinguishing the industry.

The Swedish Model

The Swedish model is the most influential decriminalization example. Since 1999, buying sex in Sweden is a criminal offense punishable by fines or up to six months imprisonment. Contrarily, selling of sexual services is not a criminal offense, meaning that prostitutes are not subjected to criminal law proceedings. The law is popular in Sweden–80 percent of the Swedish population supports the initiative, but many are still skeptical of its effectiveness.

The Swedish model was also adopted in Norway and Iceland. In 2014, Canada moved to this model of controlling public solicitation of prostitution and restricting demand on sexual services. In addition, similar decriminalization models were adopted in Nepal, India, American Samoa, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Fiji, Guam, Republic of Korea, Palau, and Taiwan.

What are the arguments in favor of decriminalization?

Decriminalization of prostitution can arguably decrease violence against prostitutes. A study in San Francisco found that 82 percent of prostitutes have been assaulted and 68 percent were raped during their time working in the sex industry. Another study in Colorado Springs found that prostitutes were 18 times more likely to be murdered than non-prostitute women of their demographic. If sex work is criminalized, prostitutes are reluctant to ask for help or go to the police if victimized. If decriminalized, prostitutes and law enforcement will have an avenue for communication, and if a prostitute is victimized she can report the crime to the police without the fear of being charged and detained for prostitution.

Decriminalization can also benefit the investigation of sex trafficking cases as prostitutes can aid law enforcement with information from the inside. In addition, law enforcement can save valuable resources as police departments won’t need to deal with as many prostitution cases. In 2011, Texas alone spent $8 million on prison expenses related to prostitution. Decriminalization won’t eliminate the financial burden completely as pimps and johns are often criminalized in those countries who adhere to decriminalization model, but it can decrease expenses overall and re-direct resources towards other crimes.

What are the arguments against decriminalization?

Criminalization of sexual services for clients, and not for prostitutes, can be challenging as both those who purchase and provide sexual services are unlikely to admit to the transaction. Clients will be reluctant to do so due to the existing criminal laws, while prostitutes can lose their income and clientele if they aid law enforcement. In fact, several independent studies have shown that current laws have pushed some Swedish prostitutes underground, resulting in an increased danger of victimization.

Those who oppose the Swedish approach to prostitution are also concerned with its unintended consequences of stigmatization and marginalization of those who enter the sex industry of their own volition. The Swedish model doesn’t acknowledge that prostitutes can choose this occupation out of their free will, but view all prostitutes as passive victims of violence and abuse.

Overall, there isn’t much evidence that this approach improves the quality of work and life of sex workers, or decreases HIV or STD transmissions. Even through the Swedish model is popular around the world, both the Swedish and the international experiences don’t provide enough indications of decline in prostitution.

Legalization

Legalization usually involves a system of laws and government regulations that define the operation of the sex industry. Such a system can be highly regulated or merely define the legal conditions under which prostitutes can operate. Legalization is often accompanied by strict criminal penalties for those who operate outside the established framework. Prostitutes are often required to pay special taxes, can work only in specified zones, and to register with the government. In addition, prostitutes are often obligated to regularly undergo health checks, and to obtain special licenses to legally operate as a sex workers. Thus, the legalization of prostitution seeks to control, regulate, and define the rules of the sex industry.

The legalization model emphasizes freedom of personal choice and regards prostitution as a form of work. The supporters of this approach maintain the belief that sexual relations between two consenting adults should’t be criminalized as those who engage in this type of relations do so voluntarily. This rhetoric is centered on the notion that people are free to choose what to do with their bodies and, therefore, entering into contracts to provide sexual services is their right that shouldn’t be undermined by the views of those who don’t agree with their decision. At the same time, advocates for legalization acknowledge that people can be forced or coerced into prostitution. They also acknowledge the existence of trafficking and exploitation, but don’t believe that all women are victims, and that prostitution automatically leads to violence.

European Experiences

The Netherlands and Germany are, probably, the most prominent examples of legalization. The Netherlands legalized prostitution in 2000, and it’s now regulated by the country’s labor laws. Germany followed in 2002 by providing prostitutes with legal protections and social insurance. In both countries the sex industry boomed, resulting in increased numbers of legal brothels and prostitutes, but also prompted concerns over increased cases of human trafficking.

Nevada’s Legal Brothels

The state of Nevada has a long history of regulating prostitution in some counties, starting in  1937 when a law was enacted to require weekly health checks for all prostitutes. In 1971, Nevada began taxing brothels, thus legalizing the sex industry in rural counties of the state. As of now, there are around 500 prostitutes who are working in 30 brothels. A recent study found that 84 percent of the surveyed prostitutes in Nevada felt safe working in the legal brothels, and were not trafficked or coerced into prostitution. Contrary to the European countries that have legalized prostitution, Nevada’s sex workers are considered independent contractors. Consequently, they don’t receive unemployment, retirement, or healthcare benefits.

What are the arguments for legalization?

All arguments cited earlier in support of the decriminalization model, such as decreased violence, better cooperation with police, and re-direction of valuable law enforcement resources, can be relevant when taking about legalization, as well.

The advocates for legalization argue that such a model of regulating prostitution can provide even more safety for prostitutes. Legal brothels are often closely observed and monitored by the law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with safety regulations and to prevent sex trafficking cases. Legalization can also completely eliminate  the financial burden from police departments as there will be no prostitution cases to pursue. It’s estimated that in 2010, California alone arrested 11,334 people for prostitution. In Texas, an average of 350 prostitutes are sentenced to serve time in state prisons yearly. Proponents argue that legalization can decrease the prison population and save state resources that otherwise would be used to investigate, prosecute, sentence, and house those who are charged with this “victimless” crime.

In addition, legalization advocates argue that condom requirements and mandatory HIV and STD testing can reduce health risks for prostitutes and clients alike. If sex work is criminalized, fewer prostitutes will have access to testing services and fewer of them will practice safe sex. It was found that in the United States only three to five percent of STDs can be attributed to prostitution, supporting the argument that prostitutes are not vehicles of HIV and STD transmissions. The number of prostitutes infected with STDs in New Zealand and New South Wales, where prostitution is legalized, is very low or non-existent. In Nevada, there were no registered cases of HIV among legal sex workers. Watch the video below to learn more about Nevada’s health regulations and condom requirements for legal prostitutes.

Another argument is the revenue that legalized prostitution can bring in the form of income taxes. According to some estimates based on the current income of Nevada’s legal prostitutes, legalization can generate $20,000 in federal income taxes per person per year. Not only could this money be used to provide more social and health services for prostitutes, but could be spent on other governmental needs as well.

Perhaps the biggest and the most controversial argument in support of legalization of prostitution is the extension of labor rights and other occupational benefits to prostitutes. If prostitution is treated as any other profession, legal sex workers can be entitled to minimum wage, freedom from discrimination, and safe work environments. They can claim benefits, form or join unions, and get access to medical insurance and pension plans.

Lastly, supporters of legalization believe that prostitution is no different than pornography, lap-dancing, tobacco, alcohol, and gambling, which are all legal in the United States.

What are the arguments against legalization?

The most common argument against legalization of prostitution is its close connection with human trafficking and organized crime. The Netherlands’ legalization of sex work is cited as an example of a failing experiment as Amsterdam became a hub for traffickers and organized crime groups. The Dutch Justice Ministry closed over 320 prostitution windows as a part of the initiative to curb violence against migrant women, who are often forced by traffickers and pimps to work as window prostitutes in the city’s Red Light District.

The increase in child sexual exploitation is another point of concern for those who advocate against the legalization of prostitution. The adult sex industry is viewed as perpetuating the recruitment of children as sex workers, who also could be trafficked and coerced into sexual exploitation.

Prostitution is also thought to increase crime rates as it is a magnet for ancillary crimes, including drug, sex, and violent crimes. In this view, with any form of legalization those crimes can only increase as pimps and traffickers would have more legal avenues to conduct their illicit businesses.

Together with increased crime rates and  human trafficking, legalization can give more power to pimps as they are transformed into businessmen. According to this assumption, working in legal brothels can increase the likelihood of victimization as women spend their time in closed spaces and have fewer resources to ask for help or seek protection against abuse. Prostitutes in one of Nevada’s brothels compared their working conditions to a prison environment as most of the time they were locked inside their rooms waiting for clients and could leave the premises only with their male pimps.

Those who oppose legalization of prostitution also state that prostitutes will continue to spread diseases, even if their services are legalized. As it can take up to two weeks to process STD tests, sex workers can continue to infect their clients, prompting the spread of infections and STDs, regardless of their legal status.

Conclusion

How to deal with prostitution is an endless topic of debate. As decriminalization has its benefits and pitfalls, so does legalization. Even though each model has a different set of goals, both converge on the opinion that prostitutes shouldn’t be criminalized. The United States needs to start participating in the international discussions and may soon consider an alternative to the outdated criminalization model.

 Resources

Primary

UNODC: Human Trafficking

Additional

RNW: FAQ – Prostitution in the Netherlands

Alternet: Should Prostitution be Legalized?

Business Insider: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Prostitution in Nevada

Business Insider: Seven Reasons Why America Should Legalize Prostitution

California State University Northridge: Should Contractual Sex Be Legalized?

CBS News: Prostitution Laws: Europeans Debate Whether Criminalization or Legalization Works Better

Difference Between Net: Difference Between Legalization and Decriminalization

Digital Journal: Amsterdam Courts Ready to Clean Up Red Light District

The New York Times: Labour Laws, Not Criminal Laws, Are the Solution to Prostitution

The New York Times: Legalizing Prostitution Leads to More Trafficking

The New York Times: Nevada’s Legal Brothels Make Workers Feel Safer

The New York Times: Nevada’s Legal Brothels are Coercive, too

Prostitution Education Network: Prostitution Law Reform: Defining Terms

The NAYked Truth: Prostitution: The Economic and Criminal Justice Benefits of Legalization

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prostitution: Should it be Legalized or Criminalized? appeared first on Law Street.

The violence in Paris several weeks ago united Europe as little else has in recent years. Plagued by economic decline, some of the more prosperous nations have voiced discontent with the state of the European Union. Partly leading this surge is a wave of far-right political movements. These nationalist movements are gaining traction from Berlin to Paris to London as people tire of stagnant economic growth and demands for bail outs.

Additionally in many of these countries, a dramatic demographic change is occurring in which traditional peoples and cultures are finding themselves increasingly co-habitating with people who have different beliefs and practices. Read on to learn about the political shift and rise of right-wing groups in Europe after years of economic concerns and changing demographics in the region.

History of the European Union

The European Union, unsurprisingly, traces its roots to the aftermath of WWII. With the continent in ruins, several representatives from leading nations attempted to finally find some way to unify the region and put an end to the seemingly endless fighting that had just led to the most destructive war the world has ever known.

The process started with the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, which had six founding members: West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. These six nations agreed to unite their coal and steel production. The foundation was built up further with the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which created the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1967 the European Parliament was created and in 1979 it had its first direct elections.

The European Union itself was codified in 1993 through the Treaty of Maastricht. In 2002, the Euro replaced the currency of 12 of the 15 members of the organization. The Euro reached its highest value against the dollar in 2008; however, like much of the rest of the developed world, the EU was then rocked by the global economic crisis. Since this time, the EU has been attempting to fight off recession and recover, with the only real bright spot being the addition of its twenty-eighth member country Croatia in 2013. The video below gives a succinct explanation of the EU.

Economic Turmoil

In 2008 the global financial crisis hit the European Union and the results have been devastating both economically and with regard to the unity of the region.

The Rich

The economic crisis has hit both rich and poor countries within the Eurozone alike. While many of the rich countries were not in need of bail outs, they still suffered from high debt. First, they had to bail out those troubled fellow EU members that were unable to pay off their high debts after the crisis hit. They also lost markets to sell goods as the cash-strapped nations to the south could not afford to buy as much of their products.

Furthermore, while some indicators of a healthy economy appear to show rich countries in the EU doing well, these can be misleading. In the case of Germany for example, unemployment sits at a very respectable five percent; however, economic growth is virtually flat. In the third quarter of 2014 the economy only grew 0.1 percent, which followed on the heels of a second quarter in which Germany’s economy actually shrunk by 0.1 percent.

Germany is far from the only and certainly not the worst-off wealthy nation in the Eurozone either. France, the second largest economy in the EU, has an unemployment rate of over ten percent and grew only 0.3 percent during the third quarter of 2013. This miniscule growth, similar to that of Germany, also followed a second quarter contraction. Other cases include Spain, the number four economy, and Italy, the number three economy in the Eurozone, with unemployment rates of about 24 percent and 13 percent respectfully.

The Struggling

While the economic crisis certainly hit both wealthy and poor European nations, as is usually the case, the less robust economies ended up worse off. It begins of course with the bail outs. Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Cyprus all had to accept large sums of money from other EU members to avoid default.

Furthermore, as a result of the bail outs, these countries and others struggling with the debt crisis have had to employ austerity measures; however, this strategy limits growth especially because creditors will be hesitant to lend money to struggling economies. This then creates a brutal cycle in which these countries have a difficult time paying off their debts because growth is low and unemployment will remain high. The video below gives a great explanation of the European Union’s economic problems.

Changing Demographics

Coupled with a shaky economic situation are dramatic demographic changes in Europe. This change can be divided into three categories: fertility, age, and ethnicity. First Europe as a whole has a very low fertility rate. Fertility rate is basically the number of children a family can expect to have during its childbearing years. Replacement level, or the level of children being born needed to adequately replace the existing population, is 2.1 children. In 2012 the average fertility rate for countries within the European Union was 1.6 children–well below replacement levels.

Since fewer children are being born, the average populations of these countries are rapidly aging. In Poland for example, the percentage of people above the working age population, 15-64, is expected to increase from 20.9 percent in 2010 to 58 percent in 2050. A large aging population can be a double edged sword, as not only are older people more dependent on public services such as health care and pensions, but they are also less productive in the economy and save less, which affects investing.

Thus a lack of new labor and a society that increasingly needs it has led to mass migration in Europe. This migration can be broken down into two groups. First is the traditional type of immigration, specifically from countries outside the EU to countries inside of it. In 2012, for example, 1.7 million people migrated to the European Union. The other type of migration is within the European Union itself; this figure also was approximately 1.7 million for the year 2012. Both types of migration are headed in one specific direction–west. Western European nations, which not coincidentally have the best economies, are bearing the brunt of the mass movements. The top five destinations in order of descending immigrant arrivals were Germany, the UK, Italy, France, and Spain.

It’s also important to note the origin of the people immigrating. Many are coming from Eastern Europe. A large portion of the incoming people and groups are also Muslim. While it cannot be reiterated enough that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are in every way able adaptable to European life, there is tension in Europe over this influx. Current events, such as the fact that it has been estimated that currently as many as three thousand European-born Muslims have fought on behalf of ISIS or other extremist groups in the Middle East, haven’t helped this tension.

While fear of these fighters returning home has far outstripped any actual problems, the recent shootings in Paris show what can occur when a marginalized group becomes incredibly radicalized. Unfortunately this image of radicalized Muslims plays perfectly into the hands of politicians and right-wing groups that have come to prominence at the expense of immigrant groups.

Europe has a long history of xenophobia. When it deals with mass immigration, the fear has turned into Islamaphobia.  While western Europeans may not be particularly thrilled with eastern European immigrants, Muslims are being singled out in particular because of their different culture and the historical legacy of conflict between Christian and Muslim areas of Europe and the Middle East. This fear and Islamaphobia also extends to first and second generation Muslims as well, particularly in a time of economic uncertainty.

The Reemergence of the Right Wing

All these issues–economic problems, low fertility rates, and mass immigration–have led to a resurgence in the power and appeal of right-wing parties in Europe. More specifically, what has led to this rise is how economic problems are perceived as being compounded by immigration. For example, in the European Union the youth unemployment rate as a whole is 23 percent; in Greece it has been as high as 60 percent.

In a sadly ironic twist the backlash to this has usually been against immigrants who are perceived as stealing the few precious jobs that are available; however, immigration is necessary in the first place because the birth rates are so low. Additionally, immigrant populations have even higher unemployment rates than native youth.

As a result of these concerns, in recent elections several far-right parties including France’s Front National, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Hungary’s Jobbik, and the United Kingdom’s UKIP all won a surprising number of votes. Each of these parties display different combinations of outward anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant sentiments, and racism, or have been associated with such traits in the past. While this by no means represents a majority, it does indicate a disturbing trend for the European Union.

While it seems clear that far-right political movements are on the rise in Europe, the question turns to what exactly these groups want. Just like other political groups, especially across national lines, their interests vary. Overall, the focus seems to be anti-immigration, specifically based on a fear that immigrants will take away badly needed jobs from native residents. At the forefront of this movement is the Front National in France, which won the most seats in the European Parliament of any far right party.

The Front National can be characterized as one of the most moderate of the far-right parties coming to power.  Its primary focus is on nationalism instead of more overtly far-right ideologies espoused by other groups such as Golden Dawn, Jobbik, and the accused neo-Nazi NPD group in Germany; however, Front National has its roots in exactly the same kinds of dogma that these groups maintain, namely anti-Semitism and racism. This is why the far right party in Britain, the UKIP, has refused to join with them. Thus the main connection these groups all seem to have is strong support for anti-immigration measures, which entails moving away from a united Europe and its open migration policies between nations. The video below provides further explanation of the rise of far-right parties and what they believe.

Current State of the Union

Europe appears to be in serious trouble. Its native population is dwindling because of low fertility rates and an aging population. The people migrating in to fill this void, while on the whole younger, also bring different cultures and mindsets. All this has led to a wave of right-wing parties that are in favor of closing borders, ousting immigrants, and breaking away from the ailing European Union.

Europe’s economy, while growing slightly, is still badly damaged and will likely take years just to return to pre-recession levels. Additionally, fertility rates in Europe show no signs of increasing for the most part, at least in native-born citizens. Without more people to assist the aging population, immigration is also likely to continue. This immigration is also likely to continue from Eastern Europe and nations with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, which often include large numbers of Muslims.

In the future, however, it seems possible that significant changes could come to the union. First it is possible that the UK leaves the EU. Prime Minister David Cameron has already been cornered into a vote on whether or not to stay in the union. While a vote certainly doesn’t mean anything for certain, the mere fact that it is being forced upon him does. If the UK does leave it could have additional shockwaves on other nations such as France and Germany and may also lower confidence in the EU’s future.

A lot rides on France and Germany. They both have already invested a lot in the European Union and reaped rewards from it, so it might be a stretch for them to leave; however, calls for potential European bank reforms to mimic what they have done nationally shows not only how they view their own importance in Europe, but also is a test of how the other members view them as well.

Conclusion

Far right parties are becoming increasingly popular and powerful in Europe. This has been the result of a number of factors; notably the Eurozone economic crisis, low fertility rates, an aging population, and a large influx in immigrants. Furthermore, every indication shows that these mechanisms are only likely to keep moving down this path and not reverse course. Therefore, while it is too early to give up on the grand experiment of a United States of Europe, serious reforms are needed if the experiment is to work. Reform is also necessary if European leaders hope to quell the rising influence of far-right parties and their supporters.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: Learning About the Unknown: The Economic Impacts of Aging in Europe and Central Asia

European Commission: 2014 Autumn Economic Forecast; Slow Recovery With Very Low Inflation

European Commission: Eurostat; Migration and Migrant Population Statistics

Additional

NPR: A Brief History of the EU

Forbes: Suddenly the EU’s Break-Up Has Moved From a Long Shot to a Probability

The New York Times: Study on Wealth Fuels Euro Crisis Debate in Germany

Statista: Unemployment Rate in Member States of the European Union

Eurostat: Total Fertility Rates

Vienna Institutefor International Economic Studies: Effects of Euro Crisis on Europe’s Periphery

Telegraph: Muslim Europe; The Demographic Time Bomb Transforming Our Continent

CNN: From Antwerp to Aleppo–and Back; Europe’s Nightmare

Guardian: Eurozone Growth Figures; Germany Narrowly Avoids Triple-Dip Recession

New Geography: Will Europe Hit a Demographic Turning Point?

Huffington Post: Sudden Rise of Far-Right Groups in EU Parliament Rings Alarm Bells Across Europe

USA Today: Immigration Backlah is on the Rise in Europe

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force? appeared first on Law Street.

Amazon is bigger than ever. As The New York Times reports, Amazon’s Kindle is at the top of the list for e-readers, the company launched new TV-streaming devices, and its Fire Phone was posed as a contender to the iPhone and other successful smartphones. But problems are piling up for the online retail giant. Wired Magazine declared the Fire Phone a failure and the new Fire TV Stick is backordered until January, according to CNET. Further, Amazon is in hot water with seemingly relentless criticism.

Literary agent Andrew Wylie recently denounced Amazon at a writers’ conference in Toronto, as the Guardian reports. Known to many as “the Jackal” for his business strategies, Wylie condemned Amazon’s powerful grip on distribution as being ISIS-like. A comparison of any organization to those radicals terrorizing Iraq and Syria is not an easy claim to substantiate, and hardly appropriate. Nonetheless, Wylie’s polemic rakes Amazon through the coals and foresees an end to its digital dominance. “I believe with the restored health of the publishing industry and having some sense of where this sort of ISIS-like distribution channel, Amazon, is going to be buried and in which plot of sand they will be stuck, [publishers] will be able to raise the author’s digital royalty to 40 percent or 50 percent,” Wylie said. While the Guardian writes that “Wylie said he believed Amazon’s digital monopoly could be weakened,” Amazon isn’t truly operating as a monopoly, or a seller with ultimate market power to set prices.

Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote about Amazon’s power earlier this month. The company, Krugman says, is not so much acting as a monopolist as “it is acting as a monopsonist, a dominant buyer with the power to push prices down.” Rather than sucking as much profit as possible from consumers, Amazon keeps “prices low, to reinforce its dominance. What it has done, instead, is use its market power to put a squeeze on publishers, in effect driving down the prices it pays for books.” Amazon’s dominance lies in its ability to demand extremely low prices from publishing companies so that its own resale prices are low for online shoppers.

Around the world, too, the company is facing trouble. This year, a German union has had ongoing disputes with Amazon. This shouldn’t be taken lightly, as “Amazon employs a total of 9,000 warehouse staff at nine distribution centers in Germany, its second-biggest market behind the United States, plus 14,000 seasonal workers,” Reuters reports. The union, called Verdi, is demanding greater pay for warehouse workers while the company “regards warehouse staff as logistics workers and says they receive above-average pay by the standards of that industry.” The contention of which industry the workers even belong to is central to the disputes. “The crux of the issue is whether the workers are operating in logistics or retail capacities,” according to a CNET article covering strikes. Verdi wants its workers classified in the retail and distribution sector, in which standard labor wages would be higher.

Amazon will not be able to keep up with these publicity attacks no matter the new products it releases, especially when the products’ quality is also poor. Whether criticism is coming from the polemic—if grossly hyperbolic—Wylie, the analytic Krugman, or the tenacious Verdi, Amazon needs to respond to its critics as soon as possible. Further, it needs to change its corporate structure: there need to be fairer deals with publishers and fairer negotiations with laborers. Without these concessions, Amazon will fall by the wayside; either it will succumb to competition that treats other businesses and workers more fairly, or to government intervention that forces it to behave better.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Retail Giant Amazon in Hot Water Across the Globe appeared first on Law Street.

From the faux outrage over President Obama’s “latte salute,” to every worker’s fantasy coming true in Germany with a possible ban on after-hours work emails, to people getting arrested for buying cold meds — for an actual cold — there was a ton of interesting news last week. ICYMI, here are Law Street’s top three stories from last week.

#1 The “Latte Salute” is a Latte of Crap

Earlier this week President of the United States Barack Obama made a fatal error. He drank a cup of coffee and saluted our troops…with the same hand. This incited media coverage somewhere on par with a natural disaster, or maybe an assassination attempt. In fact, some members of the media covered what has now been dubbed the “latte salute” scandal as though it actually was an assassination — namely the assassination of American patriotism. (Read full article here.)

#2 Germany Considers Bans on After Hours Work Emails

I’m sort of a walking stereotype. I have my phone in my hand at all times, I sleep with it in my bed even though I know that’s bad, and I’m constantly checking my texts, social media, and email. And that’s never really bothered me — it seems normal to me. I am used to being accessible essentially 24/7. I think that’s a norm that a lot of us Americans have gotten used to, and I doubt that that’s going to change, but apparently some of our European friends have started rejecting the concept of 24/7 connectivity. (Read full article here.)

#3 Careful When Buying Water and Cold Meds, You Might Just Get Arrested

Every time I see a law enforcement officer in public — mall cop, fashion police, regular 5-0 — I have the irrational fear that they are out to get me. (This is especially true of the fashion police, but my fear of them might not be that irrational as anyone who has seen my clothing choices could attest.) I’m never doing anything I’m not supposed to be doing (or at the very least, I’m never doing anything I’m going to admit to you), but that doesn’t matter: I am sure I am about to be thrown in handcuffs and taken downtown. Little did I know, instead of fearing this, I should have been hoping for it. Just ask Elizabeth Daly or Mickey Lynn Goodson. (Read full article here.)

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

I’m sort of a walking stereotype. I have my phone in my hand at all times, I sleep with it in my bed even though I know that’s bad, and I’m constantly checking my texts, social media, and email. And that’s never really bothered me — it seems normal to me. I am used to being accessible essentially 24/7. I think that’s a norm that a lot of us Americans have gotten used to, and I doubt that that’s going to change, but apparently some of our European friends have started rejecting the concept of 24/7 connectivity.

Germany is considering a law to ban work-related emails after hours. The potential legislation is being pushed by labor unions, and recently the German Labor Minister Andrea Nahles ordered a study to look into the negative effects of work-related stress. While that study isn’t done yet, and legislation won’t even be proposed until those findings are released, Nahles stated,

There is an undeniable relationship between constant availability and the increase of mental illness. We have commissioned the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to work out whether it is possible to set load thresholds. We need universal and legally binding criteria.

Germany actually isn’t the first country to consider a late-night work email ban. Earlier this spring there were rumors that France had passed a similar law. France’s restrictions on work are actually very interesting already. Most workers are limited to a 35-hour work week. There’s actually no law restricting work emails after business hours, but there was an agreement signed earlier this year with some unions and employers agreeing to not contact employees outside of work hours.

So, if Germany and France are considering these email restrictions, will something similar ever make it to the U.S.? Nah, probably not.

A lot of it has to do with German and French culture in comparison to American. For many, the dominating idea in the United States is that the more you work, the more productive you are. Often employees who stay late are viewed as going the extra mile, while those who rush out the door at 5:00 are not as valued. But what a lot of people forget is that more work doesn’t necessarily mean more productivity.

The culture in nations like Germany and France is different though. In those countries, needing to stay after to finish your work creates the impression that you’re not productive enough during the day to finish your work in the time allotted. Thomas C. Kohler, a German legal expert explained, saying:

With Germans, while they’re at work, they only work — you’ll rarely hear a radio in the background. They consider it a sign of inefficiency if you cannot complete a day’s work in that day. So if you’re staying late at the office, it would often be regarded as a sign of your inability to get the work done.

So while some of our peer nations have shorter work weeks and are now moving toward no work emails after hours, I doubt it’s going to happen in the United States anytime soon. It would require too big of a cultural shift, and we Americans are just a little too attached to our smartphones.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Shreyans Bhansali via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Germany Considers Ban on After Hours Work Emails appeared first on Law Street.

The way that the “Fifty Shades of Grey” series flies off of bookstore shelves makes it pretty obvious that sex sells. I admit to getting caught up in that craze, and despite the lack of literary merit present on the pages of those novels, they certainly do entertain. Fluffy books catered to the sexually deprived are not the only place where eroticism is being used to get peoples’ attention.

What’s sexier than every dirty page of “Fifty Shades of Grey”? Voting. Yes, you read that correctly. Recently, United States politicians have taken a page out of other countries’ books and decided to amp up the sex appeal of their ads. In 2011, Russia ran an ad suggesting that the act of voting may get you laid. Who knew filling out a ballot could have such an effect? What’s that you say, sir? You’re…voting?? Take me now, sailor!

A political ad in Germany didn’t even try to be discreet; a pair of breasts is plastered onto a poster for all to see. That’s some classy not-so-subliminal messaging. Germany and Russia are far from the the only countries embracing sexuality as a theme in campaign ads. The good ol’ U S of A loves to copy Europe when it comes to many trends, and using sex in campaign ads is no exception.

Take a look at an ad released this summer by Equality Illinois entitled “Doris Wants Your V Card.”

The ad features an older woman gesturing suggestively to two younger males and a voice tells viewers to “go ahead, vote. Take advantage of Illinois’ new online voter registration, and get your voter ID card,” which is suggestively referred to earlier in the ad as your V-card. So witty, Equality Illinois, so witty.

NPR recently published an article about the ad, which quoted Bernard Cherkasov of Equality Illinois saying that “there is a double entendre, and I think it’s very effective at catching people’s attention.” Their target audience? Young people who are disinterested in politics and therefore unlikely to register. “To tell them this is a cool thing to do, a super easy thing to do, and then once we’ve got their attention and they’re registered, then we can help them get educated as to what’s at stake in this election, how they can exercise that democratic right.”

The success of these ads, according to a Unilever study cited in The Atlantic, depends on the intended audience. Women may not be so easily persuaded by sexual innuendo as men, according to the article. Major shock there. So while ads suggesting that casting your vote may be a huge turn on may potentially get more men to the polls, women may not be so easily persuaded.

As sexual voting ads are the new kid on the block — especially in the United States — their success or lack thereof at getting people voting has yet to be seen. But hey, at least they make for some more entertaining campaigns during the oft-droll election season. So, it’s almost time to get your butt to the *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* “polls.” See you there. And so will Ryan Gosling, apparently.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [aptmetaphor via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Voting Gets You Laid appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

On Monday, 93-year-old Oskar Groening, an SS guard assigned to Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II, was charged with 300,000 counts of accessory to murder by German prosecutors. Not many of us were alive to experience World War II, but I know someone who was around back then who tells stories like it happened just yesterday. My grandmother, also 93, recounts stories from that time, and my grandfather’s brother was a B-24 bomber pilot who was killed in France in 1944.

So many families all over the world were affected by that war, most notably by one of the most vile men this world has ever seen — Adolf Hitler. More than a million people lost their lives between 1935 – 1945. Groening, in particular, has always been very open about his experiences at the concentration camp. He recounted a horrendous story to German Magazine Der Spiegel in 2005 of witnessing “another SS soldier grab the baby by the legs and smashed the baby’s head against the iron side of a truck until it was silent.”

German authorities are able to charge Groening with these 300,000 counts thanks to the trial of former camp guard John Demjanjuk in 2011. In a legal first in Germany, a Munich court found that simply demonstrating Demjanjuk’s employment at the camp, rather than his involvement in specific murders, was enough to implicate him in the killings committed there. Demjanjuk was sentenced to five years of imprisonment for helping the Nazis kill almost 30,000 Jews during his time at the Sobibór extermination camp in German-occupied Poland during World War II. Demjanjuk was sentenced to five years in jail, which seems a bit unfair given the extent of the crimes, but at 91 a life sentence could possibly only be a few more years than that.

It’s frustrating to know that people like Groening and Demjanjuk were able to live long lives without answering for what they had done. I know that it is difficult to really say what they actually took part in and how much fear they may have had if they went against Hitler, but at some point they made a decision to participate, and that is something they have to pay for. There can be so much hatred and evil in a single person.

There are still more than 20 people remaining for the German courts to prosecute in conjunction to war crimes from War World II, but for now focusing on Oskar Groening is good enough. Every family deserves justice when it comes to the death of loved ones.

In Oskar Groening’s case it isn’t just the families who deserve justice — it is the entire world.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [leliebloem via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 93 Year Old Charged With 300,000 Counts of Accessory to Murder appeared first on Law Street.

No one knows what happens when we die, and we never will. Some believe in an afterlife, some think death is just eternal darkness, and some believe that our spirits reincarnate into another body. We have no idea what belief is right, but I think we can all agree that death is terrifying. Which is why I would never wish it on anyone.

Earlier this week, actress and comedian Joan Rivers passed away at the age of 81. Thousands have voiced their opinions on the late comedian, calling her a “trailblazer,” “one of a kind,” and a “mentor.” While all these might well be true, let’s not forget that Joan Rivers was also a bitch.

Before she died, Joan Rivers was recorded on camera saying that Palestinians “deserved to die,” because they elected Hamas into power. In her short rant she manages to degrade a whole society by stating “they were told to get out, you don’t get out then you know you’re an idiot. And at least the ones that were killed were the ones with very low IQs.” Watch the statement below.

It’s one thing to be open and frank, but it’s another to be rude and offensive. When you’re as big of a star as Joan Rivers was you have to realize that your voice reaches the masses. You have to realize that you have a duty to be vigilant about what you say and when you say it. Because for some reason Joan, people looked up to you. And contrary to what you might think, innocent people who refuse to leave a place that they call home, do not deserve to die.

Apart from Gaza, the late actress managed to offend the President of the United States and the First Lady by calling President Obama “gay,” and the First Lady a “tranny.” She offended Heidi Klum, Germans, and Jews with her concentration camp joke. She attacked celebrity baby North West saying she was in need of a waxing, and British singer Adele with the tweet below.

Congratulations to Adele on the birth of her 68 pound 8 ounces bouncing baby boy.

— Joan Rivers (@Joan_Rivers) October 22, 2012

Yes, Rivers had her funny moments. Yes, she had an illustrious career in television and comedy. Yes, she helped pave the way for women in media. But I personally think that her disregard for people, her outlandish statements, and her brute stubbornness overshadows all of that.

We tend to hold celebrities in a higher regard than we should. If Joan Rivers was your teacher, would you respect her? If she called your baby fat or ugly, would you still adore her? If she called your husband gay or your wife a tranny, would you still think she was funny? I refuse to let her off the hook just because she was famous. I refuse to respect anyone who says innocent people deserve to die. I refuse to like celebrities just because they are celebrities. I am sorry that she died, and my condolences go out to her family. But let’s not act like we lost Mother Teresa.

Mic Drop

—

Trevor Smith (@TSmith1211) is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time.

 Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop Glorifying Undeserving Celebrities Like Joan Rivers When They Die appeared first on Law Street.

“If during a study-abroad trip to Indonesia you stumble across an image of the Führer, don’t be surprised,” reported Vice News earlier this summer. “The swastika is also everywhere — on walls, cups, ashtrays, and t-shirts — and it’s not the Buddhist kind.” Stickers, posters, and stenciled graffiti images of Adolf Hitler litter the cities of Indonesia aside images of weapons and bullets. But the Nazi graffiti is not limited to illegal marks; street vendors sell posters and framed prints of a fiery Adolph Hitler delivering an impassioned speech. A prepubescent boy wears a burgundy T-shirt that reads “PUNK NAZI” emblazoned with a swastika. “I don’t idealize Hitler, I simply adore the soldiers’ paraphernalia,” said Henry Mulyana, owner of Soldaten Kaffee (German for ‘The Soldiers’ Café’) in Bandung City, which opened in 2011. Customers can order “Nazi goring” (a version of traditional fried rice) served on swastika-motif china by a waiter wearing a black SS uniform.

The recent bizarre phenomenon of Nazi imagery in Indonesia would be absurdly laughable if it wasn’t so disturbing. Indonesia’s poor education system and historical ignorance may be at the root of the irreverent prevalence of Nazi imagery. Indonesia is a diverse country consisting of more than 300 ethnic groups and over 700 languages, yet few of the nation’s 240 million people receive formal education about race relations. Schools omit world history curriculum, which, according to the Jakarta Globe, contributes to the ignorance of sensitive social topics. “It is not uncommon,” says the Conversation, “for Indonesians to say ‘I like Hitler’ when meeting someone from Germany.”

“Contrary to their European peers, Indonesian students hardly receive any history lessons on World War II. They know nothing about the persecution of Jews, for example,” according to a history professor at the Gadjah Mada University of Yogyakarta in Java. “They see Hitler as a revolutionary, similar to Che Guevara, not as someone who is responsible for the death of millions of Jews…[T]hey’re attracted to emblems of Nazi Germany because they’ve become acquainted with these symbols through punk and hard-rock videos. In their view, these symbols are a representation of rebellion.”

Adolf Hitler bumper sticker, Lombok Barat, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Courtesy of Klaus Stiefel via Flickr

The evidence pointing to Indonesia’s poor education system, however, suggests a more fundamental issue at stake in the resurgence of Nazi imagery. From 1967 to 1998, Indonesia was ruled by an authoritarian, pseudo-Fascist government that strictly controlled school curriculum. “The Ministry of Education prohibited teachers from educating students on international genocide, political violence, or racial conflicts,” said Gene Netto, an English teacher from Jakarat. “Most students graduated without ever having heard of the Holocaust…Students were only taught about the glory and grandeur of Indonesia as a country.”

Indeed, Indonesia has a historic relationship with Nazis specifically and Fascism broadly. During the 1930s, while Indonesia was under the control the Netherlands, Nazi publications were translated and disseminated throughout the country; Hitler’s concept of a “Greater Germany” inspired similar ideals, “Indonesia Mulia” (esteemed Indonesia) and “Indonesia Raya” (great Indonesia), galvanizing the Indonesian National Party (PNI) that was instrumental in achieving independence from the Dutch in 1949. Soekarno, the leader of the independence movement, and subsequently the country’s first president, revered Hitler’s vision of the Third Reich, declaring in 1963, “It’s in the Dritte Reich that the Germans will see Germany at the apex above other nations in this world.” Suharto, the second Indonesian president, came to power in 1967 following a military coup that deposed Soekarno, immediately consolidating government power around the military, consequently instituting a military dictatorship. Building on Soekarno’s Nazi inspired ideals, Suharto’s regime ruthlessly killed criminal and political prisoners, and conducted genocides, most infamously in East Timor. A pro-democracy Indonesian revolution ended Suharto’s long reign in 1998, but the neo-Fascist rhetoric has resumed once again during the current presidential election.

Prabowo Subianto, one of the two front runners in the Indonesian election, is a “continuation” of Suharto’s “fascist rule,” according to Indonesian scholar Andre Vltchek writing in Counter Punch. Prabowo has historic roots in Indonesia’s autocratic government; not only did his father serve as Suharto’s cabinet minister, Prabowo is Suharto’s son in law, and commanded the Special Forces group that spearheaded a brutal occupation and genocide of East Timor in 1976. Prabowo’s resume gives a clear indication that he will be as authoritarian and as cruel as Suharto, if not more so. As Foreign Policy explains, “Suharto-style authoritarianism remains alive and well,” including politics of exclusion, fear, and intimidation; as a campaign spectacle, Prabowo rode a horse into a stadium full of supporters in formation, wearing white uniforms and red berets. Allusions to Mussolini could not be more complete.

A voting bulletin just after the official closing of elections at a voting station in Jakarta. Courtesy of Lord Mountbatten Via Wikipedia.

What is more striking, however, is that Indonesians seem to embrace the Fascist imagery and political rhetoric. “We need Adolf Hitler! In order to fully restore law and order” a businessman in Sumatra exclaimed. “I’m not personally familiar with the [Nazi] ideology, but even if I am, I don’t think I’d find it completely disagreeable,” said Mulyana, the owner of the Nazi-themed café. “For example, communism in Indonesia was prohibited, but it’s flourishing in China. Maybe it’s just a matter of politics.” In June, Indonesian pop star Ahmad Dhani released a music video in support of Prabowo, dressed in a black Nazi uniform, singing a modified version of Queen’s “We Will Rock You.”

“What is the connection between German soldiers and Indonesia?” Dhani asked rhetorically. “We Indonesians didn’t kill millions of Jews, right?”

The ballots are in but the election is still undecided. Both candidates — Prabowo and Djoko “Jokowi” Widodo — are claiming victory, citing unofficial results conducted by private polling agencies, and accusing each other of election fraud. By law, the Indonesian Election Commission must announce the official results today. Whoever wins, this election marks a clear resurgence of Indonesia’s latent Fascism. The Mussolini-style political campaigns, Nazi-themed cafés, and stenciled images of Hitler plastered through the streets, are not as horrifying, though, as the fact that the Indonesian people seem completely comfortable with the pervasiveness of Fascist symbolism. As we have seen with ‘neo-Fascists’ in Israel, graffiti is a bellwether for subterranean political currents in Indonesian society.

 —

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Feature image courtesy of [Ikhlasul Amal via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nazi Graffiti Indicates Resurgence of Fascism in Indonesia appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Germany edged out a win against the United States in an intense soccer match that ultimately qualified both teams to the next level of competition. Here at Law Street, my coworker Trevor Smith and I decided to use this exciting World Cup game as an excuse to exercise our nerdy legal sides and compare drinking laws in the two nations. After interviewing the crowd at a watch party in DC’s DuPont circle, and researching each country’s laws, we think it is safe to conclude that Germany also wins the drinking law matchup.

In Germany, there are very few restrictions on public alcohol consumption. Most cities ban drinking in their public transit systems, but other than that, they allow drinking on the streets and in their parks. In the United States, there are a few states that allow public drinking in specific entertainment-designated areas, but that’s pretty much it. In DC, where we interviewed people viewing the Germany-U.S. game in a public park, the law states that alcoholic beverages cannot be open in any street, alley, park, sidewalk, or parking area.

The viewing party was the perfect place to interview soccer fans, as many had watched games in a similar locale in Germany, where they were able to have alcohol present. One onlooker told us that in Germany people would typically drink only to get tipsy because of the high alcohol prices at such events. He told us that the presence of alcohol at the events had no negative repercussions and that it made for a better experience. Another man, while motioning at the entire crowd, told us that in Germany, it was “this times 100,” and that it was one “big long party.” Another individual told us that this was “the perfect setting for a beer.”

All but one individual we interviewed told us that they would buy alcohol if it was for sale at the event. With hundreds of people present at the event, the city could have easily made thousands of dollars from alcohol sales, and would also have been able control the flow of alcohol present. That control is important, because there were clearly people in the crowd who brought their own alcohol. We saw beers emerging from bags and many people drinking from bottles that could have been filled with pretty much anything. Many of the people we interviewed said that they considered bringing their own alcohol from home, but decided not to for fear of getting caught by the police or fired

A couple of individuals weren’t so keen on alcohol being present at these kinds of events.  An older gentleman told us that,  “if alcohol is out of the system, everyone has more fun.” He also said that there was a different mindset abroad towards drinking. He thought that Americans would not be able to handle public drinking very well and that, “chaos would probably ensue, we tend to overdo it.” Another woman expressed concerns that Americans would not be able to adapt to open container laws at first, but said, “in the long run it would be a positive change, as people got used to their newfound freedom.”

One question that we asked every individual was if they thought open container laws should change or stay the same. Not surprisingly, all those we interviewed who have been abroad thought the United States should change its open container laws. There were also those who thought serving alcohol at public events should be reserved for viewing parties like the one we attended, but were hesitant to commit to the broad kind of laws Germany has.

Although there was no legal alcohol present at the viewing party, it was clear that everyone still had a great time. But, we do agree with the majority of the fans that were watching–alcohol could have both improved the game’s atmosphere and brought in revenue for the city. The stereotype of Americans as too rowdy, or too rambunctious, or too destructive is sometimes true, but only because we put alcohol on such a pedestal. There are high school kids in Germany who are able to buy a beer, and then walk down the street while drinking that beer, but many American college students can’t even walk into a bar. A more relaxed and normalized attitude towards drinking might keep people from overdoing it.

So maybe one day this will be the norm!

Check out the bracket below to see which countries that made it to the knockout stage have the most relaxed drinking laws. We created our bracket by examining which countries have the most generous laws when it comes to drinking in public and drinking age!

Round of 16:

Brazil vs. Chile

Winner: Brazil. In Brazil you’re allowed to drink in public places. Chile’s laws are a bit stricter–it’s usually illegal to drink publicly.

Colombia vs. Uruguay

Winner: Colombia. Both countries allow you to purchase and consume alcohol at the age of 18, but Uruguay loses this round because they’re trying to enforce stricter alcohol laws, like a ban on happy hour

France vs. Nigeria

Winner: Nigeria. In France you cannot drink in public, but Nigeria has much looser open container laws!

Germany vs. Algeria

Winner: Germany. Germany has a lower drinking age and more relaxed open container laws.

The Netherlands vs. Mexico

Winner: The Netherlands. The Netherlands has no national laws against drinking in public–although some cities have individual laws against it. Many areas in Mexico do not allow public drinking, so the Netherlands comes out on top.

Argentina vs. Switzerland

Winner: Switzerland. While open container laws don’t vary much between the two countries, you’re allowed to start drinking beer and wine at the age of 16 and spirits at 18.

Belgium vs. USA

Winner: Belgium. In Belgium you’re allowed to start drinking beer and wine at the age of 16, and liquor at 18. The United States requires an age of 21 for every type of alcoholic drink. Also public drinking is allowed in Belgium, unlike in the United States.

Greece vs. Costa Rica

Winner: Greece has open container laws allowing drinking outside. Costa Rica does not.

Quarter-Finals

Germany vs Nigeria

Winner: Germany. Both have open container laws, but the drinking age is two years earlier in Germany.

Greece vs. Netherlands

Winner: Greece. In Greece, you can buy alcohol at 18 in a bar, but there is no age limit to buying alcohol at liquor stores. The Netherlands has much stricter laws.

Switzerland vs. Belgium

Winner: Belgium. While both have similar drinking and open container laws, it is more socially acceptable to walk down the street with a beer in Belgium.

Colombia vs. Brazil

Winner: Colombia. Both are lenient when it comes to drinking, but some cities in Brazil, for example Recife, have started to crack down.

Semi-Finals

Greece vs. Belgium

Winner: Belgium. Belgium wins because in some places in Greece, public drinking is not socially acceptable, even if it is lawful.

Colombia vs. Germany

Winner: Germany. Germany wins, because you can buy and drink alcohol publicly at a younger age

Finals

Belgium vs. Germany

Winner: These two countries often debate who makes the best beer. But Germany wins this particular contest because of their lower drinking age.

Go forth and have fun! But make sure that you always follow the local drinking laws, regardless of where you are, and stay safe whenever you consume alcohol!

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Trevor Smith (@TSmith1211) is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Neil Cooler via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The World Cup of Drinking Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Crimes against humanity such as those committed by the Nazis during the Holocaust should never go unpunished. That seems like a completely obvious statement, one that everyone can get behind. But what if the crime was committed 70 years ago by man who is now 89 years old? That’s the question at issue in the case of Johann Breyer.

Since the end of World War II, the world has been on the hunt for members of Hitler’s administration. If a suspected perpetrator was found, he was usually extradited to Germany and put on trial there. This practice has continued all the way into 2014. But should Breyer, an 89-year-old man with signs of dementia, face trial for crimes he is accused of committing at the Auschwitz Death Camp many decades ago?

Johann Breyer has lived in the United States since 1952 when he immigrated here from Czechoslovakia. His mother was born in the United States, which granted him American citizenship. He worked as a toolmaker in Philadelphia, got married and had kids. Then, in 1992, he was accused of having Nazi ties and the Justice Department attempted to deport him.

He was ultimately allowed to stay, as the Justice Department lacked evidence to prove he took an active role in the killings. Breyer claimed he was a guard in the prison section of the camp, and since he was a minor when he served, he could not be held responsible for his actions. Basically, his argument was he took no active role in the killings and was instead forced to be there. This whole debate had little actual impact on Breyer’s life, as his name stayed out of the public eye.

After its failed deportation effort, the Justice Department attempted to persuade the German government to extradite Breyer, but the Germans didn’t act until very recently. After examining camp rosters and newly disclosed documents, the German government now claims that Breyer was not part of the prison guards, but rather a member of the infamous SS battalion, “Death’s Head,” trained to be particularly brutal to prisoners. The German government has charged Breyer with 158 counts of aiding and abetting murder — one for each train that arrived at the Auschwitz Death Camp during the six months Breyer was present. To put that number in perspective, those trains carried approximately 216,000 Jews.

Breyer faced these charges and potential extradition to Germany on Wednesday morning. Though he seemed confused, he told the judge he understood the charges against him, and he is now being held without bail until his extradition hearing on August 21.

The DOJ has charged more than 130 Nazi suspects in the last 35 years, but none were as old as Breyer. This brings us back to my original question — should a man that old, suffering from the onset of dementia, face charges for the crimes he perpetrated more than half a century ago?

My gut reaction to the thought of a nearly 90-year-old man in jail is that no, he shouldn’t be tried at this point; however, it angers me that Breyer got to live a normal, fulfilling life. He is innocent until proven guilty, but if he is proven guilty he does not deserve to die a free man. If guilty, he was complicit in the deaths of more than 200,000 people, yet has gotten to live without consequences. I would imagine that a Holocaust survivor probably feels quite enraged when he hears that a Nazi responsible for such horrific crimes has gotten to live a free life. We owe it to those victims and their families to bring anyone involved in these crimes to justice, regardless of age. Its been 70 years since Breyer committed these crimes, but time hasn’t run out yet.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Greg Heywood via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Accused 89-Year-Old Nazi Facing Extradition to Germany appeared first on Law Street.

The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, compiles a list of intangible cultural heritages. These can include a variety of things like music, dance, social practices, or art. The entire list of intangible cultural heritages can be found here, and I would highly recommend you check it out. A lot of them are really cool and some even have video demonstrations. There’s Tsiattista poetic duelling from Cyprus, the Tango from Argentina and Uruguay, and the Dragon Boat Festival of China, among hundreds of others.

But Germany is trying to get something a little different — and really fun — on the list. Beer!

Historically in Germany, specifically Bavaria, there was a law called Reinheitsgebot. Translated into English, it roughly means “German Beer Purity Law.” It required that brewers only use water, hops, and barley malt in creating beer. No flavorings or preservatives are allowed in the creation of Reinheitsgebot beer.

Put your reading glasses on, and let’s check out some beer history:

Ready? Ok, so Reinheitsgebot beer certainly fits the idea of “heritage’ — the law was created in 1516 in the Bavarian city of Ingolstadt by the Dukes Wilhelm IV and Ludwig X. The law was written both to set basic standards for making and selling beer, and also to stem conflict between bakers and beer makers, who competed over wheat, yeast, and other grains. If a brewer was found breaking the law, they could have their beer confiscated without any sort of compensation. In 1871, the law was incorporated into the unification of Germany.

While German beer laws have changed slightly since then, there are still regulations that brewers must follow. The current beer law is called Biergesetz, and allows only a few more ingredients than the original Reinheitsgebot. Most brewers claim to follow Reinheitsgebot, even if they actually really just follow Biergesetz.

And believe me, Germany takes its beer very, very seriously. For 10 years in the 1990s, after the reunification of East and West Germany, there was the infamous “Brandenburg Beer War.”

Unfortunately, not this kind of beer war.

The Fritsche family in Brandenburg brewed a beer called the “Black Abbott.” They added just a little big of sugar to give it a distinctive taste. Germany informed them that they could not market their brew as real beer, so the Fritsches said the government couldn’t tax it as real beer. After about 10 years of back and forth, they eventually received a special permit to label Black Abbott as beer.

According to some historians, Reinheitsgebot is the oldest remaining food or drink regulation in the world, and therefore deserves to be on the UNESCO intangible heritage list. Germany has around 1,300 separate breweries, and 5,000 brands of beer.

Those in favor of including Reinheitsgebot on the next UNESCO list, such as craft beer expert Matt Simpson, emphasize the important role that beer has played in cultural human history. Simpson stated, “Considering beer’s place in human history, I would say that it certainly deserves a place among other cultural phenomena.”

Want to try some Reinheitsgebot-approved beer without traveling all the way to Germany? Here are some American breweries that create beers that, for the most part, strictly follow Reinheitsgebot:

• Olde Mecklenburg Brewery, Charlotte, NC
• Sierra Nevada, North Carolina and California
  
• Redhook Brewery, Woodinville, WA
• Deschutes Brewery, Portland, OR

There are obviously many more, but those should put you all off to a good start (assuming you’re 21+, if not, save these suggestions for after your birthday). So, next time you’re in the mood for a drink, get some future-potential-intangible cultural heritage at the same time!

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Kasia Wallis via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Get Some Beer & Cultural Heritage appeared first on Law Street.

From 1933-1945 in Germany, thousands of pieces of valuable art were collected, confiscated, or stolen. There were Nazi military units called the “Kunstschutz” who were tasked with acquiring, for lack of a better word, plunder. They took anything of value from Jewish residents and others sent to concentration camps, including money, art, books, and religious items. It is estimated that about 20% of the art existing in Nazi-occupied territory was taken. Hitler planned a massive museum in his hometown of Linz, to display these works, but many went missing after the war. Some of this art was also used for propaganda purposes, featuring certain types of art as “degenerate” and promising to destroy it. They created an almost “freak show” museum, meant to highlight the corrupting influences from which they were supposedly saving the German people. Much of it ended up being stored after this display had finished. Other timeless pieces were simply destroyed. Over the years, stashes of this art have been located in homes, storages areas, basements, and other hidden places. Some of it may never be found.

Last year, a gigantic stash of 1,400 pieces of artwork was discovered in a Munich apartment, although details were just released by German authorities. They were in an apartment owned by a man named Cornelius Gurlitt. The works in the discovery may total more than 1 billion euros. They include pieces by Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Otto Dix, and Marc Chagall. His father, Hildebrand Gurlitt, who had worked as an art dealer for the Kunstschutz, had passed them down.

The legal statuses of these recovered works of art are nothing if not peculiar. Many of the people who originally owned these pieces have since died, and the family members who are still searching for them may have never even seen them in person. There have been resources put in place to help—there are lost art registries, and immediately after the war, there was a group of Allied soldiers, called the Monuments Men, who attempted to return art to their rightful owners. But for the most part, families are left on their own to attempt to regain their relatives’ stolen possessions.

Germany originally did have restitution laws that would allow art to be recovered by individual owners, but most of the provisions expired in the 1966, and others in 1992. There are no active restitution laws for individual owners in Germany. As allowed by the 1998 Washington Conference Principles, the German government has worked hard to find many of the pieces that were stolen from museums and private collections, and return those to their rightful places. But private owners don’t have the same resources, and often cannot lay claim to recovered items. Usually, ownership of the item remains with whoever currently owns the piece, although once these new owners find out how it was acquired, they often do make attempts to return it to its rightful owners, or at least compensate them.

The discovery of these works, and the German government’s inability to provide aid to the private owners created an emotional backlash from the art community. Germany has set up a task force to attempt to investigate the backgrounds of some of these recovered pieces. The lack of legal precedent, outdated restitution laws, and complicated history behind these works of art make it difficult for people to regain the stolen masterpieces. While it’s nice to hope that these works eventually make their way into the hands of their rightful owners, given the inherent logistical issues, it’s unlikely. Yet the German government should take every step it can to make sure that when such works are found, actions are taken to give reparations to or compensate the rightful owners.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Bundesarchiv, Bild via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Art the Nazis Stole: Lost Forever? appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats are usually the ones to promote more government control, but President Nixon was a Republican. Though he achieved many things during his presidency, like most people, he is remembered for his scandal. The Watergate Scandal was named after the Watergate Complex in Washington D.C., the location of the Democratic Party headquarters where Nixon’s men were caught breaking in. This was not the limit of the illicit activities Nixon led. His surveillance was far more meticulous, bugging offices of his opponents and creating transcripts from the tapes. Public outrage fueled the nation, and talks of impeachment spewed from most mouths. After much denial, Nixon accepted the blame, publicly apologized for his mistake, and acquiesced to the public consensus about his misbehavior by resigning. The matter of right and wrong was obvious.

Less obvious but very similar is the situation with the National Security Agency. They are not only analyzing domestically, but also internationally. NSA’s interactions with other nations are mirroring Nixon’s ideology. NSA permits the US to monitor our competitors and alter our diplomacy respectively. Although NSA’s spying had been justified as a security precaution against terrorism, NSA is towing a fine line. Germany, France, Mexico, and Brazil have all officially complained to the US about NSA’s interference. The famous fugitive and ex-NSA member, Edward Snowden claimed that NSA was monitoring the phone calls of 35 world leaders, among many other political officials, sparking the debate about NSA’s morality. Since then, resentment, both foreign and domestic, has prevailed.

Last month, Dilma Rousseff, the Brazilian president, spoke at the UN general assembly, bringing to light her discontentment with NSA activities pertaining to her nation, “tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations. A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country,” she condemned. The NSA, she announced, collected personal information of Brazilian citizens, along with information about specific industries, primarily oil industries. The German Chancellor, Merkel also confronted the US about NSA recent activities, “we need to have trust in our allies and partners, and this must now be established once again. I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable against anyone, and that goes for every citizen in Germany.”

Similarly, Le Monde, a reputable French newspaper, released information on NSA’s french metadata, “the NSA graph shows an average of 3 million data intercepts per day with peaks at almost 7 million on 24 December 2012 and 7 January 2013.” Le Monde also claimed the NSA planted bugs in the French embassy in Washington, and hacked tens of millions of computers in France this year. Prior to the news leak by Le Monde, French foreign minister, Mr Fabius, told the US president,”I said again to John Kerry what Francois Hollande told Barack Obama, that this kind of spying conducted on a large scale by the Americans on its allies is something that is unacceptable.” With the shocking new information about NSA’s unlawful actions being published, the situation,  on US-French relations are exacerbated.

The difference in our ease to distinguish right and wrong in the Watergate scandal and the NSA security breaches test our morals. Are American morals contingent to our context only? Our action so far indicate that spying domestically on our opponents is a mortal sin, but internationally, it is okay. The freedoms we are allotted and the restrictions we face are variables of time, as is our living constitution, but what about our morals? The Watergate Scandal demonstrated American tenacity for ethics and caused for an eradication of a wrongdoer, will the NSA breach result in a fix too?- Will government policies adjust to current times to keep stable our set of values?

 [Press TV] [BBC] [Le Monde] [Euronews]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Herbst via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post NSA: A Repeat of Watergate appeared first on Law Street.