NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: The story behind the ‘Moko’ drums, sacred musical instruments from the Alor-Pantar archipelago

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Francesco Perono Cacciafoco, Associate Professor in Linguistics, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University

    The day was still alive when a group of Abui people danced in a circle around the ‘maasang’ – the central altar of their village – alternating coordinated movements with rhythmic pauses. The drums were played, marking each step with their sounds, believed to connect the world of the gods with the world of humans.

    They were performing the ‘lego-lego’ dance, an integral part of ancestral rituals. The dance was directed by the cadenced rhythm produced by the ‘Moko’ drums, distinctive musical instruments that are also prestigious heirlooms and sacred tools, mostly found in the Alor-Pantar archipelago, in East Nusa Tenggara.

    Recently, with Shiyue Wu, my Research Assistant at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (Suzhou, Jiangsu, China), I developed and published research about the names of the ‘Moko’ drums and bronze gongs from Alor in three representative Papuan languages spoken in the island: Abui (Central Alor), Sawila (Eastern Alor), and Kula (Eastern Alor).

    This research aims to increase our knowledge on the ‘Moko’ drums and their significance and sanctity for the cultural identity and heritage of the peoples living in the Alor-Pantar archipelago.



    Baca juga:
    Finding ‘Kape’: How Language Documentation helps us preserve an endangered language

    Unclear historical references

    Among the many ancestral traditions and ritual objects attested in Southeastern Indonesia, the ‘Moko’ drums represent a unique blend of symbolic and religious values and practical functions in the social life of the local Papuan communities. Technically, they are bronze kettle-drums, specifically membranophones, instruments that produce their sounds by being hit on their vibrating skins, or membranes.

    Despite their widespread use and cultural significance among indigenous communities in Alor, Pantar and beyond — like in Timor and among the Austronesian and Papuan groups of Flores —, the history and origins of these musical instruments are still relatively obscure and seem to fade into the mists of time.

    The ‘bronze gongs’ from the Alor-Pantar archipelago vary in size and are typically round, flat metal discs played with a mallet. They are equivalent to the ‘Moko’ drums, at the level of musical and social functions.

    The indigenous peoples believe that the drums and gongs have no local origins from the islands, but their possible place of production is unknown. We recently confirmed this through fieldwork conversations with our Abui local consultant.

    ‘Moko’ drums’ unique attributes

    Each ‘Moko’ drum (and bronze gong) is characterised by physical (size, shape, and the produced sounds) and aesthetic (iconography and decorations) features, which make it unique. The uniqueness of the drums and gongs is strengthened by the fact that each type of these membranophones has an ‘individual’ name, which indicates a specific category, with its dedicated musical and iconographic attributes.

    For example, there are ‘fiyaai futal’ (in Abui), the “candlenut-flower” drum, and ‘bileeqwea / bileeq-wea‘ (in Abui), the “lizard-blood” drum.

    All the ethnic groups in Alor, Pantar and surrounding areas use their own local variants for the names of the different drums. This nomenclature reflects specific ritual and trading features of each musical instrument.

    Despite this, the native speakers cannot explain the name ‘Moko’ in itself, with its etymological and semantic origins. They agree upon the likely foreign origin of the instruments, but no one can pinpoint a possible location for their production (some say Java, Makassar, India, Vietnam, or even China, but without any conclusive evidence) or the trade routes across which they were likely imported to the islands.

    Some local myths and origin stories) tell about the unexpected discovery, by local people, of ‘Moko’ drums buried in the ground, adding a veil of mystery to their enigmatic roots. Being treasured items, the drums were actually buried under the ground by locals, to avoid the risk to fall into the hands of colonisers or to be taken away by outsiders.

    The term ‘Moko’ is universally attested and used in everyday conversations by the Alor-Pantar speakers, independently of their languages and villages. However, nobody, among the locals, can explain the roots of the name or propose an interpretation for its possible meaning. The ‘Moko’ drums are, therefore, an unsolved puzzle in the context of the material culture and linguistic landscape of the Alor-Pantar archipelago.

    It is possible that the name ‘Moko’ was coined ‘internally’, in Alor and Pantar, perhaps in the ‘Alor Malay’ language, which is commonly spoken in the archipelago since the 14th century. The denomination would have, then, spread towards external areas.

    However, this hypothesis cannot be proven with incontrovertible evidence, and the direction of the naming process could have also been the opposite, from outside into Alor and Pantar.

    Our paper presents systematic lists of the names of drums and gongs, with the original denominations in the three different above-mentioned languages, the related translations, name-by-name, synthetic notes on the possible origins of their nomenclature, a catalogue of the instruments by categories (based on fieldwork and direct observation), and a set of pictures reproducing a small selection of drums according to their cultural significance.

    Beyond musical functions

    The ‘Moko‘ drums are relatively ancient ritual objects commonly used, in the past, in generally pre-Christian worship ceremonies performed by the indigenous communities. The traditions survived until today, through local folklore and public celebrations.

    The drums, as well as the related bronze gongs, still play an important role as a valuable local ‘currency’. Highly regarded as prestigious family possessions, they are used for trade and social practices embedded into traditional customs, like bride-price negotiations.

    The path towards a full understanding of the historical dynamics of the production and spread of the ‘Moko’ drums and gongs — as well as their provenance and the etymologies of their names — might still be long. However, this does not diminish their cultural and material significance among the Alor-Pantar peoples.

    Despite their obscure origins, ‘Moko’ drums and bronze gongs are meticulously catalogued, described and rated by the local communities in the islands. Periodically, a multi-ethnic council gathers to assess, update and validate the different values and levels of social prestige and rarity of every single instrument.

    This safeguarding effort, combined with the collection and systematisation of ‘first hand’ data, which we are currently developing, may considerably help in shedding light on the nature and origins of these enigmatic instruments.

    Francesco Perono Cacciafoco received funding from Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU): Research Development Fund (RDF) Grant, “Place Names and Cultural Identity: Toponyms and Their Diachronic Evolution among the Kula People from Alor Island”, Grant Number: RDF-23-01-014, School of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS), Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU), Suzhou (Jiangsu), China, 2024-2025.

    – ref. The story behind the ‘Moko’ drums, sacred musical instruments from the Alor-Pantar archipelago – https://theconversation.com/the-story-behind-the-moko-drums-sacred-musical-instruments-from-the-alor-pantar-archipelago-253225

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia had a national reckoning over domestic violence, but where’s the focus this election?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Professor (Practice), Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University

    For most of this federal election campaign, politicians have said very little about violence against women and children.

    Now in the fourth week of the five-week campaign, Labor has released its “commitment to women” announcement. The Coalition has also flagged it will have something to say on the topic before polling day.

    Much of Labor’s announcement is about what the party has already done to address women’s safety, including funding already committed under the National Plan To End Violence Against Women and Children. The announcement concedes “there is much more to do” and highlights extra spending on financial abuse and perpetrator interventions specifically.

    But the fact domestic, family and sexual violence hasn’t been more central to the election campaign is surprising. Less than 12 months ago, following rising community outrage after the killing of a number of women, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared violence against women and children a national crisis.

    Over the past week, the killing of several women in different circumstances, allegedly by men’s violence, has been a reminder of the persistence of this national crisis.

    In an election that’s largely focused on cost of living, this epidemic of violence should also be front and centre.
    The scale and impact of this violence is profound – cutting across culture, age, geography and class. It causes immediate and long-term harm and costs the country an estimated $26 billion annually.

    Why haven’t we heard much?

    An obvious explanation might be that violence against women has already been addressed by successive governments – that enough has been done. Others may argue that it’s been overshadowed by more politically “pressing” issues.

    Some may even suggest it’s because of a broader political shift away from gender equality commitments, influenced by anti-DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) sentiment that has gained traction internationally.

    Perhaps a more generous explanation is that the lack of political attention stems from fear of getting the response wrong. The domestic and family violence sector can be fraught with complexity, with different ideas about what should be prioritised.

    The national prevention agenda has faced critique in recent months. Scrutiny of whether we are on the right path should always be welcomed, but division is unhelpful.

    Complexity should never be an excuse for inaction. Instead, this moment requires political courage and clarity. A declaration of a national crisis is merely rhetoric if it’s not followed by meaningful actions and measurable commitments.

    Beyond election cycles

    It’s crucial the next federal government delivers a response to domestic violence that’s commensurate with the scale of the problem. This requires a significant increase in investment across the entire ecosystem to boost service availability and accessibility.

    This means moving beyond one-off or short-term funding to ensure sustainability across the system, including for crisis response and early intervention initiatives. Consistency of services is needed to disrupt the cycle of intergenerational harm, to understand what works in engaging people who use violence, and to promote long-term recovery.



    Read more:
    What works to prevent violence against women? Here’s what the evidence says

    There should also be improved collaboration between levels of government. For too long, the siloed approach has impeded progress. The National Partnership Agreement provides a solid foundation for this.

    Evidence shows strengthening coordination across agencies and jurisdictions will help identify more women and families at risk of violence. Information-sharing arrangements will also help keep them safer across state and territory boundaries. System failures and blindspots can cost lives.

    What else would help?

    If elected, Labor has committed to focusing on ending financial abuse and expanding interventions for people who use violence. This means increased funding for perpetrator interventions, including electronic monitoring of high-risk offenders and earlier interventions for young people who use violence.

    These intiatives are welcome, but the list of actions needed extends well beyond these commitments.

    Fully funding frontline services is a crucial start. This must include services for children and young people experiencing and escaping violence in their own right, and services across rural and remote communities. There’s limited support available in these areas.

    Ensuring access to culturally appropriate and trauma-informed services for communities disproportionately affected by violence is also key.

    First Nations leaders, practitioners, academics and victim-survivor advocates should be resourced to deliver the dedicated First Nations National Plan and to fully implement the First Nations National Action Plan. This is especially important for First Nations communities, including in the Northern Territory, where calls for increased funding have long been made.

    The support service workforce, which has a high turnover and burn-out rate, must be better supported, including through ongoing professional development and capability training.

    In recent weeks, others have called for a national strategy for people who use violence.

    Measuring progress is key

    Regardless of specific policy commitments, we should be transparently monitoring and evaluating progress on addressing violence. This is the backbone of any effective policy response – without data, we are blind to what works, what doesn’t, and where to focus efforts.

    The first national plan was criticised for failing to do this comprehensively. We are at risk of repeating the same mistake.

    While this responsibility sits within the functions of the inaugural Commissioner for Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, it has yet to eventuate beyond the information included in the commission’s yearly reports to parliament.

    Regardless of who forms government – whether majority or minority – it’s imperative domestic, family and sexual violence remains front and centre in national policymaking. This is not an issue that can wait for the “right time” or for conditions to be more favourable. Women’s and children’s lives depend on it.

    The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

    Kate has received funding for research on violence against women and children from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Kate receives funding from Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), the South Australian government, Safe Steps, Australian Childhood Foundation, and 54 Reasons. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her role at Monash University and Sequre Consulting, and is wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as chair of Respect Victoria and membership on the Victorian Children’s Council.

    Hayley has received funding for research on violence against women and children and criminal justice-related issues from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Hayley receives funding from ANROWS, and the ACT Justice Reform Branch.

    – ref. Australia had a national reckoning over domestic violence, but where’s the focus this election? – https://theconversation.com/australia-had-a-national-reckoning-over-domestic-violence-but-wheres-the-focus-this-election-253718

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The government has pledged $10 million for inclusive LGBTQIA+ health care. Here’s what that means

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karinna Saxby, Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne

    Lee Charlie/Shutterstock

    Last week, the federal government announced a $10 million commitment to make Medicare more inclusive for LGBTQIA+ Australians. It aims to improve their access to “inclusive, culturally safe primary care” through training and accreditation for GPs, nurses and other health-care providers.

    The precise details will depend on which training provider wins the government’s grant. But they will have a strong body of evidence to draw on, which shows the challenges LGBTQIA+ people face in health care – and what it would take to make mainstream services more inclusive.

    Why is this needed?

    Many LGBTQIA+ Australians lead happy and healthy lives. But, unfortunately, a disproportionate number experience significantly poorer health outcomes compared to the general population.

    LGBTQIA+ Australians are more likely to experience depression, anxiety and psychological distress. They also have higher rates of suicidal thoughts, self-harm and suicide.

    Many of these health inequalities stem from experiences of discrimination and stigma. These can lead LGBTQIA+ people to avoid health services for routine as well as preventive care (such as screening and regular check-ups).

    LGBTQIA+ Australians are also less likely to have a regular GP. And they report lower levels of satisfaction with the care they receive.

    They are also more likely to live with disability or long-term health conditions and have unmet health needs. For some groups, such as trans and gender-diverse Australians, these health disparities are even getting worse.

    This points to the unique and diverse needs of different groups within the LGBTQIA+ community.

    For example, young people are more likely to have elevated mental health distress. Some communities have higher rates of HIV, while others face barriers to preventive care. For instance, trans men and non-binary people may miss out on cervical cancer screening.

    Young people in the LGBTQIA+ community are more likely to experience mental health distress.
    Alexx60/Shutterstock

    What does ‘inclusive, culturally safe’ care look like?

    Inclusive and safe health care means more than just rainbow posters in the waiting room. It’s a concrete change in how care is delivered.

    At a basic level, this involves respectful communication – using a patient’s correct pronouns and chosen name, and avoiding assumptions about their body, relationships or identity.

    For example, an inclusive GP will ask open-ended questions (“do you have a partner?”) rather than presume a patient’s partner is of the opposite sex. They will not assume a trans patient’s health-care needs are only related to being trans.

    Training might cover how to discuss sensitive topics (such as sexual behaviour or gender dysphoria) in a non-judgmental, inclusive way, and how to handle mistakes.

    Making people feel safe to disclose their LGBTQIA+ status is also crucial. This has been shown to improve continuity of care and access to high-value preventive care. It may also help people disclose other sensitive issues, such as family violence.

    When GPs and others in primary care understand LGBTQIA+ health needs, they’re better placed to make appropriate referrals – for example, to psychologists with relevant expertise or to specialist gender-affirming care services.

    How this funding could help

    This funding is part of the government’s ten-year national action plan to improve the health and wellbeing of LGBTQIA+ people.

    The plan focuses on enhancing community-led and specialist LGBTQIA+ services (such as gender-affirming care or HIV medicine) and mainstream services, so they work better in tandem.

    It was developed through extensive consultations with LGBTQIA+ communities across Australia. These consultations found inclusive primary care was a top concern.

    Making “mainstream” health care more inclusive is important because it is the most frequently accessed point of care for most Australians, including LGBTQIA+ Australians.

    An estimated 84% of LGBTQIA+ Australians use “mainstream” medical clinics for their primary health care. Only 6% use LGBTQIA+ specific clinics – in part, because they are not widely available.

    Improving mainstream primary care for LGBTQIA+ Australians is therefore particularly important for those in rural areas, where there can be reduced access to specialist health-care providers. People should not have to hide who they are or travel long distances to get the care they need.



    Read more:
    We tracked the mental health of trans and gender-diverse Australians for over 20 years. And we’re worried

    Translation into practice

    The announcement will also fund a voluntary LGBTQIA+ accreditation program for health-care providers who meet best practice standards.

    This means patients will be able to easily identify services that are “safe and trusted” for LGBTQIA+ communities. It could affect the look and feel of the waiting room, but will also be reflected in policies, procedures and management.

    For example, accredited services should have intake forms that meet Australian Bureau of Statistics standards. Record-keeping would reflect options for diverse genders, titles and family structures. Patients would be assured their information is kept private and confidential, so they feel safe disclosing personal information.

    Accredited services would recognise different genders and family structures.
    Kaboompics.com/Pexels

    Existing training resources have been available and processes such as Rainbow Tick accreditation have had modest take-up in some larger hospitals and community health centres.

    But primary care providers are often overwhelmed by many other essential training needs and have under-utilised these offerings to date.

    This funding will be a huge incentive for many of these clinicians and services to step up, as it signals a new level of priority.

    If implemented effectively, this program could mark a significant step toward a health-care system where LGBTQIA+ Australians – whether a queer teenager in the city, a Brotherboy in a remote community, or an older trans woman in aged care – can get the care they need without discrimination or fear.

    The challenge now will be turning this $10 million promise into real on-the-ground change. This means accrediting a majority of clinics, training thousands of health workers, partnering with LGBTQIA+ community organisations and ultimately ensuring every patient is treated with the understanding and respect they deserve.

    Karinna Saxby has previously received funding from the Department of Health and Aged Care.

    Ruth McNair was part of the expert advisory group for the LGBTIQA+ health and wellbeing ten-year action plan from 2023 to 2024.

    Mo Hammoud does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The government has pledged $10 million for inclusive LGBTQIA+ health care. Here’s what that means – https://theconversation.com/the-government-has-pledged-10-million-for-inclusive-lgbtqia-health-care-heres-what-that-means-254611

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The rise of Brazil’s fuel mafias and their gas station money laundering machines

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Robert Muggah, Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow na Bosch Academy e Co-fundador, Instituto Igarapé

    Brazil’s federal police recently pulled back the curtain on a criminal web that had infiltrated the country’s fuel distribution chains. What looked like ordinary gas stations were, in fact, outposts of a vast laundering machine, washing dirty money with diesel and ethanol. According to Justice Minister Ricardo Lewandowski, more than 1,000 service stations across the country were overseen by organised crime syndicates.

    The plot thickened when Rio de Janeiro’s state police launched raids against the so-called “fuel mafia”, dismantling a racket that sold millions of liters of adulterated fuel. In the process, they revealed a network of ghost companies churning out fake invoices.

    Crime moves into the fuel sector

    Across Brazil organised crime is diversifying beyond narcotics, arms trafficking into the biofuel and fossil fuel sectors. Criminal factions with names such as the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC), Comando Vermelho (CV), and militia groups made-up of retired and active duty police are expanding into fuel theft, smuggling, tax evasion, and money laundering. The pivot by Brazil’s criminal underworld underscores their adaptability in exploiting legitimate markets.

    Fuel theft is hardly new to Brazil. The country’s top fuel distributors – Ale, BR, Ipiranga, and Raizen – have warned of criminal infiltration. But the costs of these illegal activities are significant. According to ICL, an industry group, illegal profits generated by gas stations amounted to $23 billion reais($3.89 billion) in 2021.

    A 2022 study by the Brazilian Public Security Forum (FBSP) revealed that criminal organisations generated approximately 146.8 billion reais (around $25.4 billion) from sectors including fuel, gold, cigarettes, and beverages far surpassing the revenues from cocaine trafficking.

    Meanwhile, a 2024 assessment found that the costs of cargo-theft, fuel-related robberies and fraud generated annual losses of $29 billion reais. Vibra Energia estimated that roughly 13 billion liters of fuel were being traded through “irregular” means a year.

    Fake gas stations, adulterated fuel, and tax fraud

    Organised criminal groups employ multiple strategies to exploit the fuel sector. The most common involves the use of “pirate” gas stations — outlets that flout safety standards and sell adulterated and stolen fuel. Police have exposed hundreds of gas stations linked to individuals indicted or convicted for fuel-related offenses since 2015. In 2019, for example, BR purged its retail network of 730 stations nationwide suspected of involvement in “irregularities”.

    By 2023, the PCC reportedly extended its influence to five ethanol plants and approximately 1,100 of São Paulo’s 9,000 gas stations. And in 2024, police claimed that as many as 30 gas stations in Rio de Janeiro were under PCC control. Meanwhile, the National Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) reported that violations related to the use of methanol — a toxic substance commonly used to adulterate fuels—increased by over 73 percent compared to the previous year.

    Fraud and tax evasion are also common in the fuel sector. In Brazil, fuel taxes on ethanol vary from state to state. These discrepancies create incentives for enterprising criminals to purchase fuel from low-tax jurisdictions and resell in high-tax states to station owners who charge higher tax and pocket the difference.

    A 2019 study by FGV estimated that fuel-related tax evasion generated 7.2 billion reais ($1.3 billion), with major rewards for petrol station owners that laundered funds. There are also schemes that involve tax fraud in fuel production and illegal diesel imports. One prominent case involved Copape, a company that sold fuel below market price by evading import taxes and manipulating its product. The company was later shut down amid allegations of ties to the PCC.

    Another common strategy involves outright theft by installing clandestine taps and siphoning fuel from pipelines. This practice often leads to significant economic losses and poses environmental hazards and public safety risks. The process usually involves precise “insider” knowledge of pipeline networks. In 2019, for example, Petrobras identified over 261 such incidents in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo alone.

    The direct targeting of personnel and infrastructure has also occurred. In 2019, for example, more than 40 people were arrested in Rio de Janeiro in 2019 suspected of extorting and murdering Petrobras contactors. The group was described as highly organised with separate divisions for intimidating targets, tapping pipelines, transporting stolen fuel, and monitoring police movements. Stolen fuel can be sold on to asphalt companies, underground gas owners, and others.

    The entrenchment of organised crime in biofuels such as sugar and palm oil has resulted in confrontations with state authorities. In August 2024, 59,000 hectares of São Paulo’s sugarcane plantations were ravaged by fires resulting in losses of over 1 billion reais. Authorities suspect that the PCC orchestrated arson attacks as retaliation against government measures targeting their involvement in the adulterated fuel trade.

    And in February 2025, police in Rio de Janeiro revealed that operators of an illegal gambling (jogo do bicho) network were financing the criminal extraction of oil from underground pipelines. Proceeds were used to acquire equipment, rent fuel transport vehicles, and pay off personnel. In Rio, and elsewhere in Brazil, such activities undermine the rule of law, distort markets, and erode public trust.

    Technology-enabled solutions to disrupt fuel theft

    Preventing and disrupting infiltration of organised crime into the fuel sectors is challenging. Legal proceedings are often protracted. Efforts by fuel distributors to terminate franchise agreements with non-compliant operators are often stymied by prolonged court battles. The sophistication of Brazil’s criminal organisations also complicates enforcement efforts including their blending of illicit activities with legitimate business.

    At a minimum, federal and state authorities need to track gas stations and pipelines that are implicated in crime. Advanced tracking technologies that improve transparency in the fuel supply chain. And these solutions need to be bolstered by intelligence sharing across jurisdictions. One promising response comes from Brazil’s National Institute of Metrology (Inmetro) which has expanded its inspections of fuel pumps and product quality.

    Companies like Petrobras have ramped up their security measures to protect pipelines, refineries, transportation systems, and petrol stations. Advanced surveillance systems, including drones and sensor-based technology, are now being used by its subsidiary, TransPetro, to monitor pipeline integrity.

    Specialised response teams have also been established to detect and contain illegal taps. Petrobras and Transpetro have also increased collaboration with federal and state security forces to target organised crime cells involved in fuel theft and trafficking.

    In especially high-risk areas, particularly near major refineries such as Duque de Caxias in Rio de Janeiro, joint operations with law enforcement have resulted in arrests and the seizure of illegal equipment used to tap pipelines.

    Petrobras has invested in internal compliance, audit mechanisms, and fuel traceability systems to track product movement and prevent insider threats and diversion to illicit markets. The company has also partnered with regulatory agencies like the (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels, or ANP) to tighten oversight over gas stations and transport companies suspected of facilitating the resale of adulterated or stolen fuel.

    Legislation and regulation is also needed to increase penalties for criminality in the fuel sector. Legal reforms, including a new bill approved in April 2025 targets companies that systematically evade taxes. Another bill is being explored that would mandate real-time electronic reporting of fuel sales and storage to ANP in order to increase traceability.

    A new Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry focusing on the relationship between organised crime and fuel is also about to be launched. Federal police, together with the financial intelligence unit (COAF) and tax authorities are also preparing a broad investigation into related activities.

    Addressing the infiltration of organised crime into Brazil’s biofuel and fossil fuel sectors requires more than enforcement — it demands a coordinated national strategy backed by industry cooperation. Enforced compliance, empowered regulators, transparent supply chains, and worker protections are essential. Without urgent and sustained action, organised crime will continue siphoning off Brazil’s future, weakening one of its most vital sectors.

    *Katherine Aguirre, senior researcher at Igarape Institute, contributed to this article

    Dr. Robert Muggah is the co-founder of the Igarapé Institute, an independent “think and do tank” that develops research, solutions and partnerships to address global public, digital and climate security challenges. Dr. Muggah is also a principal of the SecDev Group, and an advisor to the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank. An advisor to AI start-ups and a climate tech venture firms, Dr. Muggah has experience developing new technologies and testing AI systems for security and governance.

    – ref. The rise of Brazil’s fuel mafias and their gas station money laundering machines – https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-brazils-fuel-mafias-and-their-gas-station-money-laundering-machines-254422

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A landmark ruling will tackle the gender pay gap for thousands of workers

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Macdonald, Policy Director, Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute and Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, RMIT University

    Lordn/Shutterstock

    The Fair Work Commission has found award pay rates in five industrial awards covering a range of female-dominated occupations and industries do not provide equal pay.

    This important decision should narrow the gender pay gap.

    The commission proposed significant increases to award pay rates covering thousands of workers including pharmacists, early childhood education and care workers, psychologists, physiotherapists and some other health workers.

    The Fair Work Commission’s review of the five “priority” awards was undertaken following the Labor government’s changes to the Fair Work Act in 2022. The changes require the commission to take account of the need to achieve gender equality in setting modern award rates of pay.

    Who is covered by the latest review?

    The five priority modern awards reviewed by the expert panel are:

    1. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers and Practitioners and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services Award 2020

    2. Children’s Services Award 2010

    3. Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020

    4. Pharmacy Industry Award 2020

    5. Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010.

    The commission examined the evidence and found many pay rates in the five modern awards do not reflect the value of the work undertaken in these female-dominated occupations and industries.

    The commission found pay rates in these awards are not equal to pay rates for comparable work, due to the work largely being done by women.

    Skills typically required to work with and to provide care and support to people, sometimes referred to as “soft” skills, have not been valued as much as the so-called “hard” skills required in male-dominated technical roles.

    Past attempts were not successful

    Before the Labor government’s 2022 changes to the Fair Work Act, almost all attempts by unions to have industrial tribunals address gender pay inequity failed.

    One major barrier to success was a requirement that discrimination be demonstrated. The need to prove gender undervaluation of work largely done by women by referring to “comparable” jobs largely undertaken by men has also been a problem.

    Now, under an amended Fair Work Act, the Fair Work Commission is able to examine the skills required in feminised jobs to assess the work’s value without needing to find a male comparison.

    The commission’s decision that a total increase of 14% in award rates for pharmacists is justified will take effect in three phases, starting in July 2025.

    The commission’s decisions on pay increases for workers covered by the other four awards, including proposed increases of 23% for Certificate III qualified childcare workers, have been put forward as provisional views only. The expert panel will begin consultations on these views in May.

    Some concerns remain

    The commission’s proposal for remedying gender undervaluation in one of the awards, covering a broad range of workers in social and community services, including disability workers, is puzzling.

    The remedy appears to risk undermining past pay gains won for many social and community services workers because of proposed changes in the classification structure. These changes may not take account of the complexity and diversity of skills used by workers in the wide range of roles covered by the award.

    Reflecting this, unions have expressed concerns the proposals for changes to this award may have the unintended consequence of reducing pay and hurting careers for some workers.

    The final pay increases and their timing for workers covered by the four awards other than the pharmacy award will be made following consultations with unions, employers and funding bodies, including federal and state governments.

    Following last week’s decision, one large employer group is arguing employers in private hospitals and the early childhood education and care sectors cannot afford the proposed pay increases.

    They are calling on the government to fund increases in the industries that are largely government funded, including the early childhood education and care sector.

    The funding picture so far

    The Labor government supported the Fair Work Commission’s gender undervaluation review when it was announced in 2024. At the time the government also made clear it was their view any large pay increases would need to be phased in.

    Aged care workers have already received pay hikes.
    R.Classen/Shutterstock

    The government did fully fund increases for aged care workers, which it said came to a total investment of A$17.7 billion.

    The government has also funded a 15% pay increases for early childhood workers gained through a multi-enterprise agreement covering hundreds of centres. The first increase of 10% came into effect in December, with a further 5% increase due in December 2025.

    Better pay in care and support occupations was identified by the Labor government as essential to the sustainability and growth of the care and support economy.

    The Coalition has not made any commitments regarding funding for any pay increases awarded in the gender undervaluation proceedings. The Coalition spokeswoman on workplace relations, Michaelia Cash, said the Coalition would examine the decision and its implications.

    The Coalition did not support the larger Same Job Same Pay legislation that included the gender equality changes.

    Fiona Macdonald appeared as an expert witness in the Fair Work Commission’s hearing on the review of the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award.

    – ref. A landmark ruling will tackle the gender pay gap for thousands of workers – https://theconversation.com/a-landmark-ruling-will-tackle-the-gender-pay-gap-for-thousands-of-workers-254798

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Tiny dips in sea level reveal flow of climate-regulating underwater waterfalls

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthis Auger, Research Associate in Physical Oceanography, University of Tasmania

    NASA ICE via Flickr, CC BY

    Beneath the surface of the Southern Ocean, vast volumes of cold, dense water plunge off the Antarctic continental shelf, cascading down underwater cliffs to the ocean floor thousands of metres below. These hidden waterfalls are a key part of the global ocean’s overturning circulation – a vast conveyor belt of currents that moves heat, carbon, and nutrients around the world, helping to regulate Earth’s climate.

    For decades, scientists have struggled to observe these underwater waterfalls of dense water around Antarctica. They occur in some of the most remote and stormy waters on the planet, often shrouded by sea ice and funnelled through narrow canyons that are easily missed by research ships.

    But our new research shows that satellites, orbiting hundreds of kilometres above Earth, can detect these sub-sea falls.

    By measuring tiny dips in sea level – just a few centimetres – we can now track the dense water cascades from space. This breakthrough lets us monitor the deepest branches of the ocean circulation, which are slowing down as Antarctic ice melts and surface waters warm.

    Dense water helps regulate the climate

    Antarctic dense water is formed when sea ice grows, in the process making nearby water saltier and more dense. This heavy water then spreads across the continental shelf until it finds a path to spill over the edge, plunging down steep underwater slopes into the deep.

    As the dense water flows northward along the seafloor, it brings oxygen and nutrients into the abyss – as well as carbon and heat drawn from the atmosphere.

    But this crucial process is under threat. Climate change is melting the Antarctic ice sheet, adding fresh meltwater into the ocean and making it harder for dense water to form.

    Underwater waterfalls around Antarctica carry dense, salty surface water into the depths of the ocean.

    Past research has shown the abyssal circulation has already slowed by 30%, and is likely to weaken further in the years ahead. This could reduce the ocean’s ability to absorb heat and carbon, accelerating climate change.

    Our research provides a new technique that can provide easy, direct observations of future changes in the Southern Ocean abyssal overturning circulation.

    Satellites and sea level

    Until now, tracking dense water cascades around Antarctica has relied on moorings, ship-based surveys, and even sensors attached to seals. While these methods deliver valuable local insights, they are costly, logistically demanding, carbon-intensive, and only cover a limited area.

    Satellite data offers an alternative. Using radar, satellites such as CryoSat-2 and Sentinel-3A can measure changes in sea surface height to within a few centimetres.

    And thanks to recent advances in data processing, we can now extract reliable measurements even in ice-covered regions – by peering at the sea surface through cracks and openings in the sea ice.

    Openings or ‘leads’ in sea ice can reveal the height of the sea surface beneath.
    NASA ICE via Flicker, CC BY

    In our study, we combined nearly a decade of satellite observations with high-resolution ocean models focused on the Ross Sea. This is a critical hotspot for Antarctic dense water formation.

    We discovered that dense water cascades leave a telltale surface signal: a subtle but consistent dip in sea level, caused by the cold, heavy water sinking beneath it.

    By tracking these subtle sea level dips, we developed a new way to monitor year-to-year changes in dense water cascades along the Antarctic continental shelf. The satellite signal we identified aligns well with observations collected by other means, giving us confidence that this method can reliably detect meaningful shifts in deep ocean circulation.

    Cheap and effective – with no carbon emissions

    This is the first time Antarctic dense water cascades have been monitored from space. What makes this approach so powerful is its ability to deliver long-term, wide-reaching observations at low cost and with zero carbon emissions – using satellites that are already in orbit.

    These innovations are especially important as we work to monitor a rapidly changing climate system. The strength of deep Antarctic currents remains one of the major uncertainties in global climate projections.

    Gaining the ability to track their changes from space offers a powerful new way to monitor our changing climate – and to shape more effective strategies for adaptation.

    Matthis Auger receives funding from the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative, Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science.

    – ref. Tiny dips in sea level reveal flow of climate-regulating underwater waterfalls – https://theconversation.com/tiny-dips-in-sea-level-reveal-flow-of-climate-regulating-underwater-waterfalls-253940

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: What would Australia be willing to go to war over? This needs to be made clear in our defence strategy

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Carr, Associate Professor, Strategy and Australian Defence Policy, Australian National University

    In 2024, the National Defence Strategy made deterrence Australia’s “primary strategic defence objective”.

    With writing now underway for the 2026 National Defence Strategy, can Australia actually deter threats to the nation?

    Traditionally, our defence strategy only asked that our military capabilities “command respect”. In today’s world, however, Australia needs a far more active military posture to defend itself.

    To effectively deter an adversary, Australia needs the equipment, signals and processes to convince a potentially hostile nation to reconsider the cost of militarily threatening us.

    A deterrence strategy promises to reduce the likelihood of conflict. It reduces the opportunities for an adversary to score “cheap” wins by communicating how we could “deny” their main goal and potentially “punish” them for their aggression.

    It forces an adversary to make a choice: back down or risk failing at your objective and starting a more significant confrontation.

    While we don’t know exactly how a future adversary might react, Australia must do more to make our intent clear on how we would respond to a provocation.

    We are part of an international team researching the ways to do this. This is what we think is needed in the next National Defence Strategy.

    What deterrence looks like

    Creating a credible deterrence posture is not easy. The 2024 defence strategy lists a wide variety of actions that could change an adversary’s risk assessment.

    Some of these things are specific (surveilling and protecting Australia’s sea lanes of communication). Others are vague and loosely connected to deterrence (supporting the global rules-based order).

    To make sure our deterrence message is as clear and effective as possible, the 2026 strategy will need a much tighter policy framework around where Australia would have the power to deter an adversary, and how we would do so.

    It will also need to detail the specific defence preparations Australia has undertaken to credibly deter threats.

    Vagueness in language or generalities in proposed actions will not cut it.

    What history can teach us

    The scholarly literature on how to implement an effective deterrence is largely drawn from Cold War history.

    Many times, the US and USSR made deliberate efforts to send deterrence signals to the other side. They did this by acquiring new capabilities (such as longer-range missiles) and expanding their nuclear stockpiles, or by conducting military exercises and deploying forces around the world. These messages, however, were often misunderstood.

    Sometimes, these signals – such as US President John F. Kennedy’s reinforcement of West Berlin with an additional battalion during the Berlin Crisis of 1961 – made political sense, but less so militarily.

    One way for Australia to approach this deterrence question is considering the adversary’s theory of victory – how they seek to achieve their goal – and then identifying ways to explicitly and publicly show we can disrupt it.

    For example, after winning the 1982 Falkland Islands War against Argentina, Britain invested significant resources into the Mount Pleasant Air Base on the islands. They are now home to up to 2,000 personnel, enabling significant and rapid reinforcements in the event of future hostilities.

    The use of ‘trip wires’

    Australia is now acquiring significant new strike capabilities. However, even if we increase our defence spending beyond the 3% of GDP currently being discussed, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) will not be able to defend everything across the entire region and the waters around us.

    We will need to find low-cost defensive actions.

    Deterring an adversary from attempting a “cheap win” against Australia, for instance, might require the “forward presence” of Australian troops far from our own shores. Even if they would not be able to defend against an attack on their own, they could serve as a “trip wire” force. This means if they were attacked, it would likely compel Australia to go to war.

    So, let’s say Australia has a “forward presence” of troops stationed in the Cocos Islands, Papua New Guinea or even the Philippines. This signals a credible commitment to use those forces to protect ourselves and our regional partners against a threat. And should these soldiers be killed, it would likely generate public anger and a political insistence on a significant response.

    While a lot of contemporary military thinking is about how to put robots and drones in harm’s way instead of our fellow citizens, some tasks, such as a “forward presence” deterrence, can likely only be done by humans.

    We need to be clear about red lines

    All of this means that deterrence is not just about a country’s capabilities – going to war is ultimately about politics, and human emotion.

    As such, credibility also depends on practical rituals – such as Britain holding Cabinet meetings in the Falklands and NATO hosting flag parades in the Baltics. These convey a belief over what matters enough to go to war.

    For Australian deterrence to be more credible, the next iteration of the National Defence Strategy will have to be more explicit than its predecessor in spelling out what Australia would be willing to go to war over.

    If our government cannot address this now, how are we going to communicate this to an adversary – and convince them of it – in a crisis?

    The government is understandably reluctant to be specific about the commitments and threats it is willing and able to make in a public document, or to acknowledge the limits to Australia’s abilities.

    But deterring without communicating is a contradiction in terms. We need to be explicit about what would cause Australia to resist or retaliate, even at the cost of war, in order to credibly deter an adversary from taking such an action.
    This must be at the core of how the 2026 National Defence Strategy approaches deterrence as Australia’s “primary defence objective”.

    This piece is part of a series on the future of defence in Australia. Read the other stories here.

    Andrew Carr receives funding from the Department of Defence on a research project on ‘Pathways of Deterrence’.

    Stephan Fruehling receives funding from the Department of Defence on a research project on ‘Pathways of Deterrence’.

    – ref. What would Australia be willing to go to war over? This needs to be made clear in our defence strategy – https://theconversation.com/what-would-australia-be-willing-to-go-to-war-over-this-needs-to-be-made-clear-in-our-defence-strategy-253246

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How will a new pope be chosen? An expert explains the conclave

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University

    Following the death of Pope Francis, we’ll soon be seeing a new leader in the Vatican. The conclave – a strictly confidential gathering of Roman Catholic cardinals – is due to meet in a matter of weeks to elect a new earthly head.

    The word conclave is derived from the Latin con (together) and clāvis (key). It means “a locked room” or “chamber”, reflecting its historical use to describe the locked gathering of cardinals to elect a pope.

    Held in the Sistine Chapel, the meeting follows a centuries-old process designed to ensure secrecy and prayerful deliberation. A two-thirds majority vote will be required to successfully elect the 267th pope.

    History of the conclave

    The formalised papal conclave dates back centuries. And various popes shaped the process in response to the church’s need.

    In the 13th century, for example, Pope Gregory X introduced strict regulations to prevent unduly long elections.

    Pope Gregory X brought in the rules to prevent a repeat of his own experience. The conclave that elected him in September 1271 (following the death of Pope Clement IV in 1268) lasted almost three years.

    Further adjustments have been made to streamline the process and emphasise secrecy, culminating in Pope John Paul II’s 1996 constitution, Universi Dominici gregis (The Lord’s whole flock). This document set the modern framework for the conclave.

    In 2007 and 2013, Benedict XVI reiterated that a two-thirds majority of written votes would be required to elect a new pope. He also reaffirmed penalties for breaches of secrecy.

    The secrecy surrounding the conclave ensures the casting of ballots remains confidential, and without any external interference.

    The last known attempt at external interference in a papal conclave occurred in 1903 when Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria sought to prevent the election of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla. However, the assembled cardinals rejected this intervention, asserting the independence of the electoral process.

    How does voting work?

    The conclave formally begins between 15 and 20 days after the papal vacancy, but can start earlier if all cardinals eligible to vote have arrived. Logistical details, such as the funeral rites for the deceased pope, can also influence the overall timeline.

    Historically, the exact number of votes required to elect a new pope has fluctuated. Under current rules, a minimum two-thirds majority is needed. If multiple rounds of balloting fail to yield a result, the process can continue for days, or even weeks.

    After every few inconclusive rounds, cardinals pause for prayer and reflection. This process continues until one candidate receives the two-thirds majority required to win. The final candidates do not vote for themselves in the decisive round.

    The ballot paper formerly used in the conclave, with ‘I elect as Supreme Pontiff’ written in Latin.
    Wikimedia Commons

    How is voting kept secret?

    The papal conclave is entirely closed to the public. Voting is conducted by secret ballot within the Sistine Chapel in the Apostolic Palace, the pope’s official residence.

    During the conclave, the Sistine Chapel is sealed off from outside communication. No cameras are allowed, and no live broadcast exists.

    The cardinals involved swear an oath of absolute secrecy – under threat of excommunication if violated – ensuring all discussions and voting remain strictly confidential.

    The iconic white smoke, produced by burning ballots once a pope has been chosen, is the only public signal the election has concluded successfully.

    Who can be elected?

    Only cardinals under 80 years of age at the time of conclave’s commencement can vote. Older cardinals are free to attend preparatory meetings, but can not cast ballots.

    While the total number of electors is intended not to exceed 120, the fluctuating nature of cardinal appointments, as well as the age restrictions, make it difficult to predict the exact number of eligible voters at any given conclave.

    Technically, any baptised Catholic man can be elected pope. In practice, however, the College of Cardinals traditionally chooses one of its own members. Electing an “outsider” is extremely rare, and has not occurred in modern times.

    What makes a good candidate?

    When faced with criticism from a member of the public about his weight, John XXIII (who was pope from 1958-1963) retorted the papal conclave was “not a exactly beauty contest”.

    Merit, theological understanding, administrative skill and global perspective matter greatly. But there is also a collegial element – something of a “popularity contest”. It is an election, after all.

    Cardinals discuss the church’s current priorities – be they evangelisation strategies, administrative reforms or pastoral concerns – before settling on the individual they believe is best suited to lead.

    The cardinal electors seek someone who can unify the faithful, navigate modern challenges and maintain doctrinal continuity.

    Controversies and criticisms

    The conclave process has faced criticism for its strict secrecy, which can foster speculation about potential “politicking”.

    Critics argue a tightly controlled environment might not reflect the broader concerns of the global church.

    Some have also questioned whether age limits on voting cardinals fully capture the wisdom and experience found among older members.

    Nonetheless, defenders maintain that secrecy encourages free and sincere deliberation, minimising external pressure and allowing cardinals to choose the best leader without fear of reprisal, or of public opinion swaying the vote.

    Challenges facing the new pope

    The next pope will inherit a mixed situation: a church that has grown stronger in certain areas under Francis, yet which grapples with internal divisions and external challenges.

    Like other religions, the church faces secularisation, issues with financial transparency and a waning following in some parts of the globe.

    For the newly elected pope, one of the earliest trials will be unifying the global Catholic community around a shared vision – an obstacle almost every pope has faced.

    Striking the right balance between doctrine and pastoral sensitivity remains crucial. Also, addressing sexual abuse scandals and their aftermath will require decisive action, transparency and continued pastoral care for survivors.

    Practical concerns also loom large. The new pope will have to manage the Vatican bureaucracy and interfaith relations, while maintaining the church’s voice on global crises such as migration and poverty – two issues on which Francis insisted mercy could not be optional.

    The cardinal electors have a tough decision ahead of them. The Catholic community can only pray that, through their deliberations, they identify a shepherd who can guide the church through the complexities of the modern world.

    Darius von Guttner Sporzynski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. How will a new pope be chosen? An expert explains the conclave – https://theconversation.com/how-will-a-new-pope-be-chosen-an-expert-explains-the-conclave-250506

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Haka in the House: what will Te Pāti Māori’s protest mean for tikanga in parliament?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic O’Sullivan, Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University and Adjunct Professor Stout Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington and Auckland University of Technology., Charles Sturt University

    Te Pāti Māori’s Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke lead a haka with Eru Kapa-Kingi outside parliament, November 19, 2024. Getty Images

    Time is apparently running out for the three Te Pāti Māori MPs whose haka in parliament during the Treaty Principles Bill debate last year attracted huge international attention.

    Parliament’s Privileges Committee has summoned the MPs to appear on Wednesday (April 23). But given their previous resistance to fronting up, it seems unlikely they will.

    The committee is investigating whether the haka broke parliament’s rules. The MPs say they don’t think they’ll get a fair hearing because the committee won’t allow legal representation or evidence from an expert in tikanga Maori.

    According to Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngawera-Packer, this “is a display of power designed to silence us”.

    But the case is about more than possible breaches of parliamentary protocol and standing orders. It also asks serious questions about our liberal democracy in general.

    Everybody needs to express themselves freely and without fear. So, when MPs leave their seats and come close to their opponents, does it cross a line? That was certainly the ruling last year when Green MP Julie Anne Genter was censured for crossing the floor and confronting another MP.

    Perhaps there is still good reason for New Zealand following the British parliamentary tradition of the government and opposition benches being two and a half sword lengths apart.

    But it has already been established that haka are allowed in parliament. The real questions are how, when, why and according to which rules or tikanga?

    The problem with ‘partnership’

    According to the political philosopher Nancy Fraser, democracy should support every citizen to participate in public life equally:

    [Justice] requires social arrangements that permit all members to participate in social interaction on a par with one another. So that means they must be able to participate as peers in all the major forms of social interaction.

    If parliament and the democratic system belong equally to everyone, then everyone should be able to say this ideal matches their experience. In other words, people have one voice of equal value, not just one vote.

    This is why the appropriate use of haka in parliament needs to be worked out. At one level it is about people being able to express their ideas in ways that make sense to them and the people they represent.

    At a deeper level, the issue revolves around who actually “owns” parliament. Everyone? Or everyone except Māori people and their representatives? Does everyone have a voice of equal value?

    Part of the problem is the notion of “partnership” between Māori and the Crown proposed by the Court of Appeal in 1987. Well intentioned as it might have been, this also created an “us and them” way of thinking.

    In this sense, the Crown and its institutions are seen as separate or foreign to Māori – as belonging to other people. If that’s the case, parliament can’t then belong to everybody or reflect everybody’s customs and ways of being.

    But if parliament belongs to everyone and sovereignty is not simply the oppressive authority of a distant king, but rather the shared property of every citizen, then the haka belongs as a distinctive form of political expression. It becomes part of the tikanga of the parliament.

    Tikanga Māori in practice

    However, tikanga is not simply about how parliamentary procedure deals with haka, waiata or the Māori language itself.

    As an authority on tikanga, Hirini Moko Mead, put it, the concept is

    a set of beliefs and practices associated with procedures to be followed in conducting the affairs of a group or an individual. These procedures, as established by precedents through time, are held to be ritually, are validated by usually more than one generation and are always subject to what a group or an individual is able to do.

    Like parliamentary standing orders, tikanga is procedural and grounded in broader principles of justice and ethics.

    Legal scholars Māmari Stephens and Carwyn Jones describe how tikanga prioritises relationships, collective obligations and inclusive decision-making. The Māori concept of wānganga or “active discussion”, Jones has written, is a framework for robust debate to enhance mutual understanding, but which doesn’t necessarily require consensus.

    Tikanga Māori and deliberative democracy

    The idea that political decisions should be based on reasoning, listening and serious reflection is known as deliberative democracy. It’s basically the opposite of outright majority rule based on “having the numbers”, which sometimes happens without any debate at all.

    Political theorists Selen Ercan and John Dryzek define deliberative democracy as being about

    putting communication at the heart of politics, recognising the need for reflective justification of positions, stressing the pursuit of reciprocal understanding across those who have different frameworks or ideologies.

    If that is true, then shouting across the parliamentary debating chamber doesn’t help. Nor does using the haka to intimidate.

    But using it to make a fair and reasonable point, to which others may respond, is essential to a parliament that is genuinely a “house of representatives”. Tikanga Māori and deliberative democratic processes offer complementary ways of working out what this could mean in practice.

    Dominic O’Sullivan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Haka in the House: what will Te Pāti Māori’s protest mean for tikanga in parliament? – https://theconversation.com/haka-in-the-house-what-will-te-pati-maoris-protest-mean-for-tikanga-in-parliament-254772

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Is a corporation a slave? Many philosophers think so

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duncan Ian Wallace, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University

    f11photo/Shutterstock

    If you’ve ever heard the term “wage slave”, you’ll know many modern workers – perhaps even you – sometimes feel enslaved to the organisation at which they work.

    But here’s a different way of thinking about it: for-profit business corporations are themselves slaves.

    Corporations such as Microsoft, Google and Tesla are what the law describes as “legal persons”, with many of the same rights and duties in law as individual persons have.

    One right that they do not share with individuals, however, is the right not to be owned as property – the right not to be enslaved.

    For though Microsoft, Google and Tesla are persons in law, they are also owned by their shareholders as property. And as legal persons that are owned as property, I argue, such corporations are slaves.

    Wait, what?

    As someone who’s spent years researching the history and philosophy of corporate legal personhood, I’ve done a lot of thinking about the corporation as a kind of organism, or person.

    I have come to the belief that corporations are persons not only in law, but are persons also in reality. Their legal personalities are only the recognition of real, underlying, group personalities.

    I am far from the only person to believe in the reality of corporate personality.

    Philosophers Christian List and Philip Pettit, for example, advance the idea in their influential 2011 book, Group Agency.

    In the book, List and Pettit argue that an appropriately organised social group, such as a corporation, has attitudes independent of the attitudes of the group’s individual members.

    More than the sum of its parts

    Such a group is more than the sum of its parts. It has its own personality, which emerges from the coordinated action of its individual members. This personality can survive changes in membership.

    This shows, List and Pettit claim, such groups have “minds of their own”. They possess a sophisticated psychology enabling them to reflect on their choices and actions, make judgements on the basis of evidence and understand concepts such as right and wrong, or life and death.

    In short, appropriately organised social groups really are capable of being understood as persons – “group persons”. They exist, alongside individual persons, as a normal part of human society.

    And these group persons are capable of being owned as property. Consider for-profit corporations. They are traded on markets as commodities; are bought, sold and exploited; and are forced to maximise profits in the interests of their owners – their shareholders.

    They are persons owned as property. They are, in other words, in the condition of slavery.

    Look at Roman slave law

    The idea that group persons can be slaves is an old idea. With respect to the for-profit corporation, however, it is generally rejected by modern corporate law scholars.

    They argue that because corporations are persons in law, this demonstrates such entities cannot be owned.

    They also point out that shareholders have limited liability for the debts of their corporations. This shows, they say, that shareholders cannot be thought of as true owners.

    Such objections can be met, however, by examining the slave laws of societies where slavery was legal.

    Under Roman law, for instance, slaves – though the personal property of their masters – were clearly recognised as persons in law. They were able to own property, could contract, go into debt, be held responsible for wrongs, and sue others for wrongs committed against them.

    Indeed, it was common for such slaves to run businesses of their own (though ultimately for the financial benefit of the master).

    And when slaves ran such businesses, their masters had limited liability for the debts of their slaves – just as shareholders have limited liability for the debts of their for-profit corporations today.

    Roman slave law is no exception in these respects. The same can be found under the slave laws of Ancient Greece, medieval Islam, and in those of the 19th century American South.

    An Ancient Roman mosaic from Tunisia, showing slaves pouring drinks at a banquet.
    Dennis G. Jarvis, CC BY-SA

    4 reasons this matters

    Identifying for-profit corporations as slaves matters for four reasons.

    First, it highlights potential moral problems with owning corporations. When we have shares in the ownership of for-profit corporations, we are participating as masters in a system of slavery.

    Second, the ability to own for-profit corporations as “slaves” is a major driver of inequality. The richest people in the world have all made their money from owning corporations, and their ability to amass such wealth would be unimaginable otherwise.

    The third reason identifying for-profit corporations as slaves matters is because it provides an explanation for why corporations maximise profits in the interests of shareholders. It is because shareholders own them, and force this behaviour upon them.

    Fourth, identifying corporations as slaves offers a solution to the problem of corporate profit-maximising behaviour (a behaviour causing great social and environmental harm): getting rid of shareholders.

    Consider, for example, worker cooperatives like Mondragon Corporation in Spain and the John Lewis Partnership in the United Kingdom.

    They are share-less corporations. They are unowned. They are corporations free from enslavement.

    The effect is that they do not maximise profits. Instead, they value the wellbeing of their workers.

    Duncan Ian Wallace does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Is a corporation a slave? Many philosophers think so – https://theconversation.com/is-a-corporation-a-slave-many-philosophers-think-so-253226

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Fossil fuel companies ‘poisoned the well’ of public debate with climate disinformation. Here’s how Australia can break free

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science, Harvard University

    President Donald Trump has issued an executive order that would block state laws seeking to tackle greenhouse gas emissions – the latest salvo in his administration’s campaign to roll back United States’ climate action.

    Under Trump, the US has clearly abdicated climate leadership. But the US has in fact obstructed climate action for decades – largely due to damaging actions by the powerful fossil fuel industry.

    In 20 years studying attacks on climate science and the powerful forces at work behind the scenes, I’ve come to think the United States is simply not going to lead on climate action. The fossil fuel industry has so poisoned the well of public debate in the US that it’s unlikely the nation will lead on the issue in our lifetimes.

    Australia, on the other hand, has enormous potential.

    I recently visited Australia from Harvard University for a series of public talks. This nation is very close to my heart. I trained as a mining geologist and spent three years in outback South Australia, before returning to academia.

    The vacuum Trump has created on climate policy provides a chance for other countries to lead. Australia has much more to gain from the clean-energy future than it stands to lose – and your climate action could be pivotal.

    The climate crisis: a long time coming

    Scientists first warned against burning fossil fuels way back in the 1950s. When the US Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the words “weather” and “climate” were included because scientists had already explained to Congress that carbon dioxide was a pollutant with serious — even dire — effects.

    In the late 1980s, scientists at NASA observed changes in the climate system that could only be explained by the extra heating effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The predictions had become reality.

    When George H.W. Bush ran successfully for president in 1988, he promised to use the power of the “White House effect” to fight the “greenhouse effect”. In 1992, Bush and other world leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Together, 178 countries promised action to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with Earth’s climate. But that action never came.

    Trump has undoubtedly been bad news for global climate action. He makes preposterous claims about science and is dismantling the federal agencies responsible for supporting climate science and maintaining climate data.

    But the US has long failed to play its part in cutting dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. The reason for this lies largely outside the White House.

    If only George H.W. Bush had used the White House effect to counter the greenhouse effect, as he once promised to.
    mark reinstein, Shutterstock

    A long-running campaign of disinformation

    The fossil fuel industry has known about climate change for as long as scientists have.

    In the late 1970s and early 1980s, scientists at Esso (later ExxonMobil) actively researched the topic, building climate models and coauthoring scientific papers.

    The scientists informed their managers of the risk of catastrophic damage if the burning of oil, gas and coal continued unabated. They even suggested the company might need a different business model – one not so dependent on fossil fuels.

    But managers at ExxonMobil made a fateful decision: to turn from information to disinformation. Working in tandem with other oil, gas and coal companies, as well as automobile and aluminium manufacturers, ExxonMobil launched an organised campaign, sustained over decades, to block climate action by casting doubt on the underlying science.

    They ran ad campaigns in national and local newspapers insisting the science was too unsettled to warrant action. They created “astroturf” organisations that only pretended to be green, and funded “third-party allies” to argue that proposed remedies would be too expensive, cost jobs and damage the economy.

    The company funded outlier scientists to publish papers claiming atmospheric warming was the result of natural climate variability. They pressured journalists to give equal time to “their side” of the story in the name of “balance”.

    Over the next three decades, whenever any meaningful climate policy seemed to be gaining traction, the industry and its allies lobbied Congress and state legislatures to block it. So, neither Democratic nor Republican administrations were able to undertake meaningful climate action.

    While people were dying in climate-charged floods and fires, the fossil fuel industry persuaded a significant proportion of the US population, including Trump, that the whole thing might just be a hoax.

    Rise up Australia

    In a matter of weeks after becoming president, Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, shut down government websites hosting climate data, and withdrew support for research that dares to mention the word “climate”.

    This has created a vacuum that other countries, including Australia, can step up to fill.

    Few countries have more to lose from climate change than Australia. The continent has already witnessed costly and devastating wildfires and floods — affecting remote areas and major cities. It’s not unreasonable to worry that in coming years, significant parts of Australia could become uninhabitable.

    Like the US, Australia has a powerful fossil fuel industry that has disproportionately influenced its politics. Unlike the US, however, that industry is based mainly on coal for export, which Australians do not depend on in their daily lives.

    And Australia is truly a lucky country. It has unsurpassed potential to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.

    More than 15 years ago, Australian researchers in the Zero Carbon Australia project offered a blueprint for how the country could eliminate fossil fuel use entirely. Since then, renewable energy has only become cheaper and more efficient.

    South Australia has proved the point: the state was 100% reliant on fossil fuels for electricity in 2002, but now more than 70% comes from renewables.

    Across Australia, the share of renewable electricity generation is growing. Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are vying for second place after SA. It’s fascinating to watch the National Electricity Market balance supply and demand in real time, where a large proportion of the electricity comes from rooftop solar.

    For decades, the fossil fuel industry has told the public our societies can’t manage without fossil fuels. Large parts of Australia have proved it’s just not so. The rest of the nation can follow that lead, and model the energy transition for the world. Here’s your chance.

    Over the past two decades, Naomi Oreskes has received grant funding from various governments and non-government organisations to support the research upon which this piece is based. She serves on the board of The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which works to protect the integrity of climate science, and climate scientists, from politically motivated attacks. The Fund is a registered 501 c(3) non-profit organisation, meaning it does not engage in political activities. She is also an emerita board member of Protect our Winters, a 501 c (3) that works with the winter sports community to educate people about climate change and the threat it poses to winter sports. Naomi serves on the board of the Kann-Rasmussen foundation (Denmark), a non-profit foundation that works “to support the transition to a more environmentally resilient stable, and sustainable planet”.
    Naomi currently serves as a consultant to a number of groups pursuing climate litigation in the United States, and recently submitted an expert report to the International Court of Justice on behalf of Vanuatu. She also receives speaking fees and book royalties for talks and publications on the history of climate science and climate change denial. Co-author, with Erik M. Conway, of Merchants of Doubt (2010) and The Big Myth (2023).

    – ref. Fossil fuel companies ‘poisoned the well’ of public debate with climate disinformation. Here’s how Australia can break free – https://theconversation.com/fossil-fuel-companies-poisoned-the-well-of-public-debate-with-climate-disinformation-heres-how-australia-can-break-free-251221

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Since its very conception, Star Wars has been political. Now Andor will take on Trump 2.0

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dan Golding, Professor and Chair of the Department of Media and Communication, Swinburne University of Technology

    Lucasfilm Ltd™

    Premiering today, the second and final season of Star Wars streaming show Andor seems destined to be one of the pop culture defining moments of the second Trump presidency.

    Andor, which began airing in 2022, tells the story of the early days of the Rebel Alliance before the adventures of Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia. The series is the most politically articulate of the Star Wars franchise.

    Where older Star Wars entries focused on lightsaber battles and dogfights in space, Andor shows a world of political manifestos, fractious alliances between rebel groups, and surreptitious fundraising for revolution.

    Season one of the show followed the political awakening of the titular Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), who progresses from troubled thief to total ideological commitment to fighting the Empire. The show also follows a covert revolutionary leader (Stellan Skarsgård), an ineffective politician who secretly finances the rebellion (Genevieve O’Reilly), and two Imperials manoeuvring for power (Denise Gough and Kyle Soller).

    Showrunner Tony Gilroy has so far taken inspiration for Andor from a variety of real historical revolutionary events, from Stalin’s bank robbery in Tiflis of 1907 to the Baader-Meinhof group in West Germany.

    Aesthetically, Andor has more in common with the political filmmaking of the likes of The Battle of Algiers (1966), the films of Costa-Gavras, or early Paul Greengrass than the central Flash Gordon-inspired Star Wars saga.

    As authoritarian governments and conflicts loom large globally, the final season of Andor in 2025 is perfectly timed to articulate anxieties much closer to home than the galaxy far, far away.

    Star Wars has always been political

    Andor is far from the first time that Star Wars has captured the political zeitgeist. In fact, much of the franchise’s success stems from the way it provides us with a pop culture language to talk about politics.

    In 2016, Trump’s first election win coincided with the release of Rogue One, the Star Wars precursor to Andor.

    Within days, two Star Wars creatives made public comparisons between Trump and Rogue One’s villains, with writer Chris Weitz posting on Twitter “the Empire is a white supremacist (human) organization”. Writer Gary Whitta replied: “Opposed by a multi-cultural group led by brave women”.

    They were officially reprimanded by the studio. “This is a film that the world should enjoy,” said Disney CEO Bob Iger at the time. “It is not a film that is, in any way, a political film.”

    Under the ownership of a risk averse corporation like Disney, Star Wars is supposed to be family friendly, apolitical entertainment.

    However, since its very conception, Star Wars has been political.

    Inspired by anti-Vietnam war protests, director George Lucas described Darth Vader and the Empire as “Nixonian gangsters” in early drafts of the original film’s script. Lucas, who had developed Apocalypse Now before Francis Ford Coppola ultimately directed the film, has consistently claimed to have thought of the Rebel Alliance as similar to North Vietnamese fighters resisting United States forces.

    When it came time for the prequel trilogy in the 2000s, Lucas told a story of democracy willingly falling to dictatorship (beginning with a trade war, something not lost on contemporary observers). In 2005, Lucas even had Darth Vader paraphrase George W. Bush.

    It has also shaped politics. Scholars and critics like Andrew Britton and Robin Wood argued Star Wars was so escapist and disconnected from politics here on earth that it set the scene for Ronald Reagan’s good-versus-evil rhetoric.

    A galaxy not so far away

    It is precisely Star Wars’ apolitical image that gives it so much political utility. A series with such strong heroes and villains inevitably invites comparison.

    Almost immediately after its release in 1977, Star Wars became a pop culture language for understanding politics.

    When Maggie Thatcher won government in the United Kingdom on May 4 1979, the Conservative Party took out an advertisement in the London Evening News congratulating her with the words “May the Fourth Be With You”.

    When Ronald Reagan proposed a “Strategic Defense Initiative” missile system in 1983, critics immediately and famously labelled it “Star Wars” (something Lucas tried unsuccessfully to stop). Reagan himself eventually joined in, too, claiming in a speech in 1985 that “the Force is with us”.

    It is easy to find examples of politicians of all stripes being likened to Star Wars villains like Darth Vader (most enduring was Dick Cheney who claimed to not mind the comparison).

    Composer John Williams’ Imperial March has even been played at protests as a way to antagonise opponents.

    The enduring currency of the political language of Star Wars is in part due to its generalities. In any political conflict it helps to have a way to describe an archetypal evil puppet master (the Emperor), his henchman (Darth Vader), and the soulful heroes putting their lives on the line (the Jedi).

    The real trick to Star Wars’ ongoing relevance, however, lies in its very real inspirations. Whether it is George W. Bush, the Viet Cong, or the Bolsheviks, Star Wars has time and again turned the specifics of political history into mythology.

    At a time where many see global politics as having set the stage for the Empire to Strike Back, the final season of Andor may give many a language to articulate A New Hope.

    Dan Golding does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Since its very conception, Star Wars has been political. Now Andor will take on Trump 2.0 – https://theconversation.com/since-its-very-conception-star-wars-has-been-political-now-andor-will-take-on-trump-2-0-254208

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Parents delay sending kids to school for social reasons and physical size. It’s not about academic advantage

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Penny Van Bergen, Associate Professor in the Psychology of Education, Macquarie University

    If you have a child born at the start of the year, you may be faced with a tricky and stressful decision. Do you send them to school “early”, in the year they turn five? Or do you “hold them back” and send them in the year they turn six?

    Media reports refer to parents who want to “hold children back”. This is particularly the case for boys. Some parents express concerns boys may develop more slowly and school activities may favour girls.

    Our new study surveyed Australian parents to understand their reasons for sending children to school early or on time or holding them back.

    School entry in Australia

    State regulations for the age of starting school vary across Australia, and between public, Catholic and independent schools.

    Typically, however, children born in the first part of the year can be sent to school in either the year they turn five or the year they turn six. This can lead to big age caps in a school year level.

    Public school cutoff dates are April 30 in Victoria, May 1 in South Australia, June 30 in Queensland and July 31 in New South Wales.

    A 2019 study of more than 160,000 NSW students showed overall, 26% of children were held back, although there was variation between different regions. This is much higher than in many other countries. For example, delayed entry is as low as 5.5% in the United States and 6% in Germany.



    Read more:
    A push to raise the school starting age to 6 sounds like good news for parents, but there’s a catch

    Our research

    In our research published in Early Education and Development, we surveyed 226 Australian parents who had a choice about whether to send their child to school in the year they turned five or six. Parents were from a mix of states and recruited via social media and a variety of other media, including parenting magazines.

    We found 29% of parents intended to send their child to school in the first year they were eligible and 66% planned to start later. About 5% were unsure. Consistent with trends in other countries, parents were almost four times as likely to report they intended to start boys later than girls.

    There were five key factors guiding their decisions.

    1. Money and work

    One group of factors, which we labelled “practical realities”, meant parents were more likely to send a child on time or early.

    This included high early childhood education costs (it is much cheaper to send a child to a government school than pay for daycare) and parents’ work demands (and the benefits of regular school hours). As one parent said:

    School is a cheaper option for many parents and community preschool (which is cheaper, depending on the number of days) is not a practical option for many working families.

    2. A child’s size

    Parents also considered their child’s physical size relative to their peers. Other studies suggest parents worry smaller boys will be bullied and will struggle to demonstrate sporting prowess.

    Reflecting on this trend, one parent said:

    I would prefer that my child wasn’t starting school with children well over a year older just because other parents think boys need a bit more time to mature. They are then significantly older and bigger by then.

    3. Social readiness

    Another group of factors involved children’s social, emotional and behavioral readiness for school. This includes their ability to pay attention and sit still, follow instructions, regulate and manage emotions and show empathy and consideration for others.

    One parent sending their child to school in the year they turn five said:

    Our child will be fine […] He is able, social and confident and hopefully this will mean he will have a positive school experience irrespective of what year he starts.

    Another who chose to hold their child back suggested:

    I want my child to be introduced to formal schooling as late as possible to ensure his brain development and emotional regulation are mature enough to handle the transition.

    4. Family time

    Another set of reasons influencing parents’ decisions was a desire to spend time together with their child before formal schooling. As one parent said:

    I always hear that no one ever regrets sending their child a bit later but they often regret sending early. I can afford for her to have an extra year of preschool and time at home and that is a luxury I acknowledge not everyone has.

    5. Milestones

    Parents also looked to the future and considered their child’s age relative to peers. This included when they would be starting high school or completing teenage milestones, such as driving, drinking, managing friendships and finishing school. This might explain why rates of holding children back vary by region. As one parent told us:

    The people around me having a choice (and holding their children back) ended up influencing my choice. She [my daughter] could have started school but would have been in a peer group that had been held back.

    What about academic concerns?

    Interestingly, parents did not typically express academic concerns or motivations (such as a desire to see their child move ahead of others academically) as a factor in their decision. Indeed, as one parent said:

    I have very strong beliefs about what school readiness means and for me it is much more than just being academically ready.

    Although there is evidence older children have a developmental advantage over younger children when entering school, academic benefits dissipate over time. For example, older children do better on Year 3 and 5 NAPLAN numeracy and literacy tests, but benefits fade or disappear by Year 9.

    What does this mean?

    Our research suggests the reasons why parents start a child early or hold them back are complex – and very much based on the needs of individual families and children.

    Taken together they suggest teachers not only need to accommodate a wide range of ages starting school but a sizeable portion of families who will have “delayed” school for a variety of personal reasons.

    Penny Van Bergen receives funding from the ARC, Google and the Marsden Fund.

    Naomi Sweller receives funding from the ARC.

    Rebecca Andrews receives funding from NSW Department of Education and the Australian Children’s Early Childhood Quality Authority.

    Anne McMaugh and Kay Bussey do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Parents delay sending kids to school for social reasons and physical size. It’s not about academic advantage – https://theconversation.com/parents-delay-sending-kids-to-school-for-social-reasons-and-physical-size-its-not-about-academic-advantage-254076

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘I’m a failure’: how schema therapy tackles the deep-rooted beliefs that affect our mental health

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Houlihan, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast

    Jorm Sangsorn/Shutterstock

    If you ever find yourself stuck in repeated cycles of negative emotion, you’re not alone.

    More than 40% of Australians will experience a mental health issue in their lifetime. Many are linked to deep-rooted feelings that develop from childhood experiences.

    Changing these lifelong patterns takes time, energy and support. For some people, schema therapy can help.

    What is schema therapy?

    Schema therapy was developed in the 1990s by psychologist Jeffrey Young as an extension of cognitive behaviour therapy.

    Cognitive behaviour therapy is a popular psychotherapy that helps people change problematic patterns in their thoughts and behaviour, improving how they feel.

    Among psychological interventions, cognitive behaviour therapy has the strongest evidence for successfully treating the majority of mental health problems.

    However, not all conditions benefit from it.

    Cognitive behaviour therapy is brief (usually delivered across 10–12 sessions) and focuses on changing the “here and now”. But more complex issues – or those tied strongly to past experiences, such as multiple traumas – may need longer-term therapy.

    Like cognitive behaviour therapy, schema therapy aims to help reframe unhelpful ways of thinking through regular sessions with a psychotherapist.

    But instead of prioritising everyday challenges, it uncovers deep-rooted beliefs, explores how and why they formed, and how they affect day-to-day life and people’s perceptions of themselves.

    What are schemas?

    “Schemas” are mental blueprints that filter how we see ourselves, others and the world. Most of us are not consciously aware of them.

    Yet schemas run deep. Problematic ones – such as “I am a failure” or “others can’t be trusted” or “the world is scary and unsafe” – can affect our mental health and lead us to destructive patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving.

    For example, someone with a “failure” schema may be highly sensitive to criticism, experience crippling anxiety, and have low self-worth. Having a “mistrust” schema may cause issues with forming close relationships and lead to loneliness and depression.

    Schemas run deep and can make us feel stuck.
    Raul Mallado Ortiz/Shutterstock

    How does schema therapy work?

    Therapists may specialise in schema therapy through additional training and supervision, which can lead to accreditation with the International Society of Schema Therapy.

    During schema therapy you and your therapist will discuss your current concerns and develop a safe and trusting relationship before exploring the problematic schemas that are affecting you today. Schema therapy may involve talking, completing a schema questionnaire, and engaging in therapeutic activities during and in between sessions.

    These activities are tailored to your situation, once you’ve explored which schemas affect you and what negative emotions arise. They are designed to help you process and heal from negative feelings such as helplessness, anger and shame.

    One such activity involves using mental imagery to revisit challenging experiences in your past and to reframe how you think about them.

    Another is to use empty chairs in the therapy room to speak to the different parts of yourself that are connected to the negative emotions. For example, talking to your child self, or to the side of you that tries to hide your feelings from others.

    After this you will work with your therapist to come up with positive behaviour change strategies and apply them in daily life. These could include things such as reducing procrastination and self-sacrificing behaviour (prioritising others’ needs over your own), regulating emotions, and setting healthy boundaries in relationships.

    Who does it work for?

    Schema therapy was specifically designed to help conditions that don’t respond to cognitive behaviour therapy. Since the early nineties, it has shown promise among people experiencing chronic depression and personality disorders, and people in prisons.

    Schema therapy is increasingly being used with children and adolescents, as it can effectively be adapted to suit younger age groups and help them understand the complex psychological processes involved.

    Schema therapy can take more time than some other approaches, including cognitive behaviour therapy. You may be working with your therapist for several months to a year before seeing real results.

    It is likely to benefit people who can commit to the time needed and prioritise their therapy tasks over other things.

    Like all therapies, schema therapy will take emotional energy. As you implement changes planned in therapy, enlisting the support of close friends or family may help you achieve long-lasting change.

    Schema therapy can be effectively adapted for children and young people.
    SeventyFour/Shutterstock

    I’m interested in schema therapy – what next?

    Maybe you are experiencing a problem that short-term therapies don’t easily address.

    Perhaps you have already tried cognitive behaviour therapy and have noticed some improvements in your mental health, but realise you still have some way to go. Or it’s possible you have exhausted self-help options and are looking for something that will change the deep-rooted feelings you think are connected to your past.

    Learning about different therapy approaches is the first step in finding the right help for you.

    The Schema Therapy Institute Australia has a list of schema therapists practising around the country.

    You may see “schema therapy” listed as a therapy approach on your local psychology practices’ web pages. You can also ask your GP about referrals using Medicare options.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. ‘I’m a failure’: how schema therapy tackles the deep-rooted beliefs that affect our mental health – https://theconversation.com/im-a-failure-how-schema-therapy-tackles-the-deep-rooted-beliefs-that-affect-our-mental-health-250789

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Early voting opens in the federal election – but it brings some problems for voters and parties

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zareh Ghazarian, Senior Lecturer in Politics, School of Social Sciences, Monash University

    More than 18 million Australians are enrolled to vote at the federal election on May 3.

    A fair proportion of them – perhaps as many as half – will take advantage of early voting, which starts Tuesday April 22.

    Hundreds of locations around Australia will morph into pre-polling centres for the next couple of weeks as we enter the final phase of the campaign.

    Australians have enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to vote early in recent elections. But there are some risks for voters if they jump the gun too quickly. And it’s upending the way parties and other candidates organise their campaigns.

    Go early

    The popularity of voting early has been on an upward trajectory in recent decades.

    Research shows that in 2004, for instance, over 80% of Australians waited until polling day to cast their ballots.

    But at the 2022 federal election, almost half of all Australians on the electoral roll voted early.

    There were variations across jurisdictions. Queensland had the highest rate of pre-poll voting at 56.6%, while Tasmanians had the lowest at just 36.8%.

    The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) was actively encouraging people to vote early due to COVID concerns. Nonetheless, the trend is unmistakable. Voters want to skip the queues on election day.

    Logistical problems

    Early voting has been the subject of much scrutiny, especially the length of time it is available to voters. The major political parties have expressed concern about the impact it has on campaign planning and logistics.

    In its submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the 2019 election, the Liberal Party highlighted how pre-poll voting placed “significant pressure on political parties” and their ability to provide booth workers for the entire early voting period, which was almost three weeks long.

    Similarly, Labor acknowledged “significant practical implications for political parties and campaign managers”. The Greens also indicated they were in favour of limiting the pre-poll period.

    Following the rise in early voting at the 2016 and 2019 elections, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended pre-polling be restricted to a fortnight before election day.

    The committee noted:

    a two week period best balances the opportunity to participate in an election as a voter, with the logistic demands placed on those who participate as contestants.

    The electoral laws were subsequently changed by the Morrison government in 2021.

    But given Easter Monday and Anzac Day both fall within the fortnight preceding May 3, the early polling window for this election will be further reduced.

    Campaign disruption

    The rising popularity of early voting plays havoc with the campaign plans of all candidates.

    In the past, when the overwhelming majority of voters waited for election day, it made sense for the major parties in particular to continually drip feed promises and announcements until the last day of voting.

    Parties now have less time to pitch for support during the campaign. The critical window of opportunity to appeal to voters is the time between the election being called and when Australians flock to the polls at the start of early voting.

    It is highly likely we have already seen all the major policies in this election, including the voter-friendly cost-of-living measures.

    But the parties are in a bind, because they must continue to appeal to the significant number of voters who will be considering who to vote for right up until election day itself.

    Skip the queue

    While many people will be tempted to vote early, the Australian Electoral Commission’s website reminds us there are some conditions for pre-poll voting.

    You can only vote early, either in person or by post, if on polling day you are:

    • travelling or unable to leave your workplace to vote
    • sick or due to give birth, or caring for someone who is
    • a person with a disability, or caring for someone who is
    • in prison serving a sentence of less than three years
    • prevented by religious beliefs from attending on election day
    • a silent elector, or reasonably fearful for your safety or wellbeing.

    Aware of the temptation to pre-poll, the AEC says people who wait until election day won’t have to battle long queues. In fact, 75% of them will be in and out of the polling place in under 15 minutes.

    The AEC says it’s worked out ways to minimise queuing on election day.

    Voter beware

    The numbers don’t lie. More and more voters are keen to participate in the democratic process before election day.

    However, voting early could be a double-edged sword. It may be convenient, but there is always the risk candidates or parties could say or do something that antagonises a voter after they have cast their ballot.

    As there is no way to withdraw an original vote or cast a new one if they change their minds, early voters are taking a risk.

    Moreover, by voting early, people may be missing out on the sausage sizzle, the craft stands, and the bake sales that many communities hold on voting day. These election day traditions raise funds and add a special community feeling to the ultimate exercise of democracy – choosing a government.

    Zareh Ghazarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Early voting opens in the federal election – but it brings some problems for voters and parties – https://theconversation.com/early-voting-opens-in-the-federal-election-but-it-brings-some-problems-for-voters-and-parties-254172

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Rates will never be enough – councils need the power to raise money in other ways

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guy C. Charlton, Adjunct Associate Professor at Auckland University of Technology and Associate Professor, University of New England

    Getty Images

    You might have recently received voting papers for your local body elections. Going by our historically low participation rates, many of those envelopes will remain unopened.

    This is a shame, because New Zealand’s local authorities face major financial challenges that affect nearly everyone. Only by increasing democratic engagement and giving ratepayers more reason to vote will real change happen.

    Local Government New Zealand recently estimated an extra NZ$11 billion is needed over the next seven years to meet unexpected cost increases. The credit rating agency S&P Global has downgraded 18 councils and three council-controlled organisations, and given negative outlooks to three more councils.

    The auditor-general reported in February that inflation has driven up the costs of construction, insurance and debt servicing. This is putting pressure on operational expenses and capital improvements at the same time as demand for council services is increasing.

    The central government problem

    Central government supports councils primarily through grants, subsidies, shared revenue (such as from road taxes) and development contributions. But its main response to the financial stress now being felt has been to urge local governments to focus on “core tasks”, not “pet” and “vanity” projects.

    To that end, the government has introduced annual council benchmark reports that will compare rates, debt levels, capital spending breakdowns and road conditions. It is also amending in the Local Government Act to remove references to the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of communities.

    It also wants to encourage inter-council cooperation with its Regional Deals Strategic Framework and streamline resource management requirements that it believes hinder economic development.

    It is unlikely these measures will be enough. Government contributions to councils have averaged around 10% of local government operating income since 2000, not enough to meet increasing legal and infrastructure costs.

    Other OECD countries transfer significantly higher proportions of central taxes to local governments. In New Zealand, this might include central government reimbursing taxes and other revenues it captures due to local government activity (such the GST on rates).

    The government could also pick up local costs that have national benefits, such as water and wastewater capacity at prime international tourism destinations. But more fundamental reform is needed.

    Councils’ operational budgets are static while demand for their services are increasing.
    Getty Images

    Rates aren’t enough

    At the moment, councils generate about 80% of their income from general and targeted rates, with the rest coming from things such as parking fines, amenities fees and investment interest.

    This heavy reliance of rates is clearly inadequate to pay for local operational and infrastructure costs. This is despite recent court decisions giving councils more leeway to set, raise and target rates.

    But to really make a difference, councils must also be given the legal authority to raise additional revenue themselves. This could include excise taxes on petrol and visitor accommodation, sales taxes and stamp duties.

    As the recently repealed Auckland regional fuel tax demonstrated, excise taxes can be an effective way to raise funds for specific activities. The roughly $780 million it raised helped pay for the Eastern Busway ($272 million) and new commuter train cars ($330 million).

    Room or lodging levies on overnight stays in hotels, motels, campgrounds, Airbnb and other short-term visitor rentals can help mitigate the impacts of tourism on local infrastructure and services.

    In the Queenstown Lakes district, for example, a 5% levy on the estimated $413 million spent on accommodation in 2023 would generate $210 million over ten years, about 30% of the $756 million cost attributed to tourism.

    Councils could also add a small extra levy on GST in their regions, a common practice in many large American cities and counties. Or they could apply a stamp duty on things like real estate transactions as Australia does.

    Stamp duties might be a political non-starter in New Zealand. But what are known as “tax incremental districts” could be an effective way of offsetting the infrastructure and public facilities costs of new developments or economic revitalisation projects.

    These schemes work by applying incremental increases in rates during the private development of an area. Done properly, they can be useful in brownfield redevelopment sites, as well as speeding up housing developments on city fringes.

    Reinvigorating local democracy

    New taxes are rarely popular, and selling the idea of local governments levying other sources of revenue to already stretched ratepayers will be difficult. But infrastructure and other costs cannot simply be ignored and passed down to future generations.

    On top of more funding from central government, local authorities need the flexibility to creatively address their financial and infrastructure needs. The decision on whether and how they do this ultimately resides with ratepayers and electors.

    Having more authority would also create more accountability in local government, reinvigorate local democracy and encourage overall policy innovation.

    Without greater funding authority and fewer constraints on their activities, elected community representatives risk becoming mere administrators of central government policy rather than truly reflecting and shaping their electorates.

    The author thanks Avi Charlton Diesch, a post-graduate student in finance at the University of Hong Kong, for his help with the preparation of this article.

    Guy C. Charlton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Rates will never be enough – councils need the power to raise money in other ways – https://theconversation.com/rates-will-never-be-enough-councils-need-the-power-to-raise-money-in-other-ways-252718

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Rating agencies don’t treat the Global South fairly: changes South Africa should champion in G20 hot seat

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Daniel Cash, Reader in Law, Aston University

    Credit rating agencies like S&P Global and Fitch have an outsized influence on the economic fortunes of developing countries. Their assessments shape investor perceptions, influence borrowing costs, and ultimately shape a country’s development path. With many African countries now issuing bonds in global markets amid falling levels of official development assistance (ODA), their role is coming under increasing scrutiny.

    The major credit rating agencies exist to opine on the likelihood that a debtor (say, a country) will repay their creditors on time and in full. They are rated on a sliding scale. Whenever a rating agency believes that a debtor will not meet their obligations, they are obliged to put that debtor into a ‘default’ rating. This means that the debtor can no longer access private financing.



    Read more:
    African countries can’t resolve their debt crisis under a system rigged against them

    The negative role of rating agencies has been felt in other ways too. For example, threats of downgrades have also led to developing countries steering away from seeking debt relief under a recently introduced G20-initiated debt treatment programme. The reason is that getting help would mean that sovereign debtors have to restructure their debts. But credit rating agencies have warned that doing this will likely lead countries being given a ‘default’ rating.

    As a result, no rated country has applied for debt relief through the G20. This has been called a ‘credit rating impasse’.

    Change needs to happen on two fronts: the building of credit rating capability in the Global South, combined with shoring up capacity in countries in an effort to rebalance existing relationships with rating agencies.



    Read more:
    Rating agencies and Africa: the absence of people on the ground contributes to bias against the continent – analyst

    As a researcher who has looked closely at the working of rating agencies, I would argue that South Africa’s 2024–25 G20 Presidency presents a rare opportunity to push for more equitable reforms. It also provides a platform to spotlight African-led initiatives that are already making progress.

    The aim is not to ensure every country receives a top-tier credit rating. Rather, it is to ensure that all countries have the capacity, knowledge, and tools to engage in the rating process on fair terms.

    Alternatives

    Among the boldest reform efforts so far is the establishment of the African Credit Rating Agency spearheaded by the African Union. The agency aims to deliver fairer, more contextually grounded credit assessments of African sovereigns.

    Structured as a specialised agency owned by AU member states and funded through a mix of regional support and service revenue, the agency is a tangible step toward rating independence. Naturally, there are challenges. These include legitimacy, credibility with global investors, generating the necessary capital to appropriately invest in research and credit analysis, and blowback if and when it will have to downgrade.

    Its creation is rooted in dissatisfaction with the big three agencies. But it’s also inspired by parallel developments in other regions, such as China’s own domestic rating ecosystem.

    Though still in development, the proposed African agency represents the most advanced reform effort in the credit rating space from a Global South perspective.

    But building this institutional capacity is only one piece of a larger puzzle. For many countries, support is urgently needed to engage more effectively with the existing system.

    Expertise mismatch

    The lag in expertise and experience on the part of countries in the global south is understandable: sovereign debt trading has been around since the 19th Century. The first Eurobond was issued in 1963. In contrast, many African nations only began issuing Eurobonds in the late 1990s, with Tunisia being the first in 1997.

    At present, that expertise is often provided by ‘credit rating advisory’ teams embedded within the Investment Banks arranging a country’s bond sale – typically offered at no cost. There is a valid perception that this advice is not independent.

    One way to close the gap is through independent credit rating-related capacity building. Done well, it can empower developing countries to engage with credit rating agencies on a more equal footing, improve the quality of credit interactions, and make informed decisions in a market that often prioritises investor interests over national development goals.

    A few initiatives are well underway.

    The African Union’s Africa Peer Review Mechanism , in partnership with the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, has been offering tailored, hands-on support. This includes technical workshops, advocacy against problematic ratings, and the publication of the ‘Africa Sovereign Credit Rating Review’, a regular report that helps member states track trends and identify areas for improvement.

    Building on this, the UNDP Africa and AfriCatalyst recently launched the ‘Credit Ratings Initiative’. This includes an innovative web platform, a panel of former rating analysts known as the ‘Concilium’, and a community of practice to share knowledge.

    Early pilots with East African countries have already made an impact, showing how independent, neutral advice can boost sovereigns’ technical understanding and strategic engagement with rating agencies.

    All parties are actively collaborating to share best practice at key global events. This momentum is a promising sign of broader change.

    These efforts underscore an important lesson: while long-term reform is crucial, short-term, practical tools can have an immediate and meaningful effect.

    Quest for a fairer financing systems

    South Africa currently holds the G20 Presidency. The government has adopted the idea of a ‘Cost of Capital Commission’ to examine how financing conditions affect developing nations. One of its aims is to review credit rating methodologies and promote transparency and data efficiency.



    Read more:
    The G20: how it works, why it matters and what would be lost if it failed

    This is a promising start. But there is room to go further. South Africa could use its leadership role to champion the establishment of a global credit rating capacity building initiative. Such a move would align with its development priorities, position Africa as a leader in financial reform, and create a blueprint for global action.

    Crucially, this would not be just another technical fix. It would be a shift in the power dynamics of global finance – from crisis response to structural empowerment. As the U.S. prepares to take over the G20 Presidency next, South Africa’s advocacy could lay the groundwork for a broader coalition committed to fairer financing systems.

    Daniel Cash does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Rating agencies don’t treat the Global South fairly: changes South Africa should champion in G20 hot seat – https://theconversation.com/rating-agencies-dont-treat-the-global-south-fairly-changes-south-africa-should-champion-in-g20-hot-seat-254735

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Where the parties stand on child care in the Canadian federal election

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gordon Cleveland, Associate Professor Emeritus, Economics, University of Toronto

    What will child care in Canada look like after this federal election?

    Depending on who becomes prime minister, parents now paying $10 a day for child care could continue to do so and many additional parents could access affordable day care in the future due to plans to expand. Or, the cap on child-care fees could be eliminated in a return to market provision of child-care services, in at least some provinces.

    The $10-a-day plan, introduced by the Liberal government through Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care agreements (CWELCC) with provinces and territories, was developed to improve Canada’s long-standing inadequate child-care situation.

    Québec’s model for child care inspired the Canada-wide plan. Under Québec’s CWELCC “asymmetrical agreement,” the province receives federal transfer funds without conditions.



    Read more:
    Ottawa’s $10-a-day child care promise should heed Québec’s insights about balancing low fees with high quality

    After the April 28 election, it’s expected our new prime minister will either be a Liberal or a Conservative — Mark Carney or Pierre Poilievre.

    Both leaders have said they want to preserve affordable child care but have presented their proposals in significantly different ways.

    As an economist with specialization in the economics of child care and early childhood education, I believe looking beneath surface statements reveals major differences that would affect parents, children and their families.

    Strengthening the $10-a-day policy

    The Liberal Party’s newly released platform highlights the protection and strengthening of the $10-a-day early learning and child care system. The platform promises the building of 100,000 new child-care spaces by 2031, better compensation for child-care educators, the expansion of child care in public institutions and a stronger link between housing development and child care when housing is supported by federal funds.

    In the Liberal leadership debate, Carney said we “absolutely have to keep in place the progress that the government has made on crucial things such as child care….” The Liberal platform affirms this, takes credit for introducing the existing system and notes: “In just a few short years, this program has become a core part of Canada’s social infrastructure.”



    Read more:
    Trudeau’s record may be spotty, but his biggest accomplishment was a national child-care program

    Since January, among the provinces and territories, all but Alberta and Saskatchewan have approved or tentatively approved five-year extensions to early learning and child-care funding agreements with the federal government.

    Those extensions are key, as they represent commitments from 11 provinces and territories to use the federal government’s additional $37 billion to continue building the $10 a day program through 2031.

    The NDP supported $10-a-day child care in the last election and continues that support, although child care is not mentioned in their published election platform.

    Changing the $10-a-day policy

    Poilievre, on the other hand, wants major changes from the $10-a-day child-care policy but he has not been forthcoming about details.

    However, he did discuss ideas and major criticisms in a March 25 campaign stop in Vaughan, Ont.

    He said: “We all believe that there should be more affordable child care in this country.” But then he criticized the current system as “bureaucratic” and “top down,” saying that “provinces can decide how to deliver those services on the front line with more flexibility and freedom for parents, provinces, and providers….”

    Clearly his “affordable child care” will not look anything like the burgeoning $10-a-day system.

    Poilievre’s wording is very similar to that of a new lobby organization of for-profit child care operators.

    The group calls for a shift from “federally controlled funding to no-strings-attached childcare funding for the provinces …” It also calls for a “funding-follows-the-family approach” which they believe will encourage parental and operator choice and minimize bureaucratic administrative costs and red tape.

    The Poilievre position, then, is an update from former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole’s policy proposals during the 2021 federal election.

    It harkens back to the cash-for-care approach Stephen Harper’s Conservative government had in place from 2006 to 2015. Conservatives prefer and encourage the provision of cash, a tax credit or voucher that parents can spend on child care.

    Such a Conservative approach is known as demand-side funding rather than supply-side funding — giving parents money to pay some of their child-care costs instead of funding child-care providers to ensure the services are available for families.

    Examining Conservative criticisms

    The “flexibility and freedom” that come with demand-side funding would mean removing conditions such as a guaranteed parent fee of $10 a day, targets for expansion of licensed child care, growth primarily by public and non-profit provision, and requirements for public financial accountability, from the federal funding agreements with the provinces and territories.

    There are substantial problems with Poilievre’s suggestion of overhauling the $10-a-day program. First, his March 25 criticisms are flawed:

    • He said “120,000 fewer children have daycare spaces than when the program was created,” but Statistics Canada surveys show a growth in attendance at child-care centres of an additional 177,900 children from late 2020 to the first half of 2023.

    • Poilievre said “child care now is worse than when the Liberals took office.” In fact, the main indicators of availability and affordability of child care are much better. Between 2015, when the Liberals took office, and 2023, the number of child care spaces grew by 426,203 to a total of 1,627,211 total licensed spaces. Child-care affordability is also greatly improved. By 2023, child-care fees had dropped by between 40 per cent and 75 per cent nearly everywhere across Canada, varying by geography and child age. As a proportion of after-tax family income, parents’ average spending on child care in January 2025 was less than one third of what it was before 2021, declining from just under 16 per cent to five per cent.

    • Poilievre said “most of the money has been consumed by bureaucracy.” In fact, child-care fees have dropped to an average of $10 a day (or less) in
      Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Québec, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland/Labrador, and all the remaining provinces have lowered parent fees substantially.

    This would not have been possible if “most of the money was consumed by bureaucracy,” something easily seen in readily available public data on how child-care funds are spent.

    Demand-side funding solutions

    Demand-side funding solutions with no cap on fees would be a dream for private corporations looking to enter a Canadian child-care market rich with public funds but a nightmare for cash-strapped parents who are desperate for child care.

    Australia is the poster child for generous demand-side funding of child care.

    In the Australian model, parents spend funds however they like, and there is no restriction on the fees providers can charge and no requirement for financial reporting. Funds are paid directly to child-care providers from the government on behalf of parents and corporate child-care thrives. Under this funding model, Australia has seen a sixfold increase in child-care fees since the early 1990s, twice as much as the increase in consumer prices.

    Bolster gains already made

    Nearly a million Canadian children between the ages of birth to five years are already able to access low-fee licensed child care.

    Building a quality child-care system is underway, but the work is far from complete.

    It’s time to redouble efforts to provide affordable, quality child care for all who need it rather than to abandon these major combined efforts of federal, provincial and territorial governments to build a dependable and affordable child-care system.

    Gordon Cleveland receives funding for expenses from an SSHRC project “Re-imagining care/work policies/Réinventer les politiques soins/travail”. He is a member of the National Advisory Council on Early Learning and Child Care. He volunteers for Building Blocks for Child Care. He is a research associate with L’Équipe de recherche Qualité contextes éducatifs de la petite enfance.

    – ref. Where the parties stand on child care in the Canadian federal election – https://theconversation.com/where-the-parties-stand-on-child-care-in-the-canadian-federal-election-254569

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Canada’s federal election must grapple with the limits of neoliberal economics

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daniel Horen Greenford, Lecturer and postdoctoral researcher in Ecological Economics and Climate Policy, Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University

    With a federal election on the horizon, economic policy is once again taking centre stage. Yet missing from the national debate is a serious reckoning with the failures of neoliberalism and the urgent need for alternatives.

    A continued adherence to neoliberal policy, and the fiscal austerity it entails, risks deepening social divides and strengthening the electoral prospects of the far right (absent a compelling populist left). To meet today’s challenges, parties must explore more progressive schools of economic thought like modern monetary theory.

    Liberal Leader Mark Carney, with his experience across banking and global finance, is one figure who could potentially steer that shift. Carney’s career, spanning Morgan Stanley, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England and Brookfield Asset Management, has exemplified his competence within the bounds of economic orthodoxy.

    As the Bank of Canada’s governor, Carney pre-emptively cut interest rates to cushion the blow of the 2008 financial crisis. Standard measures like interest rate cuts and quantitative easing are meant to keep economies afloat during downturns. While necessary, these steps remained squarely within the bounds of conventional economic thinking.

    Today, however, those old tricks aren’t enough. The twin crises of climate collapse and socioeconomic inequality demand bolder policy and braver leadership from policymakers.

    The case for modern monetary theory

    Modern monetary theory (MMT) offers a more ambitious economic toolkit to policymakers than current approaches do.

    MMT scholars argue that countries that issue their own currency, like Canada, have monetary sovereignty. These governments don’t need to rely on bond markets for funding; instead, they can create money directly through public spending. And, when they do sell debt, there’s never a shortage of demand for it.



    Read more:
    Explainer: what is modern monetary theory?

    From this perspective, the real constraint isn’t money, but productive capacity: materials, energy and labour. Public debt is neither inherently dangerous, nor is it “owed” to anyone.

    MMT also argues the “tax and spend” perspective is backwards — taxes are not needed to fund public spending. In its view, governments spend first, then tax to remove money from circulation to keep inflation under control.

    Inflation risk stems not from government spending, but from economic over-demand or supply constraints. During periods of low growth, spending is not just safe — it’s essential, as we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Inflation during the pandemic was driven predominantly by supply chain disruptions and gas price spikes, not overspending. Strategic taxation can be used to curb demand and reduce inequality when inflation emerges.

    MMT’s job guarantee

    The hallmark policy of MMT is a job guarantee — a public option for employment that would employ anyone wanting to work. This would effectively end structural unemployment while improving conditions for those employed in the private sector through competition.

    Such an initiative would help unlock productivity needed to revitalize and decarbonize housing, transport, energy and other critical infrastructure.

    Yet instead of embracing such ideas, centrist parties like the Canadian Liberal Party and United Kingdom’s Labour Party cling to outdated concerns over “fiscal responsibility,” echoing debates that have been outdated since the end of the gold standard in the 1970s.

    The cost of playing it safe

    Carney appears to have retreated into political caution and has avoided challenging fiscal conservatism in any substantive way. Immediately upon taking office, he capitulated to misleading narratives promoted by politicians like Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, and cut the consumer carbon price.

    Carney also is cancelling a proposed hike to the amount of capital gains subject to tax to avoid penalizing Canada’s “builders.” But who are the real “builders”? Not hedge fund managers, but the workers who actually produce goods and services.

    According to the government’s own analysis, only the top 0.13 per cent of Canadians stood to lose from a modest increase in the inclusion rate for taxing unearned income.

    Like Poilievre, Carney has expressed support for new oil and gas projects, including pipelines — despite the scientific consensus that any new fossil fuel infrastructure is incompatible with avoiding climate catastrophe. Poilievre and Carney’s positions contradict the urgent need for a rapid energy transition — which begins with no new fossil fuel projects.



    Read more:
    Canada needs to set its businesses up for success in the clean energy transition

    During the Liberal leadership race, Carney advocated for using public investment to attract private capital during a CBC News interview. Sidestepping a direct answer about whether he’d balance the overall budget, he instead committed to balancing “operational spending.” When pressed, he said he would run deficits when necessary to “invest [in] and grow Canada’s economy.”

    Carney’s approach frames public spending as a way to mobilize private capital, rather than as a driver of public-led economic transformation. True to his background, his language casts the government as a shrewd investor, not a driver of structural change.

    Carney also framed public investment as “borrowing,” which MMT clarifies is a misnomer: unlike a household or a business, a currency-issuing government doesn’t need to borrow in the traditional sense and faces no risk of running out of its own currency.

    A bolder path forward is needed

    Canada needs more than cautious tweaks to the status quo. A climate jobs program, like a Youth Climate Corps, could guarantee well-paid, meaningful work in communities across the country for anyone ready to contribute. Public opinion is already there: more than half of Canadians support a climate corps.

    Public-sector competition in industries like housing and renewable energy could keep private firms efficient and accountable. During World War II, engineer and businessman C.D. Howe became Minister of the Department of Munitions and Supply and oversaw the creation of 28 Crown corporations that drove wartime production.

    That same spirit of pragmatic, state-led investment could help address the ongoing climate and economic crises, instead of being used to buy more pipelines.



    Read more:
    Canada’s federal election doesn’t seem like it’s about climate change, but it actually is

    Towards more affordable housing

    Canada already has a Crown corporation mandated to support affordable housing: the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This agency could be expanded to not only finance, but also tender contracts and build housing. It could be a federal landlord, with long-term goals of community management and ownership.

    The more affordable units kept out of an increasingly profit-driven market, the more accessible housing will be. This would stabilize the market and provide a floor (and roof) for affordability.

    Some MMT scholars and social movements have even called for a homes guarantee — a federally-funded program to guarantee a place to live for anyone squeezed out of the housing market.

    Critics might say bold investment is politically infeasible. But is it? Or could one of Canada’s federal parties champion policies that inspire instead of capitulate? Traditionally, the NDP would pick up this mantle, but they ceded their place as the progressive vanguard after former NDP Leader Tom Mulcair promised to balance the budget in 2015.

    The real risk isn’t ambitious reform, but relying on outdated tricks in a world that demands new solutions.

    Daniel Horen Greenford receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

    – ref. Canada’s federal election must grapple with the limits of neoliberal economics – https://theconversation.com/canadas-federal-election-must-grapple-with-the-limits-of-neoliberal-economics-254364

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The new abnormal: Debating Canada’s future at a hinge point in history

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Stewart Prest, Lecturer, Political Science, University of British Columbia

    Canadians watched the two leaders’ debates unfold last week in Montréal. The debates, and this election, occur at a pivotal moment in history. Canadians go to the polls as the future of global democracy and governance, and in fact the very independence of the country, is in the balance.

    In crucial ways, the debates failed to meet the moment — and therefore will likely be forgotten as Canadians vote cast their ballots in a week. Unlike a past debate that focused on Canadian sovereignty between John Turner and Brian Mulroney in 1988, this one featured few knockout punches or memorable moments.

    Shadows of the past

    In the weeks prior to the debates, observers drew comparisons to that momentous English-language leaders’ showdown 37 years ago. That debate laid out a clear question for voters: Are you in favour of entering a free-trade agreement with the United States?

    Prime Minister Mulroney was supportive of the agreement, while Liberal Leader Turner was sharply opposed, fearing for the country’s independence.

    In the end, both Mulroney and Turner had a point. In the ensuing decades, free trade with the U.S. has brought both prosperity and dependence on the country as the Canadian economy became ever more deeply intertwined with that of the United States.

    A hinge point in history

    In 2025, we face an even more pivotal moment. The global order is shifting.

    Under Donald Trump, the U.S. has moved away from its decades-old position at the heart of a liberal international order centred on western democracies to embrace a transactional and illiberal foreign policy built on the language of power.



    Read more:
    Like dictators before him, Trump threatens international peace and security

    Given the gravity of the moment however, we heard comparatively little during the debates about how Canada must respond at this hinge point in history as Canadians adapt to a predictably unpredictable future.

    The threat of economic tariffs, while real, are just the beginning. Leaders alluded to the fact that Canada’s erstwhile closest ally now constitutes a threat to Canadian sovereignty, but it was not a major point of discussion, even as the the White House Press secretary recently affirmed Trump still wants Canada to become the 51st state. Threats to the territorial integrity of other former American allies continue as well.

    Viewers heard questions during the debate related to the possibility that the U.S. may no longer support Ukraine, but nothing about how Trump shocked the world with a very public dressing-down of Ukraine’s president or how he seems more comfortable co-operating with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

    Virtually no mention was made of the fact that the U.S. is, by some measures, no longer a democracy. Its courts are politicized. Congress is polarized. The federal civil service remains under siege, and key institutions of civil society are under pressure to conform to Trump’s demands. Nor was there any discussion about how the Trump administration is openly defying court orders, effectively flouting the rule of law, and what that could mean for Trump’s annexation threats against Canada.

    There was some talk during the debate of Canada trying to reach the (Trump-demanded) NATO military target for military spending, but nothing about the fact that the future of the alliance is uncertain. European states are openly questioning the credibility of American support in the event of an attack and European leaders discussing defence strategies without American involvement for the first time since the Second World War.



    Read more:
    How could Canada deter an invasion? Nukes and mandatory military service

    A debate like any other

    It’s clear from such silences on the debate stage that Canadian voters, journalists, debate moderators and politicians alike are all still coming to terms with the depth of change in the world around them.

    The debate was filled with talk of pipelines, housing strategies and domestic law and order. In fact, neither debate was much different from those of the past 20 years.

    That’s not to suggest domestic challenges don’t require substantive discussion and policy proposals. As I and others have argued, the populist anti-incumbent wave that we saw sweeping Canadian and global politics in recent years can be traced to the sense that a portion of the population — younger voters in particular — feel left behind and ignored.



    Read more:
    Justin Trudeau’s bleak poll numbers are part of a global trend as young voters reject incumbents

    The challenges are multiple and significant, including but not limited to housing and affordability, public safety and policing, slow economic development and the challenges of responding to climate change in an economy dependent on energy exports.

    Nonetheless, in focusing so heavily on domestic and not global threats, the debate verged at times on the parochial.

    Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet, for instance, tried to keep provincial jurisdiction and Québec’s interests top of mind. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s message, at its most effective, was that as the country turns to face new challenges, it cannot forget about the marginalized in Canadian society and abroad. Worthy points, but secondary to the larger moment.

    Ultimately, the debate was dominated by the other two men on the stage with a real chance to govern the country next week: Liberal Leader Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.

    The two appeared united in their passion for the country and pipelines, and share some other priorities, notably facilitating interprovincial economic integration.

    Conservative base is divided

    In other respects, the two leaders diverged significantly in their views. Of all the leaders, Carney was the most willing to discuss the Trump threat, including when he suggested in his closing English remarks that Trump is “trying to break us so the U.S. can own us.”

    For the majority of the debates, however, the Liberal leader focused primarily on the economic threat. He argued that the country must look away from the U.S., and instead build inward with investment in housing and energy at home, and build outward by identifying more reliable markets and allies abroad.

    Poilievre’s messaging was more nuanced, moving in different directions to suit different audiences. No doubt this is because the country’s Conservative voting base is itself deeply divided between mainstream conservatives who share their fellow Canadians’ concerns about Trump and a populist faction that tends to identify with the MAGA movement in numerous ways.



    Read more:
    Why some Canadians are in denial about Donald Trump

    In attempting to square that circle, Poilievre has signalled strong opposition to Trump and his tariffs — a point he repeatedly discussed during the debate — and called for measures to enhance Canadian productivity, notably in the energy sector.

    At the same time, however, he endorsed other policies that evoke aspects of Trump’s own political agenda, something he largely avoided mentioning during the debates. Notable among are Poilievre’s promised war on “woke” culture. While not discussed in detail during the debates, disruptive questions from right-wing media outlets following the French debate illustrated just how close to the surface such issues remain.

    The ‘new abnormal’

    In the absence of a significant gaffe, knockout blow or other dramatic twist, the debates are unlikely to change many minds, and seem likely to soon fade from memory.

    Initial post-debate polling suggests as much. Anyone leaning one way or another heard enough to affirm their views as they tuned into the debates, and nothing to make them question their choice.

    Answers to larger questions about how Canada should move forward in this emergent new global order, amid daunting new threats to peace and democracy, remain only hinted at. Whoever wins the election, those questions will continue to be asked with increased urgency in the coming years.

    Stewart Prest does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The new abnormal: Debating Canada’s future at a hinge point in history – https://theconversation.com/the-new-abnormal-debating-canadas-future-at-a-hinge-point-in-history-254675

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Pope Francis promoted women to unprecedented heights of power in the church

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bronagh Ann McShane, Research Fellow, VOICES, School of Histories and Humanities, Trinity College Dublin

    Pope Francis appointed more women to leadership roles in the Vatican than any pope before him. He challenged entrenched traditions within the Roman Catholic church to bring women into positions once deemed categorically off limits by an institution historically dominated by men.

    A prime example is Sister Raffaella Petrini, who became the first woman to serve as secretary general of the Governorate of Vatican City State – the executive of Vatican City State. This is the highest ranking role ever held by a woman in the Catholic church.

    Christianity’s early years tell a more complex story about women’s roles than one might expect. Women within early Christian communities held leadership positions. They were deacons, prophets and patrons of religious communities. However, as the church became more institutionalised, male leadership solidified its authority, marginalising women. By the medieval period, women wielded spiritual influence as mystics, abbesses, and theologians, but their power was largely confined to religious devotion rather than governance. This division reinforced the patriarchal structures of the church. Women could influence faith but not church administration or doctrine.

    By the early modern period, the exclusion of women from church leadership became even more pronounced. The counter-reformation reinforced clerical patriarchy, centralising power in male clergy. Once powerful abbesses saw their authority curtailed as the Vatican tightened control. During the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, women were active in education, missionary work, and social justice efforts but were systematically excluded from shaping church policies or theological debates.

    The second Vatican council (1962–1965) acknowledged the importance of women in the church and expanded their roles in lay ministries. Yet, despite recognising their contributions, the council stopped short of granting women real authority. They remained on the margins of power in the church despite the broader social changes of the time. While secular institutions responded to calls for reform in response to second-wave feminism, the Catholic church remained largely resistant.

    Pope Francis’s reforms

    Against this historical backdrop, Francis’s reforms were both a step forward and a reminder of the church’s persistent structural barriers. His first major initiative to explore greater female inclusion came in 2016, when he established a commission to study the historical role of female deacons and the possibility of reinstating the role of deacon for women. However, the commission faced internal divisions and, in 2019, Francis acknowledged it had been unable to reach a consensus.

    A new commission was established in 2020 with a broader international and theological representation. Although the issue remains under consideration, and the Vatican announced in 2024 that the commission would resume its work, Francis repeatedly reaffirmed that priestly ordination is “reserved for men”.

    Francis did, however, expand opportunities for women’s participation in church governance in other ways. In 2021, he issued Spiritus Domini, formally changing canon law to allow women to serve as lectors and acolytes (liturgical roles traditionally reserved for men). While this did not grant them clerical status, it acknowledged women’s long-standing contributions in these roles.

    Francis also increased women’s visibility in Vatican leadership. In an unprecedented move, he appointed Sister Nathalie Becquart as an under-secretary of the Synod of Bishops, making her the first woman to hold voting rights in the Synod. Similarly, in 2022, he named several women to the Dicastery for Bishops, granting them a role in selecting new bishops. This is traditionally an exclusively male domain.

    Before his death, Francis made further appointments demonstrating his commitment to integrating women into Church governance. In January 2025, he appointed Sister Simona Brambilla as the prefect of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. She is the first woman to lead a major Vatican department.

    This was followed by Sister Raffaella Petrini’s appointment as the highest-ranking woman in Vatican administration. As governor, she oversees the city’s infrastructure, institutions, and daily operations, a role traditionally held by male clergy. These appointments, once unthinkable, signal a cautious but notable shift in the church’s approach to female leadership.

    Progress or symbolism?

    While these reforms represent progress, the church’s core patriarchal structure is still intact and the issue of women’s ordination remains off the table. No matter how influential individual women become, they are still excluded from the highest echelons of clerical authority. The papacy, the College of Cardinals, and the priesthood remain exclusively male domains.

    Pope Francis’s reforms followed a well-established pattern of slow, incremental change in the church’s approach to women’s leadership. The struggle over power, patriarchy, and women’s place in the Catholic church is far from over.

    Francis led a period of reform, gradually opening doors once believed to be firmly shut. But following his death, the lasting impact of these changes is uncertain. It’s possible that his work marked the beginning of a transformative era. However, it’s also possible that his death concludes a chapter in church history that supported women’s leadership. It is up to Francis’s predecessor to decide which is true.

    Bronagh Ann McShane does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Pope Francis promoted women to unprecedented heights of power in the church – https://theconversation.com/pope-francis-promoted-women-to-unprecedented-heights-of-power-in-the-church-251808

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Where the parties stand on gun control in the Canadian federal election

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By R. Blake Brown, Professor, History, Saint Mary’s University

    The outcome of the 2025 federal election could have major consequences on Canada’s gun control regime. Current polling suggests that either the Liberals or Conservatives will win the April 28 election, so their proposed policies deserve close attention.

    The Liberals want to cement policies implemented by Justin Trudeau’s government, particularly the ban on assault-style weapons.

    The Conservative Party of Canada, on the other hand, seems intent on avoiding the gun control issue, although Leader Pierre Poilievre has suggested he might weaken Canada’s firearm laws.

    The issue came up briefly during the recent English-language leadership debate, when Liberal Leader Mark Carney told his Conservative counterpart, Pierre Poilievre: “You can’t be tough on crime unless you’re tough on guns.”

    Liberal gun control policy since 2015

    Since 2015, the Liberal Party has substantially strengthened Canada’s gun control laws.

    In 2019, the Liberals passed Bill C-71, which enhanced background checks for purchasers. It also required retailers to keep records of firearm transactions. Following the April 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting, the federal government prohibited several models of assault-style firearms.

    Bill C-21, passed in 2024, codified a freeze on the sale and transfer of handguns. In addition, it increased penalties for firearms smuggling and trafficking, and added offences concerning what are known as “ghost guns,” untraceable firearms assembled with components purchased either as a kit or as separate pieces. Bill C-21 also included new measures aimed at reducing intimate partner violence.



    Read more:
    Canada shouldn’t be smug about gun violence — it’s a growing problem here, too

    In December 2024 and March 2025, the Liberal government expanded the list of prohibited firearms.

    These prohibitions helped rationalize the firearm classification system by ensuring that firearms with similar characteristics are classified the same way.

    Liberal Party platform

    The Liberal Party’s 2025 platform does not propose introducing significant new gun control measures. Rather, the party pledges to defend and cement existing firearm laws. Carney accuses Poilievre of wanting to “import irresponsible, American-style gun laws” into Canada.

    The Liberal platform promises “to keep assault-style firearms out of our communities,” while “respecting the longstanding traditions of hunting, including among Indigenous Peoples, and sport shooting.”

    The Liberals will implement “an efficient gun buyback program for assault-style firearms.” They also promise that new models of firearms entering the Canadian market are classified “by the RCMP and not the gun industry.”

    In addition, the Liberals promise to automatically revoke gun licences “for individuals convicted of violent offences, particularly those convicted of intimate partner violence offences, and those subject to protection orders.”

    Other Liberal commitments include toughening oversight of the firearms licensing system and strongly enforcing measures aimed at reducing intimate partner violence.

    Opposition party positions

    The NDP says nothing about firearms in its platform, while the Bloc Québécois vaguely commits to continuing to demand better control of illegal and prohibited firearms.

    The Conservative Party also largely avoids mentioning gun control. For example, on April 9, the party announced part of its criminal justice policy. It urges the adoption of a “three-strikes-and-you’re out” law. There was, however, no mention of the Conservatives’ proposed gun control platform.

    The lack of a clear position seems designed to avoid entangling Poilievre in the thorny gun control issue. The Conservatives learned the dangers of promising to repeal popular gun control measures in the 2021 election. Erin O’Toole had secured the Conservative Party leadership by appealing to gun owners, and the party’s 2021 election platform promised to repeal the Liberal ban on assault-style firearms.

    The Liberals drew attention to O’Toole’s promise, badly knocking the Conservatives off message for several days. O’Toole was forced to retreat from his commitment to repeal the ban. He instead promised the Conservatives would retain the ban until an independent “classification review” of firearms was completed.

    Opponents of gun control responded by expressing a sense of betrayal.

    In his review of the 2021 election, Canadian political scientist Faron Ellis found that O’Toole “compounded the damage when he had no definitive answers, appearing evasive or even deceitful, as the Liberals would repeatedly charge through to the end of the campaign.”

    Liberals believe that the controversy over O’Toole’s gun control position helped them turn the tide and win the 2021 election. For Conservatives, the lesson of the 2021 election seems to be that they should avoid making clear promises about firearm policy.

    Poilievre’s agenda

    Poilievre has not been completely silent on the gun control issue. Prior to the election, he told a prominent gun control critic that he will repeal Liberal gun laws.

    However, he has been less explicit during the election campaign. He has mentioned gun control at his rallies, but does not detail what a Conservative government would do. For example, at an event in Woolwich, Ont., on April 10, he promised to “reverse the wasteful multi-billion dollar gun grab that targets our hunters and our sports shooters.”

    It is unclear what exactly Poilievre means by his promise to “reverse the wasteful multi-billion dollar gun grab.” Would the Conservatives again allow the purchase and transfer handguns? Would they eliminate the ban on assault-style rifles, thereby making firearms like the AR-15 widely available?

    Being frank about his position would help avoid suggestions that Poilievre has an agenda to substantially alter Canada’s gun control laws.

    R. Blake Brown does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Where the parties stand on gun control in the Canadian federal election – https://theconversation.com/where-the-parties-stand-on-gun-control-in-the-canadian-federal-election-253194

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Francis, a pope of many firsts: 5 essential reads

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Molly Jackson, Religion and Ethics Editor

    A mourner holds a portrait of Pope Francis at the Basílica de San José de Flores in Buenos Aires, a church where the pope worshipped in his youth. AP Photo/Gustavo Garello

    Pope Francis, whose papacy blended tradition with pushes for inclusion and reform, died on April, 21, 2025 – Easter Monday – at the age of 88.

    Here we spotlight five stories from The Conversation’s archive about his roots, faith, leadership and legacy.

    1. A Jesuit pope

    Jorge Mario Bergoglio became a pope of many firsts: the first modern pope from outside Europe, the first whose papal name honors St. Francis of Assisi, and the first Jesuit – a Catholic religious order founded in the 16th century.

    Those Jesuit roots shed light on Pope Francis’ approach to some of the world’s most pressing problems, argues Timothy Gabrielli, a theologian at the University of Dayton.

    Gabrielli highlights the Jesuits’ “Spiritual Exercises,” which prompt Catholics to deepen their relationship with God and carefully discern how to respond to problems. He argues that this spiritual pattern of looking beyond “presenting problems” to the deeper roots comes through in Francis’ writings, shaping the pope’s response to everything from climate change and inequality to clerical sex abuse.



    Read more:
    Francis is the first Jesuit pope – here’s how that has shaped his 10-year papacy

    2. LGBTQ+ issues

    Early on in his papacy, Francis famously told an interviewer, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Over the years, he has repeatedly called on Catholics to love LGBTQ+ people and spoken against laws that target them.

    An LGBTQ couple embrace after a pastoral worker blesses them at a Catholic church in Germany, in defiance of practices approved by Rome.
    Andreas Rentz/Getty Images

    But “Francis’ inclusiveness is not actually radical,” explains Steven Millies, a scholar at the Catholic Theological Union. “His remarks generally correspond to what the church teaches and calls on Catholics to do,” without changing doctrine – such as that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

    Rather, Francis’ comments “express what the Catholic Church says about human dignity,” Millies writes. “Francis is calling on Catholics to take note that they should be concerned about justice for all people.”



    Read more:
    It shouldn’t seem so surprising when the pope says being gay ‘isn’t a crime’ – a Catholic theologian explains

    3. Asking forgiveness

    At times, Francis did something that was once unthinkable for a pope: He apologized.

    He was not the first pontiff to do so, however. Pope John Paul II declared a sweeping “Day of Pardon” in 2000, asking forgiveness for the church’s sins, and Pope Benedict XVI apologized to victims of sexual abuse. During Francis’ papacy, he acknowledged the church’s historic role in Canada’s residential school system for Indigenous children and apologized for abuses in the system.

    But what does it mean for a pope to say, “I’m sorry”?

    Members of the Assembly of First Nations perform in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican on March 31, 2022, ahead of an Indigenous delegation’s meeting with Pope Francis.
    AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino

    Annie Selak, a theologian at Georgetown University, unpacks the history and significance of papal apologies, which can speak for the entire church, past and present. Often, she notes, statements skirt an actual admission of wrongdoing.

    Still, apologies “do say something important,” Selak writes. A pope “apologizes both to the church and on behalf of the church to the world. These apologies are necessary starting points on the path to forgiveness and healing.”



    Read more:
    Pope Francis apologized for the harm done to First Nations peoples, but what does a pope’s apology mean?

    4. A church that listens

    Many popes convene meetings of the Synod of Bishops to advise the Vatican on church governance. But under Francis, these gatherings took on special meaning.

    The Synod on Synodality was a multiyear, worldwide conversation where Catholics could share concerns and challenges with local church leaders, informing the topics synod participants would eventually discuss in Rome. What’s more, the synod’s voting members included not only bishops but lay Catholics – a first for the church.

    Participants arrive for a vigil prayer led by Pope Francis and other religious leaders before the 2023 Synod of Bishops assembly.
    Isabella Bonotto/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

    The process “pictures the Catholic Church not as a top-down hierarchy but rather as an open conversation,” writes University of Dayton religious studies scholar Daniel Speed Thompson – one in which everyone in the church has a voice and listens to others’ voices.



    Read more:
    The worldwide consultations for the global synod reflect Pope Francis’ efforts toward building a more inclusive Catholic Church

    5. Global dance

    In 2024, University of Notre Dame professor David Lantigua had a cup of maté tea with some “porteños,” as people from Buenos Aires are known. They shared a surprising take on the Argentine pope: “a theologian of the tango.”

    Pope Francis drinks maté, the national beverage of Argentina, in St. Peter’s Square on his birthday on Dec. 17, 2014.
    Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty Images

    Francis does love the dance – in 2014, thousands of Catholics tangoed in St. Peter’s Square to honor his birthday. But there’s more to it, Lantigua explains. Francis’ vision for the church was “based on relationships of trust and solidarity,” like a pair of dance partners. And part of his task as pope was to “tango” with all the world’s Catholics, carefully navigating culture wars and an increasingly diverse church.

    Francis was “less interested in ivory tower theology than the faith of people on the streets,” where Argentina’s beloved dance was born.



    Read more:
    At 88, Pope Francis dances the tango with the global Catholic Church amid its culture wars

    This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.

    – ref. Francis, a pope of many firsts: 5 essential reads – https://theconversation.com/francis-a-pope-of-many-firsts-5-essential-reads-250500

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Lawful permanent residents like Mahmoud Khalil have a right to freedom of speech – but does that protect them from deportation?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Erin Corcoran, Professor of immigration, refguee and asylum law, University of Notre Dame

    The detention of noncitizen university students after their Palestinian rights activism raises questions about the limits of free speech. Rob Dobi/Moment/Getty Images

    The Trump administration has revoked the visas of more than 1,000 foreign university students since January 2025. Many of the individual cases that have made headlines center on foreign-born university students who participated in Palestinian rights protests.

    In early March, the federal government arrested, detained and began deportation proceedings against Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident born in Syria to Palestinian parents. Khalil participated in Palestinian rights protests at Columbia University in 2024.

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in an April 9 memo that allowing Khalil to stay in the country would create a “hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.”

    “The foreign policy of the United States champions core American interests and American citizens and condoning anti-Semitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective,” Rubio wrote.

    Khalil is not the only noncitizen university student with legal permission to be in the U.S. who has been arrested and faces deportation after being involved in the Palestinian rights movement.

    Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish-born student at Tufts University, was detained by immigration authorities on March 25 near her Massachusetts home and is currently being held in Louisiana. She co-authored a 2024 op-ed in the campus newspaper calling for Tufts to recognize a genocide in the Gaza Strip.

    And Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian man who is a lawful permanent resident and a Columbia University student active in the Palestinian rights protests, was detained and arrested on April 25. This happened when Mahdawi showed up at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office for a citizenship interview in Vermont.

    “If you apply for a student visa to come to the United States and you say you’re coming not just to study, but to participate in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings, and cause chaos, we’re not giving you that visa,” Rubio said on March 23, when asked by a journalist about revoking student visas and arresting Öztürk.

    These cases raise important questions: Do lawful permanent residents have the right to protected free speech? Or are there limitations – among them, a determination by the U.S. government that permanent residents’ speech or political activity makes them a threat to national security?

    Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil speaks to reporters at Columbia University on June 1, 2024, during a media briefing organized by protesters who were objecting to Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
    Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Noncitizens’ First Amendment rights

    Arresting and detaining nonviolent, foreign protesters and the authors of opinion pieces is usually not legally permissible. That’s because these actions are protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantees everyone the right to freedom of expression.

    The Supreme Court has found that there are some limits to free speech. The government may restrict speech, for example, when someone yells “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no actual danger.

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to freedom of speech applies to everyone in the U.S., including noncitizens.

    Still, the First Amendment does not apply to noncitizens physically outside the U.S. The Supreme Court, for example, ruled in 1972 that the government may deny visas and bar entry to noncitizens who were seeking admission to the U.S. to engage in constitutionally protected speech.

    When noncitizens are living in the U.S., they have the same First Amendment protections as U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court ruled in 1945.

    As a scholar of U.S immigration and administrative law, I know that these protections enter a murkier territory when U.S. immigration law collides with the Constitution.

    A conflict with immigration law

    The Trump administration rests its argument that it can legally detain and deport noncitizens who have participated in Palestinian rights protests – but have not been charged with any crimes – on broad language in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.

    This law articulates important immigration rules, like who can enter the country and how someone can become a citizen. It also includes vague language that gives the secretary of state power to deport noncitizens in certain cases.

    “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable,” the law reads.

    As foreign-born students Mahdawi, Öztürk and Khalil fight in court for their right to legally stay in the U.S., Rubio and other Trump administration leaders claim that this law gives them the power to determine whether Khalil and other noncitizens are creating “serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the U.S.

    The Department of Homeland Security also wrote on the social platform X on March 9 that “Khalil led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”

    But the Trump administration has not provided any further specific details about how the views and actions of Khalil and other detained foreign students create serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the U.S. Nor has the government alleged that Khalil and other noncitizen students committed crimes or broke the law.

    Khalil’s attorneys have challenged the government’s use of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a basis to deport him in federal court. The lawyers assert that the U.S. government is attempting to deport Khalil for protected speech.

    Legal precedent and steps forward

    The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect lawful permanent residents from being deported if their political affiliation violates the laws.

    But the court has not yet decided if lawful permanent residents participating in protests or expressing political views are protected against deportation, when the only evident ground for their deportation is political speech.

    A federal judge in New Jersey, where Khalil was first briefly detained, has ordered the government not to deport him until all his different court cases are resolved.

    On April 11, a different immigration judge in Louisiana – where Khalil is currently detained – ruled that he could be deported for being a national security risk. Khalil’s attorneys are appealing this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the Department of Justice.

    Regardless of the outcome at the district court level, Khalil’s case will be appealed and most likely end up before the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court will then have to determine the appropriate balance between the executive branch’s authority to deport noncitizens it classifies as posing a threat to the country, and the right to freedom of expression that all people residing in the U.S. have.

    If the Supreme Court holds that the federal government can say that someone’s political speech can be a threat to U.S. national security interests, I believe the core of the First Amendment is at risk, for citizens as well as noncitizens.

    Erin Corcoran does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Lawful permanent residents like Mahmoud Khalil have a right to freedom of speech – but does that protect them from deportation? – https://theconversation.com/lawful-permanent-residents-like-mahmoud-khalil-have-a-right-to-freedom-of-speech-but-does-that-protect-them-from-deportation-254042

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Election Diary: Albanese government stays mum over whatever Russia may have said to Indonesia

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    The imbroglio over the reported Russian request to Indonesia to base planes in Papua initially tripped Peter Dutton, and now is dogging Anthony Albanese.

    After the respected military site Janes said a request had been made, the Australian government quickly obtained an assurance from the Indonesians there would be no Russian planes based there.

    Moreover, the government was able to score a hit on Dutton, who had wrongly named Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto as having said there’d been a Russian approach. Later, Dutton admitted he’d stuffed up.

    One might have thought the story would have died as the election caravan moved on. But it continued when it became obvious the government would not say, despite repeated questions, whether it knew a request had in fact been made to the Indonesians.

    Then Russia’s ambassador to Indonesia, Sergei Tolchenov, leapt into the fray. Tolchenov wrote a letter to The Jakarta Post, responding to an article by Australian academic Matthew Sussex on The Conversation, which was republished in the Post.

    His letter dripping with sarcasm, the ambassador wrote:

    It is hard to imagine that any ordinary Australians should be concerned about what is happening 1,300 kilometers from their territory, about matters that concern relations between other sovereign states and have nothing to do with Australia. Perhaps it would be better for them to pay attention to the United States’ Typhon medium-range missile system in the Philippines, which will definitely reach the territory of the continent?

    It is clear that the leaders of the two main political parties, replacing each other in power and calling it democracy, are now trying to outdo each other, heating up the situation. They stop at nothing, and the time has come to play the so-called ‘Russian card’. This means to show to overseas mentors who is more anti-Russian and Russophobe. In this regard, I would like to remind them of the words of US President Donald Trump, which he pronounced in the White House on Feb. 28, 2025, to the Ukrainian citizen ‘Z’: ‘You have no cards’.“



    Read more:
    Russia has long had interest in Indonesia. Australia must realise its partners may have friends we don’t like

    Meanwhile, Employment Minister Murray Watt strayed off the government’s script of diplomatic silence when he told Sky on Sunday, “There is no proposal from Russia to have a base anywhere in Indonesia in the way that Peter Dutton and his colleagues have been claiming”.

    The questioning intensified.

    Late Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles was back on Sky to impose the official blackout over what the government knew of the alleged discussions between Russia and Indonesia.

    “What we know about that, and when we knew about it, is obviously not something I’m going to ventilate in the public domain.

    “What matters here is that the Indonesians have made it completely clear to us that they have absolutely no intent of having Russian aircraft operating from their nation,” Marles said.

    Another instalment of “What the Russians Asked” may come in Tuesday night’s third leaders debate on Nine.

    A possible chance for real reform

    We keep getting lectured in this campaign about various significant issues (such as tax reform) that are being pushed under the carpet. But there’s something else that’s being overlooked: whether our institutions are in need of a big overhaul.

    With public trust low, accountability vital but often wanting, and our democracy sometimes resembling a car urgently needing a service, there are plenty of reforms that could be considered.

    John Daley (formerly of the Grattan Institute and now an independent consultant) and Rachel Krust, in a report released Monday and titled Institutional reform stocktake, propose a rich agenda for change. The stocktake was sponsored by the Susan McKinnon Foundation, a non-partisan body committed to promoting all aspects of better government.

    The report identifies short-term priority reforms as well as ones that would take longer to achieve.

    Parliamentarians often claim we’d be better governed with four-year terms. But given that would require a referendum, it is effectively out of reach. So the stocktake advocates a next-best option: fixed three year terms, which could be legislated. Four year terms would be a more distant aim.

    The advantage of fixed terms is they’d stop the disruption of months of speculation about the timing (that we saw before the current election). The disadvantage to the party in power is the prime minister can’t choose the day best suiting them.

    The Albanese government recently brought in caps for political donations and spending, to take effect in the coming term. Daley and Krust advocate these be revisited. The donation and disclosure caps should be lowered, they argue, and an expert commission should consider the caps on spending (which were criticised by some as limiting small and new players).

    Other priority recommendations are to beef up civics education, enhance parliamentary committees, put more structure around the appointment and termination of departmental secretaries, and better resource independent members of parliament, particularly if they hold the balance of power.

    One reason institutional reform is important is to achieve better policy outcomes, the report says. “Australian governments are getting worse at delivering policy changes that make a big difference to long-term problems.”

    While identifying a prospective advantage for policy, the report puts its finger on why such reform faces resistance.

    Institutional reforms have often not progressed in Australia because they would not serve the interests of incumbent parties. Many of the suggested changes would leave members of the government more exposed to questioning, challenge or censure, reduce the advantages of established political parties relative to new entrants, reduce the power of party officials relative to rank-and-file members, or reduce employment opportunities after a political career.

    The report says if the election produces a hung parliament this “may widen the window for reform”.

    “Crossbenchers usually have strong electoral incentives to prosecute institutional reforms, because they are usually both popular and not supported by incumbent parties.”

    But the crossbenchers need to be quick. “This window of opportunity may narrow again. The power of independents to push for institutional change is greatest during negotiations immediately following an election.”

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Election Diary: Albanese government stays mum over whatever Russia may have said to Indonesia – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-albanese-government-stays-mum-over-whatever-russia-may-have-said-to-indonesia-254201

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘I am sorry’ — A reflection on Pope Francis’s apology on residential schools

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jonathan Hamilton-Diabo, Assistant Professor, Teaching Stream; June Callwood Professor of Social Justice; Special Advisor on Indigenous Initiatives, Victoria University, University of Toronto

    Pope Francis reads his statement of apology during a visit with Indigenous peoples at Maskwaci, the former Ermineskin Residential School, July 25, 2022, in Maskwacis, Alberta. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

    With the death of Pope Francis, his apology for residential schools in Canada and its impacts needs to be explored nearly three years after it was delivered.

    On July 25, 2022, in Maskwacîs, Alta., Pope Francis apologized on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church for its role in the residential school system:

    “I am sorry. I ask forgiveness, in particular, for the ways in which many members of the church and of religious communities co-operated, not least through their indifference, in projects of cultural destruction and forced assimilation promoted by the governments of that time, which culminated in the system of residential schools.”

    This formal apology, and other statements the Pope made in Canada, came seven years after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 2015 Final Report. The TRC called for the Pope “to issue an apology to Survivors, their families, and communities for the Roman Catholic Church’s role in the spiritual, cultural, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children in Catholic-run residential schools.” This was to occur, in Canada, within one year.

    It is important to understand circumstances leading to the Pope’s Maskwacîs apology, the reaction at the time and its significance for the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the Catholic Church.

    I previous explored these themes as the Pope arrived in Canada. I questioned whether the apology would contribute to healing or deepen the distrust in the church. As a Mohawk faculty member raised in Catholicism, who teaches in the fields of theology and education, and has family members who attended these schools, I seek to revisit this question nearly three year later.

    Seven years after TRC final report

    The Pope’s Maskwacîs apology wasn’t the first time a statement was issued by a member of the Catholic Church. The Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate (the Oblates) apologized in 1991 “for the part we played in the cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious imperialism” which “continually threatened the cultural, linguistic, and religious traditions of the Native peoples.”

    This was followed by apologies offered by numerous bishops; however, they were inadequate, considering other leaders, such as the Moderator (United Church of Canada) and the Primate (Anglican Church of Canada), delivered the statements on behalf of their denominations respectively in 1986 and 1993, followed by other Protestant denominations.

    The importance of who offers an apology cannot be overstated. In 1998, Jane Stewart, the minister of Indian Affairs of Canada, read a Statement of Reconciliation acknowledging the tragedies experienced by students that attended residential school. Indigenous leaders criticized the statement, sensing a lack of ownership or not taking responsibility. It came across as an expression of regret rather than an apology, and was further rejected, as Prime Minister Jean Chrétien didn’t offer it.

    In 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology on behalf of the country. Although met with mixed reviews, the importance of the prime minister providing it cannot be ignored. The same holds true for the Catholic Church.

    Length of time to materialize

    In July 2022, Pope Francis apologized before thousands of people: survivors, their families, community members and leaders. This was significant, considering the length of time for this to materialize.

    Other denominations begin this process much earlier. The pressure on the Catholic Church mounted, particularly given that it was the last mainline church to have its leader apologize and it operated about 60 per cent of the residential schools. To consider how the apology finally arrived, several events need to be understood.

    In 2021, reports on potential unmarked burial sites on former residential school grounds in Kamloops, B.C., began to surface. News of these discoveries not only circulated nationally, but globally. Shortly after this, other residential school sites were being investigated for unmarked burial sites.



    Read more:
    We fact-checked residential school denialists and debunked their ‘mass grave hoax’ theory

    Reopened wounds, anger

    Extensive work had already been done around unmarked burial sites: The TRC’s Final Report dedicated a volume on this issue; in 2007, The Working Group on Missing Children and Unmarked Burials was established, whose members comprised national Indigenous organizations, former students, archivists and the federal government; work at the Mohawk Institute was already in progress. Yet, the nation was stunned. Wounds were reopened for many Indigenous people.

    From this pain, a great amount of anger was directed towards the Catholic Church.

    Church buildings were vandalized or set on fire. As many were in First Nations territories, this created tensions, since there were still community members that were part of the Christian tradition.

    This outcry reignited attention towards residential schools and the Church. The Vatican invited a delegation of survivors to meet the Pope in March 2022. This visit provided an opportunity for delegation members to share their stories, however its location is important to consider. The meeting took place at the Vatican, potentially escalating the power imbalance between the Church and First Nation, Inuit and Métis delegates.

    Survivors speak about meaning

    Members of the delegation invited the Pope to visit Canada. Martha Grigg, an Inuit Elder and a residential school survivor, spoke about how his visit would be meaningful to former residential school students and their families. Pope Francis offered an apology to the delegates,, committing to travelling to Canada.

    Months after the Vatican trip, the Pope came to Canada to deliver a formal apology. Reactions varied from acceptance to outright rejection, while a “wait-and-see” approach was also adopted.

    Some expressed how the apology “has helped to open the door for survivors and their families to walk together with the church for a present and future of forgiveness and healing.” Discontent was voiced about certain issues, such as the Doctrine of Discovery, or omitting a commitment to allow access to records.

    Without apology, other measures stalled

    Some of the impacts of the apology may not be felt instantaneously. It represents hope for a better relationship and a starting point for healing. Without any apology, any measures that the church offered would not gain traction. The lack of a papal apology over many years kept this as the focal point, further damaging the relationship between the Church and many Indigenous people and continuing to erode trust.

    Since then, the Catholic Church has undertaken steps to address the harms of the residential schools and contribute to healing process. In 2023, the Vatican released a statement on the Doctrine of Discovery, indicating the Catholic Church was distancing itself from this concept and repudiating it, as it was not part of Church teachings.

    The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and the Oblates committed to developing a process for the transparent access to records. Barriers to church records prevented access to documents that could help locate family members who never came home.

    The bishops pledged to raise $30 million for the Indigenous Reconciliation Fund to support activities dedicated to healing and reconciliation in 2021. The apology energized the campaign, raising half of the funds ahead of the five-year timeline.

    In a July 2024 statement, the CCCB said it has “established structures … to support dialogues and foster greater understanding of Indigenous cultural, linguistic and spiritual traditions and values,” and wishes to deepen academic collaborations to understand of the Doctrine of Discovery.



    Read more:
    Hot-button topics may get public attention at the Vatican synod, but a more fundamental issue for the Catholic Church is at the heart of debate

    Healing journey is long, apology was necessary

    While small advancements in reconciliation activities stemming from Pope Francis’ apology have occurred, the healing journey is long. Distrust is evident as the Church’s sincerity in this process is questioned; however, the apology presents an opportunity to renew relationships and forge new paths together.

    The criticisms of how and when it transpired and even what was said will always remain, however the apology was necessary.

    It was necessary for many survivors, who felt recognized. It was necessary for the Church to formally acknowledge its responsibility. It was necessary for Pope Francis to offer the apology directly to Indigenous people.

    Jonathan Hamilton-Diabo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. ‘I am sorry’ — A reflection on Pope Francis’s apology on residential schools – https://theconversation.com/i-am-sorry-a-reflection-on-pope-franciss-apology-on-residential-schools-250607

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Pope Francis showed in deeds and words he wanted to face the truth in Canada

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christine Jamieson, Associate Professor, Theological Studies, Concordia University

    Pope Francis has died. In reflecting on his legacy in regard to reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Canada, I am struck by three key moments.

    First, his encounter with Indigenous delegates in Rome in April 2022. Second, his pilgrimage of penance to meet Indigenous survivors in Canada in July 2022. Third, his role in the Catholic Church formally repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery in March 2023.

    In my view, each moment represented a move toward reconciliation for Indigenous Peoples in Canada. My focus, for the most part, considers the healing dimension of his visit. At the same time, I understand and acknowledge the limitations of his apology and the deep pain caused because of what was not said.

    For example, the late Murray Sinclair, chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, spoke of the apology’s failure to acknowledge the “full role of the church in the residential school system.”

    Dene interpreter and survivor, Jessie Sylvestre, asked to translate Pope Francis’s apology during his visit, was critical and hurt that the Pope read his apology rather than speak it from the heart. She also named feeling “almost sick” and angry after seeing the “very patriarchal” sight of many priests and the Pope. The absence of women in visible leadership roles was noted as disturbing by other Indigenous women also.

    Still, for many Indigenous survivors, Pope Francis’s apology was deeply meaningful and I wish to explore that phenomenon here.

    My academic research often delves into Indigenous spiritualities and Christian ethics. I am a co-investigator for a research project examining the life and work of Canadian Catholic (Jesuit) theologian, Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984), through the lens of his connection to the Indian Residential School System.

    I am particularly interested in why some survivors of Residential Schools in Canada are (and remain) Christian in the face of the horrendous treatment they endured at the hands of Christian churches’ representatives.

    ‘Unforgetting’ and healing

    When Pope Francis visited in late July of 2022, he consciously and intentionally began a journey into the complex and disturbing relationship between the Catholic Church and Indigenous Peoples.

    In commenting on the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), many people are critical of a tendency to jump too quickly over truth.

    For perpetrators or those navigating moral responsibility for historic injustices and wrongs, it is much easier to avoid understanding what truly happened and rush to be reconciled. The long delay in the Pope coming to Canada and apologizing to Indigenous survivors after the TRC’s clear call for this in Call to Action No. 58 speaks to feet dragging with regard to the Catholic Church as an institution.

    Yet, it is possible to say that by Pope Francis’s deeds and words he consciously and intentionally demonstrated he wanted to face the truth.

    His naming of genocide to describe what took place during residential schools, in response to a question from Brittnay Hobson, a journalist who is a member of Long Plain First Nation, revealed his desire to speak truth.

    During his visit, he listened to what he named in his Maskwacis apology as traumas and bitter memories. He named the importance of “mak[ing] space for memory,” and of “recall[ing] the past.”

    He acknowledged that his presence and his apology could trigger survivors but he understood why it was vitally important for many survivors to witness his apology. Many dared to share their burden with him despite the pain that was evoked.

    Anishinaabe and Ukrainian writer Patty Krawec, from Lac Seul First Nation, uses the term “unforgetting” by which she means “excavating truth and bringing it to the surface.”

    Such “unforgetting” was stirred up by Pope Francis’s presence and his words. For some, it was either consciously or intuitively an important step toward healing and reconciliation.

    ‘Incarnate’ meaning

    Pope Francis, both because he represented the Catholic Church and because of who he is as a person, played a role in excavating deep memories and consoling the pain of “heavy burdens.”

    He acknowledged the horrors of what Ojibwe author Richard Wagamese described as “an institution that tried to scrape the Indian off of their insides.” In Maskwacis, Pope Francis thanked Indigenous survivors for telling him “about the heavy burdens that you still bear, for sharing with me these bitter memories,” noting that even though costly, “it is right to remember, because forgetfulness leads to indifference.”

    In his book, Method in Theology, Lonergan speaks about different “carriers of meaning.” One such carrier was what he termed “incarnate meaning,” the “meaning of a person, of their way of life, of their words or of their deeds.”

    I believe that Pope Francis’ “incarnate meaning” was his most significant legacy in terms of what his visit meant for reconciliation. Certainly, he understood and acknowledged that words are not enough, “firm action and irreversible commitment” are required.

    Continued spiritual violence

    In the article “The Papal Apology and Seeds of an Action Plan,” Don Bolen, Archbishop of Regina, spells out four areas that witness to where action is taking place: truth telling (in the form of research and archival work), solidarity with Indigenous Peoples, supporting recovery of “Indigenous language and culture” and recognizing the intrinsic value of Indigenous Peoples’ “relationship with the land and environment.”

    Yet, in a soon-to-be published paper (titled Spiritual Violence against Indigenous Peoples in Canada: Ethical Guidelines and Calls to Healing), with colleagues, I describe the ongoing “spiritual violence” against Indigenous traditions by Christian churches.

    As I wrote in 2021, the TRC’s Call to Action No. 60 clearly identifies the spiritual violence that continues to be committed by non-Indigenous Christians.

    This violence is done when there is an absence of respect for Indigenous spirituality in its own right. It is also done when there is ignorance about the legitimacy and richness of Indigenous Christianity, of the gospel expressed through the lens of Indigenous cultures. This lack of recognition was also displayed during the celebration of the masses during Pope Francis’s visit.



    Read more:
    One year ago, Pope Francis disavowed the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ – but Indigenous Catholics’ work for respect and recognition goes back decades

    Beauty of Indigenous Peoples’ traditions

    Pope Francis understood the privilege of encounter with the beauty of Indigenous Peoples’ traditions as he so clearly stated in his encyclical letter, Laudato Si’: On Care for our Common Home.

    In that letter, he recognizes the deeply rooted values of Indigenous Peoples in relationship with land (which includes water, vegetation, animals — all that lives on and because of the land).

    Several times during his visit to Canada, Pope Francis spoke of that special relationship, a relationship that is so foreign to a western perspective which tends to view land merely as a commodity and not as a living being with which one is in relationship.

    Bolen recollects how Ted Quewezance of Keeseekoose First Nation in Saskatchewan, a survivor he has the privilege of working with, frequently said “that each survivor will need to make their own decision whether to accept or not to accept the papal apology, and that every survivor is on their own healing journey.” This was clear throughout Pope Francis’s visit and the several times he spoke an apology and sought forgiveness.

    As was witnessed in many encounters — Maskwacis, Edmonton, Québec and Iqaluit — perhaps Pope Francis’s most important legacy for truth and reconciliation in Canada is his willingness and humility to acknowledge the suffering, to be present to those who suffer, and in face of that suffering to have the audacity to say, “What are you going through?”

    Christine Jamieson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Pope Francis showed in deeds and words he wanted to face the truth in Canada – https://theconversation.com/pope-francis-showed-in-deeds-and-words-he-wanted-to-face-the-truth-in-canada-250746

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Exposure to perceptible temperature rise increases concern about climate change, higher education adds to understanding

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By R. Alexander Bentley, Professor of Anthropology, University of Tennessee

    Higher education can train students to carefully consider the evidence around them. Adam Crowley/Tetra Images/Getty images

    Years ago, after taking an Earth science class, I found myself looking at the world differently. It was the 1990s, and lakes in Wisconsin where I lived at the time were beginning to freeze later in winter and thaw earlier in spring, and flowers seemed to bloom a bit earlier.

    That geology class helped me understand the gradual warming that was underway, warming that has accelerated since then.

    People are more likely to believe an explanation when they see direct evidence of it. In the U.S., the percentage of people who recognize that global warming is happening is higher in counties that experienced record high temperatures in the previous decade. But understanding what’s happening and why also matters. That’s because people’s existing knowledge shapes how they interpret the evidence they see.

    Education level and political affiliation are both known to be strong global predictors of concern about climate change.

    But does higher education actually create climate concern? As an anthropologist and a researcher in computational social science, I and my colleague Ben Horne set up a study to try to answer that question.

    Education leverages experience into concern

    In our study, we used Census Bureau data on the percentage of the population with at least a bachelor’s degree in 3,048 U.S. counties, NOAA data on recent warming by state, and Yale climate opinion survey data. We wanted to find out whether climate concern increases as a product of education and recent warming.

    We found that in many southern states − such as Alabama, Mississippi and Texas − the correlation between the percentage of bachelor’s degrees at the county level and climate concern was weak. Higher education levels didn’t seem to make much of a difference in how concerned people were about climate change.

    However, in northern states − such as Maine, Vermont and Michigan − the education effect was stronger. We believe this difference is in part because climate change is more perceptible in colder states. A 1-degree temperature rise in Florida may not feel significant, whereas in Maine or Wisconsin, it would be more noticeable as winters became shorter and signs of spring came earlier.

    We believe the results suggest that higher education helps people who are exposed to perceptible warming shifts better understand the changes they are experiencing; it’s the pairing of both that makes the difference.

    We wondered whether political ideology might be driving the trends we were finding. Southern states also tend to be more politically conservative.

    When we controlled for political leanings, however, our analysis found that the education effect appeared to be mostly influenced by whether people had experienced perceptible warming in recent years.

    There were two outliers: Despite being cold states that have experienced the effects of climate change, North and South Dakota had low education effects when it came to climate concern. One possible explanation is that fossil fuels are central to their economies, shaping local attitudes toward climate change.

    Nationally, our study suggests that higher education leverages people’s experience with climate change to increase their climate concern. It isn’t just having a college education alone, as the different results from warmer and colder parts of the country show. It is experiencing rising temperatures that makes the difference. The more perceptible the warming, the greater the effect.

    Young people are growing up with climate change

    A generation ago, climate change seemed to be more theoretical prediction than common experience for most people in the U.S.

    This may be part of the reason why a sense of urgency has been slow to develop, even though three-quarters of Americans recognize that global warming is happening. Generations that grew up in the mid-20th century, when seasons and climate seemed constant, had little reason to expect change.

    Today, as climate change accelerates, people are experiencing increasingly dangerous summer heat waves and extreme weather. Surveys show climate concern has increased in U.S. counties that have recently experienced warmer winters or extreme temperatures, and climate-driven disasters have increased public concern.

    Younger generations may see the world differently. For them, climate change has been a reality in their developing years. Given their personal experiences and interest in science, we believe higher education will have a powerful effect.

    R. Alexander Bentley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Exposure to perceptible temperature rise increases concern about climate change, higher education adds to understanding – https://theconversation.com/exposure-to-perceptible-temperature-rise-increases-concern-about-climate-change-higher-education-adds-to-understanding-249420

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Endowments aren’t blank checks – but universities can rely on them more heavily in turbulent times

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ellen P. Aprill, Senior Scholar in Residence at the UCLA Law School’s Lowell Milken Center For Philanthropy And Nonprofit Law, University of California, Los Angeles

    The Trump administration is demanding that at least 60 U.S. colleges and universities change their policies or lose out on billions of dollars in federal funding.

    In Harvard University’s case, the government has accused the Ivy league school – so far without providing any specific evidence – of violating some students’ civil rights by allowing other students to engage in what the authorities characterize as antisemitic speech. The government has demanded broad oversight of Harvard’s admissions policies, along with changes in its hiring processes and campus culture.

    Harvard stands to lose out on more than US$2.2 billion. It may seem to be better insulated from this pressure than many other schools because it has the nation’s largest educational endowment – a reservoir of stocks, bonds and other financial assets that helps fund its operations, research and scholarships. Harvard’s endowment totaled more than $53 billion in 2024.

    As a nonprofit law scholar, who served in the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Policy in the 1980s, I study and write about both state and federal law as it applies to nonprofit organizations. I believe that the law permits most colleges and universities to increase spending from their endowments in light of the financial pressures so many of them are facing.

    Precedents for boosting endowment spending

    Not all endowments are alike.

    They tend to be composed of an array of smaller funds, some of which are subject to legal restrictions that make it impossible for the schools they support to freely use those assets.

    Universities must respect the limits donors put on their gifts, such as tying them to specific scholarships, funding jobs held by certain kinds of professors or supporting the construction or maintenance of a particular building.

    It’s up to a university’s governing board to decide how much of the school’s endowment will be spent in a given year.

    As Harvard’s financial report for its 2024 fiscal year puts it: “There is a common misconception that endowments, including Harvard’s, can easily be accessed like checking accounts.” That is definitely not the case.

    Nonetheless, some college and university boards did allow increased endowment spending at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Great Recession, which lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009.

    During that downturn and the financial crisis that precipitated it, the value of endowments, along with most financial assets, plummeted.

    About 80% of Harvard’s 14,000 separate endowment funds are reserved for “specific programs, departments or purposes.” But others are less restricted, Harvard has stated in the financial reports it makes available to the public.

    While it’s always important to proceed with care when spending money reserved for use on a rainy day or to ensure the long-term existence of a revered institution, most colleges and universities are freer to dip into their endowments than they may realize when conditions get stormy.

    Leeway in an important law

    In all states except Pennsylvania, U.S. endowments are subject to a 2006 model law known as the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act.

    Under this law, managing and investing an endowment requires the university to consider its charitable purposes and financial needs, while respecting the intentions of the donors who provided its assets. These are state laws, not federal statutes. In most states, a university may spend as much of an endowment fund as it deems “prudent.”

    Exercising that prudence requires the consideration of several factors.

    They include the purposes of the institution as a whole and the particular endowment fund, prevailing economic conditions, and what other financial resources the institution can tap. However, in almost one-third of states, including California and New York, annually spending more than 7% of an endowment’s fair market value, measured by a three-year average, is presumed to be imprudent.

    But that isn’t a legal maximum because the model law’s drafters noted that “circumstances in a particular year” could easily void that presumption. Based on my study of nonprofit law, including the laws that apply to higher education, I’m confident that this caveat could easily apply to the Trump administration’s education-related spending cuts in 2025, just as it did during the pandemic and the Great Recession.

    What’s more, endowment spending rate by universities in 2024 was 4.8%. As a result, many universities, including those in states with a 7% cap on prudent spending, will likely be able to increase their use of endowment funds to maintain their budgets at prior levels.

    In addition, living donors can release any restriction they placed on the funds they gave universities that are still held in their endowments. Even when those funds are from donors who have died, a university can ask a court to release restrictions that have become impractical or wasteful.

    The Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act also permits institutions to lift restrictions on all endowment funds that are more than 20 years old and relatively small. This amount varies from state to state and typically ranges between $25,000 and $100,000

    Archon Fung, a John F. Kennedy School of Government professor, addresses students, faculty and other members of the Harvard University community on April 17, 2025.
    AP Photo/Charles Krupa

    A bias toward accumulating

    In addition to Harvard, other examples of the largest higher education endowments include Yale with $41 billion, Princeton with $34 billion and Columbia, which has some $15 billion. All three are among the 60 schools the Education Department is investigating for allegedly failing to “protect Jewish students on campus.”

    Why do the boards of even these universities tend to hesitate to dip deeply into their endowments when their revenue declines?

    One explanation is that because endowments can enhance a university’s prestige, its leaders and endowment donors have a bias toward accumulating rather than spending. Another is that board members have an obligation to protect their institutions’ long-term viability. Boards also bear a responsibility to preserve funds for a future rainy day, no matter how severe the current turbulence may be, how large the endowment has become or how successful the school’s current fundraising efforts are.

    That may explain why Harvard is reportedly in talks with investment banks about issuing $750 million in bonds that will allow the school to meet its spending needs without dipping so deeply into its endowment.

    More attacks could be on the way

    At the same time, the Trump administration’s trade, fiscal and other policies may continue to roil financial markets, reducing the value of university endowments, for months or years to come.

    The federal government is reportedly looking into whether it can revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, a drastic move that would have no comparable precedents.

    In mid-April 2025, Harvard began to push back on the Trump administration’s demands, saying that they violate the free speech rights protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment and “invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court.” Harvard’s donors have responded to the resistance of the school’s leaders with a flurry of new gifts.

    In my view, it’s reasonable for colleges and universities to consider stepping up their endowment spending due to the Trump administration’s actions that could interfere with higher education revenue. Increasing endowment payouts now could ease, although not fully solve, the mounting crises that colleges and universities of all kinds now face.

    The John F. Kennedy School of Government, commonly referred to as Harvard Kennedy School, is a member of The Conversation U.S.

    Ellen P. Aprill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Endowments aren’t blank checks – but universities can rely on them more heavily in turbulent times – https://theconversation.com/endowments-arent-blank-checks-but-universities-can-rely-on-them-more-heavily-in-turbulent-times-254909

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Federal laws don’t ban rollbacks of environmental protection, but they don’t make it easy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Stan Meiburg, Executive Director, Sabin Center for Environment and Sustainability, Wake Forest University

    EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has announced plans to review or reverse dozens of environmental protection regulations. Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin have announced their intent to reconsider dozens of current regulations in an effort to loosen standards originally imposed to protect the environment and public health. But it’s not as simple as Trump and Zeldin just saying so.

    A few of the changes, such as reconstituting the membership of EPA’s Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee or using enforcement discretion to avoid targeting favored industries, are administrative measures that can be changed with the stroke of a pen.

    But many, including carbon emissions standards for power plants and motor vehicles, wastewater limits for refineries and chemical plants, or air pollution standards, can only be revised in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law first passed in 1946.

    That process includes public notice of the proposed changes, an opportunity for the public to comment on those proposals, and a review of those comments by the responsible federal agency.

    There’s a big book that contains rules about how to change the rules.
    designer491/iStock / Getty Images Plus

    There are some explicit restrictions that prevent loosening of existing environmental standards for clean air and water. In general, though, if the administration has evidence to support its claims that the protections should be reduced and the administration follows the process required by law, it is possible to loosen the restrictions. But as a former longtime senior leader at EPA and student of environmental policy, I know that process is not easy – and it’s not meant to be.

    As examples of how the process of changing the rules and standards works, let’s look at the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Similar provisions exist in the nation’s wide range of environmental protection laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and others.

    EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announces plans to review several environmental regulations on March 12, 2025.

    Keeping the air clean

    The Clean Air Act sets uniform national standards for air quality, and it created the rules by which states create plans to meet those standards.

    One section of the law, Part C of Title I of the act, is titled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.” Its provisions are meant to prevent states that meet the national standards from allowing air quality to get worse in the future.

    Its basic effect is to require that new sources of pollution, or existing ones that make significant equipment changes, use the best available technology that meets or exceeds the minimum federal standards for pollution control. Additional protections apply to sensitive areas like national parks.

    For areas that did not yet meet the standards, a set of amendments passed in 1990 included one that prevented air quality from getting worse. That provision, known as the “anti-backsliding rule,” says that no state whose air did not meet the standards before Nov. 15, 1990, can change its plan “unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions.” And once a state’s air quality improves to meet the standards, the state must follow maintenance plans to make sure the air quality doesn’t get worse.

    Protecting the water

    Under the Clean Water Act, states set water quality standards to protect drinking water and water for recreation, as well as to protect wildlife.

    The Environmental Protection Agency has interpreted key sections of the law to require that states ensure that whatever companies discharge into the water from factories or other operations don’t degrade downstream water quality – even if the existing conditions are better than the minimum standards. Known as “anti-degradation provisions,” these rules mean water that is currently far cleaner than the standards require can’t legally be made more dirty, even if only a little bit.

    The Clean Water Act also contains anti-backsliding provisions that prevent new discharge permits from allowing more pollution than previous permits did.

    Air pollution is regulated by the federal government.
    AP Photo/J. David Ake

    Rollbacks are possible

    Many federal standards can be weakened, so long as the EPA follows the Administrative Procedure Act’s process.

    Since the 1970 passage of the Clean Air Act, the national air quality standards have not been weakened. Technology standards for air and water pollution controls have tightened over time because of advances that improved performance while reducing costs.

    To change the rules under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must first provide evidence that the existing rules are no longer appropriate. Without that evidence, any changes may be overturned by the courts as not founded in facts – in legal terms, “arbitrary and capricious.” The first Trump administration’s efforts to change the rules failed in many court cases on this basis.

    This review process is also required of the EPA’s intended effort to revoke the so-called “endangerment finding,” which establishes the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. If successful, that revocation would undo the legal grounds for carbon dioxide and methane pollution standards for motor vehicles, electric utilities, oil and gas production, and large industrial sources.

    Such an effort will certainly end up in court. The endangerment finding began with a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to assess whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare. In 2009, the agency found that they did. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that finding, and the Supreme Court declined to reconsider the case.

    Algae floats on Lake Erie. Algae blooms can be caused by water pollution.
    AP Photo/Paul Sancya

    Other ways to reduce environmental protections

    The Trump administration’s stated plans for amending water pollution rules illustrate that rolling back protections can also mean undoing efforts to strengthen restrictions, if those efforts did not get finalized before 2025.

    For instance, in June 2024, the Biden administration’s EPA notified the public that it intended to tighten restrictions on manufacturing plants’ discharges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, into surface water or public sewage-treatment systems. Those are a large category of human-made chemicals, used to make products resistant to water, stains and heat, which can be harmful to human health at some levels. These chemicals don’t break down easily and therefore are often called “forever chemicals.”

    But the changes were never finalized, and on the second day of Trump’s second term, the new administration announced that the proposal had been withdrawn.

    Rollbacks can also mean extending compliance deadlines for current standards. For example, the EPA has announced that it will review discharge rules for power plants. Even if the rules themselves don’t change, giving power plants more time to comply with the rules can increase pollution.

    Public protests across the nation have objected to the Trump administration’s efforts to weaken environmental protections.
    Brett Phelps/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

    No change until new versions are finalized

    In general, U.S. environmental laws do not prevent the EPA from weakening protection standards. But merely announcing the agency’s intention to do something doesn’t make it so.

    In a recent executive order, Trump claimed he could take an action without public notice and comment “because I am ordering the repeal.” But federal law specifies that the process of change requires explicit descriptions of scientific and technical reasons and evidence that justify any proposed actions, and a notice-and-comment process that involves the public.

    In the meantime, the existing standards remain in place, enforceable by citizen lawsuits even if the federal government decides not to enforce them. Agencies require technical and legal expertise to craft rules that can survive inevitable challenges in the courts. Many of those experts have been fired or laid off by the Trump administration, making the job of changing regulations more difficult.

    Stan Meiburg is a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network, a non-partisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. He is also a 39 year alumnus of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He is a professional colleague with Sid Shapiro, whose Conversation article is cited in this piece.

    – ref. Federal laws don’t ban rollbacks of environmental protection, but they don’t make it easy – https://theconversation.com/federal-laws-dont-ban-rollbacks-of-environmental-protection-but-they-dont-make-it-easy-253515

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –