NewzIntel.com

Category: Transport

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Tougher child safety rules to help keep children safer in early education

    Source: Murray Darling Basin Authority

    Stronger, mandatory child safety measures have been signed off by every Australian Education Minister to strengthen child safety in early childhood education and care services.

    This forms part of the significant progress that has already been made since the release of the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) Review of Child Safety Arrangements under the National Quality Framework.

    In July 2024, a new National Code and Guidelines were released that recommended only service-issued devices can be used when photographing and filming children.

    From 1 September 2025, further key changes include:

    • Mandatory 24 hour reporting of any allegations, complaints or incidents of physical or sexual abuse – down from the current 7 day window
    • A ban on vapes in all early education and care services
    • Stronger protections around digital technology use, with services required to have clear policies on taking photos and videos of children, parent consent, CCTV practice and using service-issued devices.

    Child safety will also be explicitly embedded into the National Quality Standard from 1 January 2026.

    ACECQA will issue new guidance and resource materials to support the early education sector implement these changes.

    These changes are in addition to the further reforms flagged by the Albanese Labor Government in March this year to crack down on unscrupulous early childhood education and care providers and strengthen integrity across the care economy.

    These include measures to:

    • Prevent providers who persistently fail to meet minimum standards and repetitively breach the National Law from opening new Child Care Subsidy approved services.
    • Take compliance action against existing providers with egregious and continued breaches, including the option to cut off access to Child Care Subsidy funding where appropriate.
    • Strengthen powers to deal with providers that pose an integrity risk.

    Education Ministers will meet next week to consider additional actions to strengthen child safety in education and care services.

    Quotes attributed to Minister for Education Jason Clare:

    “The safety and protection of children in early childhood education is our highest priority.

    “Australia has a very good system of early childhood education and care, but more can be done to make sure safety guidance and measures are fit-for-purpose.

    “That’s why Education Ministers are acting on this key recommendation to make sure the right rules are in place to keep our children safe while they are in early education and care.”

    Quotes attributed to Minister for Early Childhood Education Dr Jess Walsh:

    “Children’s health and safety is paramount at early childhood centres, and these changes will help to ensure that we continue to provide that assurance.

    “The Australian Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that children have a positive, rewarding and safe early education experience to get the best possible start in life.”

    Quotes attributed to ACT Minister for Education and Early Childhood Yvette Berry:

    “The safety and wellbeing of children in early childhood education is our highest priority.  Access to quality early childhood education sets children up for lifelong learning and success.

    “Valuing children and investing in their learning and development requires us also to value and invest in the early childhood workforce.

    “I look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the Commonwealth, to strengthen the National Quality Framework.”

    Quotes attributed to Victorian Minister for Children Lizzie Blandthorn:

    “The safety and wellbeing of children is our highest priority – and here in Victoria we work every day to make sure they are safe, supported and ready to thrive.

    “We welcome these new changes, and we’ll continue to work with the Commonwealth, states and territories to review and improve safety for all children.”

    Quotes attributed to acting NSW Minister for Education and Early Learning Courtney Houssos:

    “These measures are an important first step. While we work with our colleagues on a national approach, the national law allows states to cater to their own needs.

    “NSW welcomes these measures and looks forward to providing additional measures in response to our most recent review.”

    Quotes attributed to Queensland Minister for Education and the Arts John-Paul Langbroek:

    “We must all be persistent in our efforts to strengthen safety measures at childhood education and care services.

    “These changes are a step in the right direction, and I welcome this national approach which will ensure Queensland kids are better protected while providing consistency across all states and territories.”

    Quotes attributed to Northern Territory Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Early Education Jo Hersey:

    “The Northern Territory Government welcomes the Child Safety Review, particularly its focus on strengthening supervision and improving the physical environment to keep children safe.

    “As part of our commitment to addressing the root causes of crime, we recognise that safeguarding children is fundamental to long-term community safety.”

    Quotes attributed to Western Australia Minister for Education; Early Childhood Sabine Winton:

    “The Cook Labor Government is committed to ensuring the safety of children who attend early childhood education and care services in Western Australia.

    “I know there are incredible early learning centres and early childhood educators that help children learn and thrive each and every day.

    “I look forward to working alongside the Albanese Labor Government to further strengthen child safety in early childhood education services, to ensure children have the best possible start to life.”

    Quotes attributed to South Australian Minister for Education, Training and Skills Blair Boyer:

    “I’m pleased to see all states and territories working together to strengthen the regulations around education and care services to ensure children are safe no matter where the live. 

    “The Malinauskas Labor Government recently provided an extra $7 million to the Education Standards Board to increase and improve regulatory services. This has seen a 63 per cent increase on the previous year in the number of service visits.

    “I look forward to meeting with my colleagues next week to discuss in more detail how we can ensure we as state and federal governments are doing everything we can to provide safe and secure environments for our youngest Australians.”

    For more information

    NQF changes information sheet

    Review of Child Safety Arrangements under the National Quality Framework

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: First ever female MI6 chief appointed

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    First ever female MI6 chief appointed

    The first ever female Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) has been announced by the Prime Minister today.

    The first ever female Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) has been announced by the Prime Minister today.

    Blaise Metreweli CMG will be the 18th Chief in the organisation’s history and the first woman to hold the role, at a time when the United Kingdom faces increased threats from our adversaries.

    Commonly referred to as ‘C’, the Chief has operational responsibility for MI6, and is the only publicly named member of the organisation. They are accountable to the Foreign Secretary.

    She is currently Director General ‘Q’, responsible for technology and innovation in MI6, and has previously held a Director-level role in MI5. She will succeed Sir Richard Moore, who leaves the Service in the autumn.

    Prime Minister Keir Starmer:

    The historic appointment of Blaise Metreweli comes at a time when the work of our intelligence services has never been more vital.

    The United Kingdom is facing threats on an unprecedented scale – be it aggressors who send their spy ships to our waters or hackers whose sophisticated cyber plots seek to disrupt our public services.

    I’d like to thank Sir Richard Moore for his dedicated service, and I know Blaise will continue to provide the excellent leadership needed to defend our county and keep our people safe – the foundation of my Plan for Change.

    Foreign Secretary David Lammy said:

    I am delighted to appoint Blaise Metreweli as the next Chief of MI6. With a wealth of experience from across our national security community, Blaise is the ideal candidate to lead MI6 into the future.

    At a time of global instability and emerging security threats, where technology is power and our adversaries are working ever closer together, Blaise will ensure the UK can tackle these challenges head on to keep Britain safe and secure at home and abroad.

    Every day, our intelligence services work behind the scenes to protect our national security and compete with our adversaries. That’s why I am proud that we are investing an extra £600 million in our intelligence community so they can continue to defend our way of life.

    I would also like to pay tribute to Sir Richard Moore for his service and leadership. I have worked closely with him over the past year and thank him for his valuable contribution enhancing our national security and protecting the British public.

    Cabinet Secretary Christopher Wormald said:

    Blaise Metreweli’s experience and leadership in the intelligence community will help MI6 protect the foundation of our national security and project our interests overseas. Blaise will be an excellent Chief, who will embody the values of the Service and act as a fine role model to its staff.

    I would also like to thank Sir Richard Moore for his excellent leadership of the Service over the past five years and his contribution to UK national security during that time and over his long career.

    Blaise Metreweli CMG said: 

    I am proud and honoured to be asked to lead my Service. MI6 plays a vital role – with MI5 and GCHQ – in keeping the British people safe and promoting UK interests overseas. I look forward to continuing that work alongside the brave officers and agents of MI6 and our many international partners.

    Outgoing Chief, Sir Richard Moore, said:

    I am absolutely delighted by this historic appointment of my colleague, Blaise Metreweli to succeed me as ‘C’. Blaise is a highly accomplished intelligence officer and leader, and one of our foremost thinkers on technology. I am excited to welcome her as the first female head of MI6.

    Biography:

    • Blaise Metreweli is Director General Technology and Innovation in MI6. She has previously held a Director-level roles in MI5.
    • She is a career intelligence officer, having joined the Service as a case officer in 1999.
    • She has undertaken a range of roles across the Service. She has spent most of her career in operational roles in the Middle East and Europe.
    • She studied Anthropology at Pembroke College, Cambridge.

    Updates to this page

    Published 15 June 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Small businesses are an innovation powerhouse. For many, it’s still too hard to raise the funds they need

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colette Southam, Associate Professor of Finance, Bond University

    The federal government wants to boost Australia’s productivity levels – as a matter of national priority. It’s impossible to have that conversation without also talking about innovation.

    We can be proud of (and perhaps a little surprised by) some of the Australian innovations that have changed the world – such as the refrigerator, the electric drill, and more recently, the CPAP machine and the technology underpinning Google Maps.

    Australia is continuing to drive advancements in machine learning, cybersecurity and green technologies. Innovation isn’t confined to the headquarters of big tech companies and university laboratories.

    Small and medium enterprises – those with fewer than 200 employees – are a powerhouse of economic growth in Australia. Collectively, they contribute 56% of Australia’s gross domestic product (GDP) and employ 67% of the workforce.

    Our own Reserve Bank has recognised they also have a huge role to play in driving innovation. However, they still face many barriers to accessing funding and investment, which can hamper their ability to do so.

    Finding the funds to grow

    We all know the saying “it takes money to make money”. Those starting or scaling a business have to invest in the present to generate cash in the future. This could involve buying equipment, renting space, or even investing in needed skills and knowledge.

    A small, brand new startup might initially rely on debt (such as personal loans or credit cards) and investments from family and friends (sometimes called “love money”).

    Having exhausted these sources, it may still need more funds to grow. Bank loans for businesses are common, quick and easy. But these require regular interest payments, which could slow growth.

    Selling stakes

    Alternatively, a business may want to look for investors to take out ownership stakes.

    This investment can take the form of “private equity”, where ownership stakes are sold through private arrangement to investors. These can range from individual “angel investors” through to huge venture capital and private equity firms managing billions in investments.

    It can also take the form of “public equity”, where shares are offered and are then able to be bought and sold by anyone on a public stock exchange such as the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX).

    Unfortunately, small and medium-sized companies face hurdles to accessing both kinds.

    Companies need access to finance to turn ideas into reality.
    Kvalifik/Unsplash

    Private investors’ high bar to clear

    Research examining the gap in small-scale private equity has found 46% of small and medium-sized firms in Australia would welcome an equity investment – despite saying they were able to acquire debt elsewhere.

    They preferred private equity because they also wanted to learn from experienced investors who could help them grow their companies. However, very few small and medium-sized enterprises were able to meet private equity’s investment criteria.

    When interviewed, many chief executives and chairs of small private equity firms said their lack of interest in small and medium-sized enterprises came down to cost and difficulty of verifying information about the health and prospects of a business.

    To make it easier for investors to compare investments, all public companies are required to disclose their financial information using International Financial Reporting Standards.

    In contrast, small private companies can use a simplified set of rules and do not have to share their statements of profit and loss with the general public.

    Share markets are costly and complex

    Is it possible to list on a stock exchange instead? An initial public offering (IPO) would enable the company to raise funds by selling shares to the public.

    Unfortunately, the process of issuing shares on a stock exchange is time-consuming and costly. It requires a team of advisors (accountants, lawyers, and bankers) and filing fees are high.

    There are also ongoing costs and obligations associated with being a publicly traded company, including detailed financial reporting.

    Last week, the regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), announced new measures to encourage more listings by streamlining the IPO process.

    Despite this, many small companies do not meet the listing requirements for the ASX.

    These include meeting a profits and assets test and having at least 300 investors (not including family) each with A$2,000.

    There is one less well-known alternative – the smaller National Stock Exchange of Australia (NSX), which focuses on early-stage companies. Ideally, this should have been a great alternative for small companies, but it has had limited success. The NSX is now set to be acquired by a Canadian market operator.

    Making companies more attractive

    Our previous research has highlighted that small and medium-sized businesses should try to make themselves more attractive to private equity companies. This could include improving their financial reporting and using a reputable major auditor.

    At their end, private equity companies should cast a wider net and invest a little more time in screening and selecting high-quality smaller companies. That could pay off – if it means they avoid missing out on “the next Google Maps”.

    What we now know as Google Maps began as an Australian startup.
    Susan Quin & The Bigger Picture, CC BY

    What about the $4 trillion of superannuation?

    There are other opportunities we could explore. Australia’s pool of superannuation funds, for example, have begun growing so large they are running out of places to invest.

    That’s led to some radical proposals. Ben Thompson, chief executive of Employment Hero, last year proposed big superannuation funds be forced to invest 1% of their cash into start-ups.

    Less extreme, regulators could reassess disclosure guidelines for financial providers which may lead funds to prefer more established investments with proven track records.

    There is an ongoing debate about whether the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), which regulates banks and superannuation, is too cautious. Some believe APRA’s focus on risk management hurts innovation and may result in super funds avoiding startups (which generally have a higher likelihood of failure).

    In response, APRA has pointed out the global financial crisis reminded us to be cautious, to ensure financial stability and protect consumers.

    This article is part of The Conversation’s series, The Productivity Puzzle.

    The author would like to acknowledge her former doctoral student, the late Dr Bruce Dwyer, who made significant contributions to research discussed in this article. Bruce passed away in a tragic accident earlier this year.

    Colette Southam 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. Small businesses are an innovation powerhouse. For many, it’s still too hard to raise the funds they need – https://theconversation.com/small-businesses-are-an-innovation-powerhouse-for-many-its-still-too-hard-to-raise-the-funds-they-need-256333

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Small businesses are an innovation powerhouse. For many, it’s still too hard to raise the funds they need

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colette Southam, Associate Professor of Finance, Bond University

    The federal government wants to boost Australia’s productivity levels – as a matter of national priority. It’s impossible to have that conversation without also talking about innovation.

    We can be proud of (and perhaps a little surprised by) some of the Australian innovations that have changed the world – such as the refrigerator, the electric drill, and more recently, the CPAP machine and the technology underpinning Google Maps.

    Australia is continuing to drive advancements in machine learning, cybersecurity and green technologies. Innovation isn’t confined to the headquarters of big tech companies and university laboratories.

    Small and medium enterprises – those with fewer than 200 employees – are a powerhouse of economic growth in Australia. Collectively, they contribute 56% of Australia’s gross domestic product (GDP) and employ 67% of the workforce.

    Our own Reserve Bank has recognised they also have a huge role to play in driving innovation. However, they still face many barriers to accessing funding and investment, which can hamper their ability to do so.

    Finding the funds to grow

    We all know the saying “it takes money to make money”. Those starting or scaling a business have to invest in the present to generate cash in the future. This could involve buying equipment, renting space, or even investing in needed skills and knowledge.

    A small, brand new startup might initially rely on debt (such as personal loans or credit cards) and investments from family and friends (sometimes called “love money”).

    Having exhausted these sources, it may still need more funds to grow. Bank loans for businesses are common, quick and easy. But these require regular interest payments, which could slow growth.

    Selling stakes

    Alternatively, a business may want to look for investors to take out ownership stakes.

    This investment can take the form of “private equity”, where ownership stakes are sold through private arrangement to investors. These can range from individual “angel investors” through to huge venture capital and private equity firms managing billions in investments.

    It can also take the form of “public equity”, where shares are offered and are then able to be bought and sold by anyone on a public stock exchange such as the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX).

    Unfortunately, small and medium-sized companies face hurdles to accessing both kinds.

    Companies need access to finance to turn ideas into reality.
    Kvalifik/Unsplash

    Private investors’ high bar to clear

    Research examining the gap in small-scale private equity has found 46% of small and medium-sized firms in Australia would welcome an equity investment – despite saying they were able to acquire debt elsewhere.

    They preferred private equity because they also wanted to learn from experienced investors who could help them grow their companies. However, very few small and medium-sized enterprises were able to meet private equity’s investment criteria.

    When interviewed, many chief executives and chairs of small private equity firms said their lack of interest in small and medium-sized enterprises came down to cost and difficulty of verifying information about the health and prospects of a business.

    To make it easier for investors to compare investments, all public companies are required to disclose their financial information using International Financial Reporting Standards.

    In contrast, small private companies can use a simplified set of rules and do not have to share their statements of profit and loss with the general public.

    Share markets are costly and complex

    Is it possible to list on a stock exchange instead? An initial public offering (IPO) would enable the company to raise funds by selling shares to the public.

    Unfortunately, the process of issuing shares on a stock exchange is time-consuming and costly. It requires a team of advisors (accountants, lawyers, and bankers) and filing fees are high.

    There are also ongoing costs and obligations associated with being a publicly traded company, including detailed financial reporting.

    Last week, the regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), announced new measures to encourage more listings by streamlining the IPO process.

    Despite this, many small companies do not meet the listing requirements for the ASX.

    These include meeting a profits and assets test and having at least 300 investors (not including family) each with A$2,000.

    There is one less well-known alternative – the smaller National Stock Exchange of Australia (NSX), which focuses on early-stage companies. Ideally, this should have been a great alternative for small companies, but it has had limited success. The NSX is now set to be acquired by a Canadian market operator.

    Making companies more attractive

    Our previous research has highlighted that small and medium-sized businesses should try to make themselves more attractive to private equity companies. This could include improving their financial reporting and using a reputable major auditor.

    At their end, private equity companies should cast a wider net and invest a little more time in screening and selecting high-quality smaller companies. That could pay off – if it means they avoid missing out on “the next Google Maps”.

    What we now know as Google Maps began as an Australian startup.
    Susan Quin & The Bigger Picture, CC BY

    What about the $4 trillion of superannuation?

    There are other opportunities we could explore. Australia’s pool of superannuation funds, for example, have begun growing so large they are running out of places to invest.

    That’s led to some radical proposals. Ben Thompson, chief executive of Employment Hero, last year proposed big superannuation funds be forced to invest 1% of their cash into start-ups.

    Less extreme, regulators could reassess disclosure guidelines for financial providers which may lead funds to prefer more established investments with proven track records.

    There is an ongoing debate about whether the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), which regulates banks and superannuation, is too cautious. Some believe APRA’s focus on risk management hurts innovation and may result in super funds avoiding startups (which generally have a higher likelihood of failure).

    In response, APRA has pointed out the global financial crisis reminded us to be cautious, to ensure financial stability and protect consumers.

    This article is part of The Conversation’s series, The Productivity Puzzle.

    The author would like to acknowledge her former doctoral student, the late Dr Bruce Dwyer, who made significant contributions to research discussed in this article. Bruce passed away in a tragic accident earlier this year.

    Colette Southam 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. Small businesses are an innovation powerhouse. For many, it’s still too hard to raise the funds they need – https://theconversation.com/small-businesses-are-an-innovation-powerhouse-for-many-its-still-too-hard-to-raise-the-funds-they-need-256333

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Need to see a specialist? You might have to choose between high costs and a long wait. Here’s what needs to change

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

    If you have cancer, a disease such as diabetes or dementia, or need to manage other complex health conditions, you often need expert care from a specialist doctor.

    But as our new Grattan Institute report shows, too many people are forced to choose between long waits in the public system or high costs if they go private.

    Governments need to provide more training for specialist doctors in short supply, make smart investments in public clinics, and regulate the extremely high fees a small number of private specialists charge.

    High fees, long waits, missed care

    Fees for private specialist appointments are high and rising.

    On average, patients’ bills for specialist appointments add up to A$300 a year. This excludes people who were bulk billed for every appointment, but that’s relatively rare: patients pay out-of-pocket costs for two-thirds of appointments with a specialist doctor.

    Increasing GP costs make national headlines, but specialist fees have risen even more – they’ve grown by 73% since 2010.

    Out-of-pocket costs for specialist care have increased faster than for other Medicare services.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    People who can’t afford to pay with money often pay with time – and sometimes with their health, as their condition deteriorates.

    Wait times for a free appointment at a public clinic can be months or even years. In Victoria and Queensland, people with an urgent referral – who should be seen within 30 days – are waiting many months to see some specialists.

    High fees and long waits add up to missed care. Every year, 1.9 million Australians delay or skip needed specialist care – about half of them because of cost.

    Distance is another barrier. People in regional and remote areas receive far fewer specialist services per person than city dwellers (even counting services delivered virtually). Half of remote communities receive less than one specialist appointment, per person, per year. There are no city communities where that’s the case.

    People in regional and remote areas receive fewer specialist services.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    Train the specialists we’ll need in the future

    Specialist training takes at least 12 years, so planning ahead is crucial. Governments can’t conjure more cardiologists overnight, or have a paediatrician treat elderly people.

    But at the moment there are no regular projections of the specialists we’ll need in the future, nor planning to make sure we get them. Government-funded training places are determined by the priorities of specialist colleges, which approve training places, and the immediate needs of public hospitals.

    As a result, we’ve got a lot of some types of specialist and a shortage of others. We’ve trained many emergency medicine specialists because public hospitals rely on trainees to staff emergency departments 24/7. But we have too few dermatologists and ophthalmologists – and numbers of those specialists are growing slower than average.

    The numbers of some types of specialists are growing faster than others.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    The lack of planning extends to where specialist training takes place. Doctors tend to put down roots and stay where they train. A shortage of rural training places leads to a shortage of rural specialists.

    To fix these problems, governments need to plan and pay for training places that match Australia’s future health needs. Governments should forecast the need for particular specialties in particular areas. Then training funding should be tied to delivering the necessary specialist training places.

    To fill gaps in the meantime, the federal government should streamline applications for overseas specialists to move here. It should also recognise qualifications from more similar countries.

    More public clinics where they’re needed most

    Public clinics don’t charge fees and are crucial in ensuring all Australians can get specialist care. But governments should be more strategic in where and how they invest.

    There are big differences in specialist access across the country. After adjusting for differences in age, sex, health and wealth, people living in the worst-served areas receive about one-third fewer services than people in the best-served communities.

    Governments should fund more public services in areas that need it most. They should set a five-year target to lift access for the quarter of communities receiving the least care in each specialty.

    More services are needed to help the least-served communities catch up.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    We estimate 81 communities need additional investment in at least one specialty – about a million extra appointments in total. Some communities receive less care across the board and need investment in many specialties.

    With long waiting times and unmet need, governments should also make sure they’re getting the most out of their investment in public clinics.

    Different clinics are run in very different ways. Some have taken up virtual care with a vengeance, others barely at all. One clinic might stick to traditional staffing models, while the clinic down the road might have moved towards “top of scope” models where nurses and allied health workers do more.

    Not all specialists offer virtual appointments.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    Governments should lay out an agenda to modernise clinics, encouraging them to adopt best practices. And they should introduce systems that allow GPs to get quick written advice from specialists to reduce unnecessary referrals and ensure services can focus on patients who really need their care.

    Curb extreme fees

    Even with more public services, and more specialists, excessive fees will still be a problem.

    A small fraction – less than 4% – of specialists charge triple the Medicare schedule fee, or more, on average. These can only be described as extreme fees.

    In 2023, an initial consultation with an endocrinologist or cardiologist who met this “extreme fee” definition cost an average of $350. For a psychiatrist, it was $670.

    One psychiatrist charged $670, but they weren’t the only specialist charging ‘extreme fees’.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    There is no valid justification for these outlier fees. They’re beyond the level needed to fairly reward doctors’ skill and experience, they aren’t linked to better quality and they don’t cross-subsidise care for poorer patients. Incomes for average specialists – who charge much less – are already among the highest in the country. Nine of the top ten highest-earning occupations are medical specialties.

    The federal government has committed to publishing fee information, which is a positive step. But in some areas, it can be hard to find a better option, and patients may be hesitant to shop around.

    The federal government should directly tackle extreme fees. It should require specialists who charge extreme fees to repay the value of the Medicare rebates received for their services that year.

    Specialist care has been neglected long enough. The federal and state governments need to act now.

    Grattan Institute has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

    – ref. Need to see a specialist? You might have to choose between high costs and a long wait. Here’s what needs to change – https://theconversation.com/need-to-see-a-specialist-you-might-have-to-choose-between-high-costs-and-a-long-wait-heres-what-needs-to-change-258194

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Need to see a specialist? You might have to choose between high costs and a long wait. Here’s what needs to change

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

    If you have cancer, a disease such as diabetes or dementia, or need to manage other complex health conditions, you often need expert care from a specialist doctor.

    But as our new Grattan Institute report shows, too many people are forced to choose between long waits in the public system or high costs if they go private.

    Governments need to provide more training for specialist doctors in short supply, make smart investments in public clinics, and regulate the extremely high fees a small number of private specialists charge.

    High fees, long waits, missed care

    Fees for private specialist appointments are high and rising.

    On average, patients’ bills for specialist appointments add up to A$300 a year. This excludes people who were bulk billed for every appointment, but that’s relatively rare: patients pay out-of-pocket costs for two-thirds of appointments with a specialist doctor.

    Increasing GP costs make national headlines, but specialist fees have risen even more – they’ve grown by 73% since 2010.

    Out-of-pocket costs for specialist care have increased faster than for other Medicare services.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    People who can’t afford to pay with money often pay with time – and sometimes with their health, as their condition deteriorates.

    Wait times for a free appointment at a public clinic can be months or even years. In Victoria and Queensland, people with an urgent referral – who should be seen within 30 days – are waiting many months to see some specialists.

    High fees and long waits add up to missed care. Every year, 1.9 million Australians delay or skip needed specialist care – about half of them because of cost.

    Distance is another barrier. People in regional and remote areas receive far fewer specialist services per person than city dwellers (even counting services delivered virtually). Half of remote communities receive less than one specialist appointment, per person, per year. There are no city communities where that’s the case.

    People in regional and remote areas receive fewer specialist services.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    Train the specialists we’ll need in the future

    Specialist training takes at least 12 years, so planning ahead is crucial. Governments can’t conjure more cardiologists overnight, or have a paediatrician treat elderly people.

    But at the moment there are no regular projections of the specialists we’ll need in the future, nor planning to make sure we get them. Government-funded training places are determined by the priorities of specialist colleges, which approve training places, and the immediate needs of public hospitals.

    As a result, we’ve got a lot of some types of specialist and a shortage of others. We’ve trained many emergency medicine specialists because public hospitals rely on trainees to staff emergency departments 24/7. But we have too few dermatologists and ophthalmologists – and numbers of those specialists are growing slower than average.

    The numbers of some types of specialists are growing faster than others.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    The lack of planning extends to where specialist training takes place. Doctors tend to put down roots and stay where they train. A shortage of rural training places leads to a shortage of rural specialists.

    To fix these problems, governments need to plan and pay for training places that match Australia’s future health needs. Governments should forecast the need for particular specialties in particular areas. Then training funding should be tied to delivering the necessary specialist training places.

    To fill gaps in the meantime, the federal government should streamline applications for overseas specialists to move here. It should also recognise qualifications from more similar countries.

    More public clinics where they’re needed most

    Public clinics don’t charge fees and are crucial in ensuring all Australians can get specialist care. But governments should be more strategic in where and how they invest.

    There are big differences in specialist access across the country. After adjusting for differences in age, sex, health and wealth, people living in the worst-served areas receive about one-third fewer services than people in the best-served communities.

    Governments should fund more public services in areas that need it most. They should set a five-year target to lift access for the quarter of communities receiving the least care in each specialty.

    More services are needed to help the least-served communities catch up.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    We estimate 81 communities need additional investment in at least one specialty – about a million extra appointments in total. Some communities receive less care across the board and need investment in many specialties.

    With long waiting times and unmet need, governments should also make sure they’re getting the most out of their investment in public clinics.

    Different clinics are run in very different ways. Some have taken up virtual care with a vengeance, others barely at all. One clinic might stick to traditional staffing models, while the clinic down the road might have moved towards “top of scope” models where nurses and allied health workers do more.

    Not all specialists offer virtual appointments.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    Governments should lay out an agenda to modernise clinics, encouraging them to adopt best practices. And they should introduce systems that allow GPs to get quick written advice from specialists to reduce unnecessary referrals and ensure services can focus on patients who really need their care.

    Curb extreme fees

    Even with more public services, and more specialists, excessive fees will still be a problem.

    A small fraction – less than 4% – of specialists charge triple the Medicare schedule fee, or more, on average. These can only be described as extreme fees.

    In 2023, an initial consultation with an endocrinologist or cardiologist who met this “extreme fee” definition cost an average of $350. For a psychiatrist, it was $670.

    One psychiatrist charged $670, but they weren’t the only specialist charging ‘extreme fees’.
    Grattan Institute, CC BY-NC-SA

    There is no valid justification for these outlier fees. They’re beyond the level needed to fairly reward doctors’ skill and experience, they aren’t linked to better quality and they don’t cross-subsidise care for poorer patients. Incomes for average specialists – who charge much less – are already among the highest in the country. Nine of the top ten highest-earning occupations are medical specialties.

    The federal government has committed to publishing fee information, which is a positive step. But in some areas, it can be hard to find a better option, and patients may be hesitant to shop around.

    The federal government should directly tackle extreme fees. It should require specialists who charge extreme fees to repay the value of the Medicare rebates received for their services that year.

    Specialist care has been neglected long enough. The federal and state governments need to act now.

    Grattan Institute has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

    – ref. Need to see a specialist? You might have to choose between high costs and a long wait. Here’s what needs to change – https://theconversation.com/need-to-see-a-specialist-you-might-have-to-choose-between-high-costs-and-a-long-wait-heres-what-needs-to-change-258194

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Decades on from the Royal Commission, why are Indigenous people still dying in custody?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thalia Anthony, Professor of Law, University of Technology Sydney

    Rose Marinelli/Shutterstock

    Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised that this article contains the name of an Indigenous person who has died.

    The recent deaths in custody of two Indigenous men in the Northern Territory have provoked a deeply confronting question – will it ever end?

    About 597 First Nations people have died in custody sine the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

    This year alone, 12 Indigenous people have died – 31% of total custodial deaths.

    The raw numbers are a tragic indictment of government failure to implement in full the Commission’s 339 recommendations.

    We are potentially further away from resolving this crisis than we were 34 years ago.

    Recent deaths

    Kumanjayi White was a vulnerable young Warlpiri man with a disability under a guardianship order. He stopped breathing while being restrained by police in an Alice Springs supermarket on May 27. His family is calling for all CCTV and body camera footage to be released.

    Days later a 68-year-old Aboriginal Elder from Wadeye was taken to the Palmerston Watchhouse after being detained for apparent intoxication at Darwin airport. He was later transferred to a hospital where he died.

    Alice Springs protest over the death of Kumanjayi White.

    Both were under the care and protection of the state when they died. The royal commission revealed “so many” deaths had occurred in similar circumstances and urged change. It found there was:

    little appreciation of, and less dedication to, the duty of care owed by custodial authorities and their officers to persons in care.

    Seemingly, care and protection were the last things Kumanjayi White and the Wadeye Elder were afforded by NT police.

    Preventable deaths

    The royal commission investigated 99 Aboriginal deaths in custody between 1980 and 1989. If all of its recommendations had been fully implemented, lives may have been saved.

    For instance, recommendation 127 called for “protocols for the care and management” of Aboriginal people in custody, especially those suffering from physical or mental illness. This may have informed a more appropriate and therapeutic response to White and prevented his death.

    Recommendation 80 provided for “non-custodial facilities for the care and treatment of intoxicated persons”. Such facilities may have staved off the trauma the Elder faced when he was detained, and the adverse impact it had on his health.

    More broadly, a lack of independent oversight has compromised accountability. Recommendations 29-31 would have given the coroner, and an assisting lawyer, “the power to direct police” in their investigations:

    It must never again be the case that a death in custody, of Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal persons, will not lead to rigorous and accountable investigations.

    Yet, the Northern Territory police has rejected pleas by White’s family for an independent investigation.

    Another audit?

    Northern Territory Labor MP Marion Scrymgour is calling on the Albanese government to order a full audit of the royal commission recommendations.

    She says Indigenous people are being completely ostracised and victimised:

    People are dying. The federal government, I think, needs to show leadership.

    It is unlikely another audit will cure the failures by the government to act on the recommendations.

    Instead, a new standing body should be established to ensure they are all fully implemented. It should be led by First Nations people and involve families whose loved ones have died in custody in recognition of their lived expertise.

    In 2023, independent Senator Lidia Thorpe moved a motion for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner to assume responsibility for the implementation of the recommendations. While the government expressed support for this motion, there has been no progress.

    Another mechanism for change would be for governments to report back on recommendations made by coroners in relation to deaths in custody. Almost 600 inquests have issued a large repository of recommendations, many of which have been shelved.

    Leadership lacking?

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese recently conceded no government has “done well enough” to reduce Aboriginal deaths in custody. But he has rejected calls for an intervention in the Northern Territory justice system:

    I need to be convinced that people in Canberra know better than people in the Northern Territory about how to deal with these issues.

    Albanese is ignoring the essence of what is driving deaths in custody.

    Reflecting on the 25-year anniversary of the royal commission in 2016, criminology professor Chris Cunneen wrote that Australia had become much less compassionate and more ready to blame individuals for their alleged failings:

    Nowhere is this more clear than in our desire for punishment. A harsh criminal justice system – in particular, more prisons and people behind bars – has apparently become a hallmark of good government.

    There are too many First Nations deaths in custody because there are too many First Nations people in custody in the first place.

    At the time of the royal commission, 14% of the prison population was First Nations. Today, it’s 36%, even though Indigenous people make up just 3.8% of Australia’s overall population.

    Governments across the country have expanded law and order practices, police forces and prisons in the name of community safety.

    This includes a recent $1.5 billion public order plan to expand policing in the Northern Territory. Such agendas impose a distinct lack of safety on First Nations people, who bear the brunt of such policies. It also instils a message that social issues can only be addressed by punitive and coercive responses.

    The royal commission showed us there is another way: self-determination and stamping out opportunities for racist and violent policing. First Nations families have campaigned for these issues for decades.

    How many more Indigenous deaths in custody does there have to be before we listen?

    Thalia Anthony receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    Eddie is an Independent Representative on the Justice Policy Partnership under the Closing the Gap Agreement.

    – ref. Decades on from the Royal Commission, why are Indigenous people still dying in custody? – https://theconversation.com/decades-on-from-the-royal-commission-why-are-indigenous-people-still-dying-in-custody-258568

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A 3-tonne, $1.5 billion satellite to watch Earth’s every move is set to launch this week

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Petrie, Earth Observation Researcher, Swinburne University of Technology

    Artist’s concept of the NISAR satellite in orbit over Earth. NASA/JPL-Caltech

    In a few days, a new satellite that can detect changes on Earth’s surface down to the centimetre, in almost real time and no matter the time of day or weather conditions, is set to launch from India’s Satish Dhawan Space Centre near Chennai.

    Weighing almost 3 tonnes and boasting a 12-metre radar antenna, the US$1.5 billion NISAR satellite will track the ground under our feet and the water that flows over and through it in unprecedented detail, providing valuable information for farmers, climate scientists and natural disaster response teams.

    Only when the conditions are right

    Satellites that image the Earth have been an invaluable scientific tool for decades. They have provided crucial data across many applications, such as weather forecasting and emergency response planning. They have also helped scientists track long-term changes in Earth’s ecosystems and climate.

    Many of these Earth observation satellites require reflected sunlight to capture images of Earth’s surface. This means they can only capture images during daytime and when there is no cloud cover.

    As a result, these satellites face challenges wherever cloud cover is very common, such as in tropical regions, or when nighttime imagery is required.

    The NISAR satellite – a collaboration between the national space agencies of the United States (NASA) and India (ISRO) – overcomes these challenges by using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology to take images of the Earth. This technology also gives the satellite its name. NISAR stands for NASA-ISRO SAR.

    So what is SAR technology?

    SAR technology was invented in 1951 for military use. Rather than using reflected sunlight to passively image the Earth’s surface, SAR satellites work by actively beaming a radar signal toward the surface and detecting the reflected signal. Think of this as like using a flash to take a photo in a dark room.

    This means SAR satellites can take images of the Earth’s surface both during the day and night.

    Since radar signals pass through most cloud and smoke unhindered, SAR satellites can also image the Earth’s surface even when it is covered by clouds, smoke or ash. This is especially valuable during natural disasters such as floods, bushfires or volcanic eruptions.

    Radar signals can also penetrate through certain structures such as thick vegetation. They are useful for detecting the presence of water due to the way that water affects reflected radar signals.

    The European Space Agency used the vegetation-penetrating properties of SAR signals in its recent Biomass mission. This can image the 3D structure of forests. It can also produce highly accurate measurements of the amount of biomass and carbon stored in Earth’s forests.

    Sang-Ho Yun, Director of the Earth Observatory of Singapore’s Remote Sensing Lab, is a key proponent of using SAR for disaster management. Yun has previously used SAR data to map disaster-affected areas across hundreds of natural disasters over the last 15 years, including earthquakes, floods and typhoons.

    NISAR, which is due to launch on June 18, will significantly build on this earlier work.

    NISAR data will be used to create images similar to this 2013 image of a flood-prone area of the Amazonian jungle in Peru that’s based on data from NASA’s UAVSAR satellite.
    NASA/JPL-Caltech

    Monitoring Earth’s many ecosystems

    The NISAR satellite has been in development for over a decade and is one of the most expensive Earth-imaging satellites ever built.

    Data from the satellite will be supplied freely and openly worldwide. It will provide high-resolution images of almost all land and ice surfaces around the globe twice every 12 days.

    This is similar in scope to the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-1 SAR satellites. However, NISAR will be the first SAR satellite to use two complementary radar frequencies rather than one, and will be capable of producing higher resolution imagery compared with the Sentinel-1 satellites. It will also have greater coverage of Antarctica than Sentinel-1 and will use radar frequencies that penetrate further into vegetation.

    The NISAR satellite will be used to monitor forest biomass. Its ability to simultaneously penetrate vegetation and detect water will also allow it to accurately map flooded vegetation.

    This is important for gaining a deeper understanding of Earth’s wetlands, which are important ecosystems with high levels of biodiversity and massive carbon storage capacity.

    The satellite will also be able to detect changes in the height of Earth’s surface of a few centimetres or even millimetres, because changes in height create tiny shifts in the reflected radar signal.

    The NISAR satellite will use this technique to track subsidence of dams and map groundwater levels (since subsurface water affects the height of the Earth’s surface). It will also use the same technique to map land movement and damage from earthquakes, landslides and volcanic activity.

    Such maps can help disaster response teams to better understand the damage that has occurred in disaster areas and to plan their response.

    Improving agriculture

    The NISAR satellite will also be useful for agricultural applications, with a unique capability to estimate moisture levels in soil with high resolution in all weather conditions.

    This is valuable for agricultural applications because such data can be used to determine when to irrigate to ensure healthy vegetation, and to potentially improve water use efficiency and crop yields.

    Further key applications of the NISAR mission will include tracking the flow of Earth’s ice sheets and glaciers, monitoring coastal erosion and tracking oil spills.

    We can expect to see many benefits for science and society to come from this highly ambitious satellite mission.

    Steve Petrie has previously received funding for satellite data analysis projects from XPrize Foundation, from Ernst & Young, and from the Cooperative Research Centre for Smart Satellite Technologies and Analytics (SmartSat CRC, which is funded by the Australian Government).

    – ref. A 3-tonne, $1.5 billion satellite to watch Earth’s every move is set to launch this week – https://theconversation.com/a-3-tonne-1-5-billion-satellite-to-watch-earths-every-move-is-set-to-launch-this-week-258283

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Millions rally against authoritarianism, while the White House portrays protests as threats – a political scientist explains

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeremy Pressman, Professor of Political Science, University of Connecticut

    Protesters parade through the Marigny neighborhood of New Orleans as part of the nationwide No Kings protest against President Donald Trump, on June 14, 2025. Patt Little/Anadolu via Getty Images

    At the end of a week when President Donald Trump sent Marines and the California National Guard to Los Angeles to quell protests, Americans across the country turned out in huge numbers to protest Trump’s attempts to expand his power. In rallies on June 14, 2025, organized under the banner “No Kings,” millions of protesters decried Trump’s immigration roundups, cuts to government programs and what many described as his growing authoritarianism.

    The protests were largely peaceful, with relatively few incidents of violence.

    Protests and the interactions between protesters and government authorities have a long history in the United States. From the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights movement, LBGTQ Stonewall uprising, the Tea Party movement and Black Lives Matter, public protest has been a crucial aspect of efforts to advance or protect the rights of citizens.

    But protests can also have other effects.

    In the last few months, large numbers of anti-Trump protesters have come out in the streets across the U.S., on occasions like the April 5 Hands Off protests against safety net budget cuts and government downsizing. Many of those protesters assert they are protecting American democracy.

    The Trump administration has decried these protesters and the concept of protest more generally, with the president recently calling protesters “troublemakers, agitators, insurrectionists.” A few days before the June 14 military parade in Washington, President Donald Trump said of potential protesters: “this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.”

    Trump’s current reaction is reminiscent of his harsh condemnation of the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020. In 2022, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said that Trump had asked about shooting protesters participating in demonstrations after the 2020 shooting of George Floyd.

    As co-director of the Crowd Counting Consortium, which compiles information on each day’s protests in the U.S., I understand that protests sometimes can advance the goals of the protest movement. They also can shape the goals and behavior of federal or state governments and their leaders.

    Opportunity for expressing or suppressing democracy

    Protests are an expression of democracy, bolstered by the right to free speech and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    At the same time, clamping down on protests is one way to rebut challenges to government policies and power.

    For a president intent on the further centralization of executive power, or even establishing a dictatorship, protest suppression provides multiple opportunities and pitfalls.

    Widespread, well-attended demonstrations can represent a mass movement in favor of democracy or other issues as well as serve as an opportunity to expand participation even further. Large events often lead to significant press coverage and plenty of social media posting. The protests may heighten protesters’ emotional connection to the movement and increase fundraising and membership numbers of sponsoring organizations.

    Though it is not an ironclad law, research shows that when at least 3.5% of the total population is involved in a demonstration, protesters usually prevail over their governments. That included the Chilean movement in the 1980s that toppled longtime dictator Augusto Pinochet. Chileans used not only massive demonstrations but also a wide array of creative tactics like a coordinated slowdown of driving and walking, neighbors banging pots outside homes simultaneously, and singing together.

    Protests are rarely only about protesting. Organizers usually seek to involve participants in many other activities, whether that is contacting their elected officials, writing letters to the editor, registering to vote or running a food drive to help vulnerable populations.

    In this way of thinking, participation in a major street protest like No Kings is a gateway into deeper activism.

    Risks and opportunities

    Of course, protest leaders cannot control everyone in or adjacent to the movement.

    Other protesters with a different agenda, or agitators of any sort, can insert themselves into a movement and use confrontational tactics like violence against property or law enforcement.

    In one prominent example from Los Angeles, someone set several self-driving cars on fire. Other Los Angeles examples included some protesters’ throwing things like water bottles at officers or engaging in vandalism. Police officers also use coercive measures such as firing chemical irritants and pepper balls at protesters.

    When leaders want to concentrate executive power and establish an autocracy, where they rule with absolute power, protests against those moves could lead to a mass rejection of the leader’s plans. That is what national protest groups like 50501 and Indivisible are hoping for and why they aimed to turn out millions of people at the No Kings protests on June 14.

    But while the Trump administration faces risks from protests, it also may see opportunities.

    Misrepresenting and quashing dissent

    Protests can serve as a justification for a nascent autocrat to further undermine democratic practices and institutions.

    Take the recent demonstrations in Los Angeles protesting the Trump administration’s immigration raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

    Autocrats seek to politicize independent institutions like the armed forces. The Los Angeles protests offered the opportunity for that. Trump sent troops from the California National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to contain the protests. That domestic deployment of the military is rare but not unheard of in U.S. history.

    And the deployment was ordered against the backdrop of the president’s partisan June 10 speech at a U.S. military base in North Carolina. The military personnel in attendance cheered and applauded many of Trump’s political statements. Both the speech and audience reactions to it appeared to violate the U.S. military norm of nonpartisanship.

    This deployment of military personnel in a U.S. city also dovetails with the expansion of executive power characteristic of autocratic leaders. It is rare that presidents call up the National Guard; the Guard is traditionally under the control of the state governor.

    Yet the White House disregarded that Los Angeles’ mayor and California’s governor both objected to the deployment.

    The state sued the Trump administration over the deployment. The initial court decision sided with California officials, declaring the federal government action “illegal.” The Trump administration has appealed.

    Autocrats seek to spread disinformation. In the case of the Los Angeles protests, the Trump administration’s narrative depicted a chaotic, gang-infested city with violence everywhere. Reports on the ground refuted those characterizations. The protests, mostly peaceful, were confined to a small part of the city, about a 10-block area.

    More generally, a strong executive leader and their supporters often want to quash dissent. In the Los Angeles example, doing that has ranged from the military deployment itself to targeting journalists covering the story to arresting and charging prominent opponents like SEIU President David Huerta or shoving and handcuffing U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat.

    The contrast on June 14 was striking. In Washington, D.C., Trump reviewed a parade of troops, tanks and planes, leaning into a display of American military power.

    At the same time, from rainy Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to sweltering Yuma, Arizona, millions of protesters embraced their First Amendment rights to oppose the president. It perfectly illustrated the dynamic driving deep political division today: the executive concentrating power while a sizable segment of the people resist.

    Jeremy Pressman 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. Millions rally against authoritarianism, while the White House portrays protests as threats – a political scientist explains – https://theconversation.com/millions-rally-against-authoritarianism-while-the-white-house-portrays-protests-as-threats-a-political-scientist-explains-258963

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Israeli army announces new series of airstrikes on Iranian missile sites

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    JERUSALEM, June 15 (Xinhua) — The Israeli Air Force carried out a new round of airstrikes on Iran on Sunday evening, hitting surface-to-surface missile sites in the country’s west, the Israeli military said in a statement.

    It is noted that the strikes were aimed at destroying “dozens” of missile targets.

    On June 13, Israel launched its largest air attack on Iran, striking nuclear facilities in Tehran and elsewhere across the country, killing dozens of Iranian scientists, senior security officials and civilians, prompting the Islamic Republic to retaliate with missiles and drones that killed at least 14 people in Israel.

    Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said Sunday that airstrikes would continue, targeting not only nuclear sites but also missile bases, weapons factories, air defense systems and “the regime in Tehran.”

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the Jewish state is “determined to carry out the mission to eliminate the double threat” from Iran. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Man in court after Hauraki aggravated robbery

    Source: New Zealand Police

    A man is appearing in court today after an aggravated robbery at a Hauraki bar on Saturday night.

    Police were called to the North Shore bar on Lake Road after 7.30pm on 14 June.

    Detective Senior Sergeant Megan Goldie, from Waitematā Crime Squad, says a sole offender entered the bar.

    “He was allegedly carrying a weapon, and threatened a staff member working at the time,” she says.

    “The offender quickly made off with an amount of cash and took off in a stolen vehicle.”

    Sometime later, a stolen vehicle was detected travelling into central Auckland.

    Detective Senior Sergeant Goldie says the vehicle was seen in the Newton area.

    “The car was located by Auckland City staff parked on Fenton Street, and they were waiting when the offender left a nearby venue to return to his vehicle,” she says.

    “After initially being arrested over the stolen vehicle, Police located a large amount of cash on his person.

    “The staff were aware of the earlier aggravated robbery and the man was spoken to further.”

    He was transported back to the North Shore and was charged with aggravated robbery.

    The 28-year-old man is due to appear in the North Shore District Court today.

    “Police will be opposing this man’s bail when he appears in court,” Detective Senior Sergeant Goldie says.

    “It’s a pleasing result and I acknowledge the teamwork between the staff working on Saturday night.

    “While the staff member in the bar was uninjured, over the weekend we have ensured a referral to Victim Support has been made.”

    ENDS.

    Jarred Williamson/NZ Police

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A solar panel recycling scheme would help reduce waste, but please repair and reuse first

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deepika Mathur, Senior Research Fellow, Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University

    tolobalaguer.com, Shutterstock

    Australia’s rooftop solar industry has renewed calls for a mandatory recycling scheme to deal with the growing problem of solar panel waste. Only about 10% of panels are currently recycled. The rest are stockpiled, sent overseas or dumped in landfill.

    One in three Australian homes now have rooftop solar panels, and new systems are being installed at the rate of 300,000 a year. Meanwhile, older systems are being scrapped – often well before the end of their useful life.

    This has made solar panels Australia’s fastest-growing electronic waste stream. Yet federal government plans for a national scheme to manage this waste appear to have stalled.

    Clearly, solar panel waste is a major problem for Australia. Recycling is one part of the solution. But Australia also needs new rules so solar panels can be repaired and reused.

    Millions of solar panels dumped as upgrades surge (ABC News, June 12, 2025)

    What are product stewardship schemes?

    The Smart Energy Council, which represents the solar industry, is calling for a national product stewardship scheme.

    Product stewardship schemes share responsibility for reducing waste at the end of a product’s useful life. They can involve people all along the supply chain, from manufacturers to importers to retailers.

    Such schemes may be voluntary, and industry-led, or mandatory and legislated. Alternatively, they can be shared – approved by government but run by an organisation on behalf of industry.

    Existing schemes manage waste such as oil, tyres, paper and packaging, mobile phones, televisions and computers.

    Depending on the product, a levy is paid by the manufacturer, product importer, network service provider (in case of mobile muster), retailer or consumer – or a combination of these. The money raised is then invested in recycling, research or raising awareness and administering the scheme.

    Establishing a solar panel product stewardship scheme

    Solar panel systems were added to a national priority list for a product stewardship scheme in 2017.

    In December 2020, the federal government called for partners to help develop the scheme, but later stated that no partnership would be struck.

    The government released a discussion paper for comment in 2023. The scheme has not yet been established.

    This is particularly problematic given Australia’s commitment to renewable energy, which will entail a rapid expansion of solar technology.

    Recycling should be the last resort

    Product stewardship schemes assume recycling is the main solution to the waste problem.

    Australia’s National Waste Policy also focuses on on recycling, rather than reuse or repair. This is despite recycling being the last resort on the “waste hierarchy”, just slightly above disposal.

    Solar photovoltaic panels are built to last 30 years or more, and are “not made to be unmade”. They are not easy to dismantle for recycling because they are built to withstand harsh conditions.

    It’s difficult for Australia to influence the design of solar panels, given 99% are imported. Just one manufacturer, Tindo Solar in Adelaide, assembles solar panels on Australian soil, using imported silicon cells.

    Many solar panels are being removed well before their end of life, generating waste ahead of time. This is rarely because they have stopped producing power.

    In our previous research, we found many reasons why people chose to take solar panels down. Consumers are often advised to replace the whole system when just a few panels are faulty. Or they may simply be upgrading to a larger, more efficient system. Sometimes it’s because they want to access a new renewable energy subsidy.

    Renewable subsidies and other solar panel policies should be redesigned to keep panels on roofs for longer.

    Functioning solar panels removed before the end of their life should be reused. This would require new regulations including quality-control measures certifying second-hand solar panels, and second-hand markets. This is a much neglected field of research and development.

    What else should such a scheme include?

    Others have discussed what a solar panel product stewardship scheme could include and the possible regulatory environment.

    We think the scheme should also involve collecting and transporting panels around Australia, including remote areas.

    Unfortunately, existing product stewardship schemes do not differentiate between urban, regional and remote areas. The same is likely to be the case for a solar panel collection and recycling scheme.

    This leaves regional and remote areas with fewer recycling facilities and collection points. With a growing number of large solar projects in Northern Australia, reducing waste is imperative.

    Remote island communities in the Northern Territory bundle up their recyclables and ship it to Darwin. Removed solar panels are then transported to urban Victoria, New South Wales or South Australia for processing. Who should bear the cost of transporting this waste? Consumers, remote regional councils with small ratepayer bases, or manufacturers and retailers?

    A well-designed scheme would help recover valuable resources across Australia for reuse in new products.

    However, large volumes of solar panels would be required for recycling schemes to become commercially viable. That’s why the solar recycling industry is concerned about exporters and scrap dealers collecting panels rather then certified solar panel recyclers.

    Even if the technology for recycling solar panels is nascent in Australia, it’s worth stockpiling panels in Australia for later.

    Considering these issues in the design of a product stewardship scheme would help ensure we can maximise the benefits of renewable energy, while minimising waste.

    Deepika Mathur has received research funding from the Northern Territory and federal governments.

    Robin Gregory is affiliated with Regional Development Australia Northern Territory

    – ref. A solar panel recycling scheme would help reduce waste, but please repair and reuse first – https://theconversation.com/a-solar-panel-recycling-scheme-would-help-reduce-waste-but-please-repair-and-reuse-first-258806

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI: Inside information, negative profit warning – Oma Savings Bank Plc lowers its earnings guidance for 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    OMA SAVINGS BANK PLC, STOCK EXCHANGE RELEASE, 15 JUNE 2025 AT 21:55 P.M. EET, INSIDE INFORMATION


    Inside information, negative profit warning –     Oma Savings Bank Plc lowers its earnings guidance for 2025

    Oma Savings Bank Plc (OmaSp or Company) lowers its earnings guidance for 2025 as the company’s cost level is expected to remain high throughout the 2025 financial year due to investments in risk management and quality processes, increased headcount, and efforts to address the findings of the Financial Supervisory Authority’s inspection. In addition, the update to the ECL model implemented during the first quarter has increased the level of credit loss provisions more than anticipated. Furthermore, fee and commission income is expected to grow more slowly than anticipated in the prevailing economic environment. OmaSp estimates that the Group’s comparable profit before taxes is EUR 50-65 million for the financial year 2025.

    New business outlook and earnings guidance for 2025 are as follows (updated 15 June 2025):

    The outlook for the Company’s business for the financial year 2025 is affected by the decline in market interest rates and the continued high level of costs due to IT investments and system improvements required by risk management and quality processes. In addition, the Company continues to invest in customer experience on different channels. The uncertainty of the operating environment and economic situation affects the development of balance sheet items and comparable profit for the financial year 2025.

    Oma Savings Bank Plc provides earnings guidance on comparable profit before taxes for 2025. Earnings guidance is based on the forecast for the entire year, which takes into account the current market and business situation. Forecasts are based on the management’s insight into the Group’s business development.

    We estimate the Group’s comparable profit before taxes to be EUR 50–65 million for the financial year 2025 (comparable profit before taxes was EUR 86.7 million in the financial year 2024).

    Previous business outlook and earnings guidance (published 5 May 2025):

    The outlook for the Company’s business for the financial year 2025 is affected by the decline in market interest rates and the continued high level of costs due to IT investments and system improvements required by risk management and quality processes. In addition, the Company continues to invest in customer experience on different channels. The uncertainty of the operating environment and economic situation affects the development of balance sheet items and comparable profit for the financial year 2025.

    Oma Savings Bank Plc provides earnings guidance on comparable profit before taxes for 2025. Earnings guidance is based on the forecast for the entire year, which takes into account the current market and business situation. Forecasts are based on the management’s insight into the Group’s business development.

    We estimate the Group’s comparable profit before taxes to be EUR 65–80 million for the financial year 2025, with a clarification that the figure is expected to be below the mid-point of the range (comparable profit before taxes was EUR 86.7 million in the financial year 2024).

    Oma Savings Bank Plc

    Additional information:
    Karri Alameri, CEO, tel. +358 45 656 5250, karri.alameri@omasp.fi
    Sarianna Liiri, CFO, tel. +358 40 835 6712, sarianna.liiri@omasp.fi

    DISTRIBUTION: 
    Nasdaq Helsinki Ltd
    Major media
    www.omasp.fi

    OmaSp is a solvent and profitable Finnish bank. About 600 professionals provide nationwide services through OmaSp’s 48 branch offices and digital service channels to over 200,000 private and corporate customers. OmaSp focuses primarily on retail banking operations and provides its clients with a broad range of banking services both through its own balance sheet as well as by acting as an intermediary for its partners’ products. The intermediated products include credit, investment and loan insurance products. OmaSp is also engaged in mortgage banking operations.

    OmaSp core idea is to provide personal service and to be local and close to its customers, both in digital and traditional channels. OmaSp strives to offer premium level customer experience through personal service and easy accessibility. In addition, the development of the operations and services is customer-oriented. The personnel is committed and OmaSp seeks to support their career development with versatile tasks and continuous development. A substantial part of the personnel also own shares in OmaSp.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: XRP News: Is XRP Set To Lose Market Share To The Crypto Analysts Are Calling XRP 2.0?

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    New York, June 15, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — XRP cannot seem to stay out of the news, but for once, the XRP news may be good. The beleaguered coin needs some good news, and judging by the XRP news headlines, it is. But there may be bigger issues ahead for XRP. A new player in town is already delivering on promises XRP has been making for more than a decade. Remittix may just spoil XRP’s fun and give investors a token with much more room to grow to invest in.

    XRP (XRP): Headlines for XRP news bullish, but is it enough?

    In XRP news this year, Ripple pulled the trigger on one of its boldest plays yet acquiring institutional brokerage Hidden Road for $1.25 billion. That’s not a headline stunt. It’s a serious move to bring post-trade services clearing, settlement and brokerage onto the XRP Ledger itself. For a project that’s always talked about global finance, this finally feels like the architecture is catching up to the ambition. It gives Ripple the tools to offer banks and funds something real and puts XRP back in the conversation as more than just a cross-border token.

    Meanwhile, the bigger-picture XRP news is what Brad Garlinghouse is aiming for: 14% of SWIFT’s global liquidity. That’s not just marketing spin, it’s a direct challenge to how money moves internationally. SWIFT is still slow, expensive and clunky. If Ripple can undercut that with speed and scale, XRP could be handling trillions in volume within a few years. It’s bold, but Ripple’s been quietly laying the rails for over a decade.

    The XRP price has been up just over 2% in the last 7 days, but it is still in red on the 30-day candle. Hopefully, its latest moves could bolster the price, but with players like Remittix doing the rounds, XRP could be in trouble.

    Source: CoinCodex

    Even CoinCodex’s price prediction for Ripple does not make great XRP news as the token is expected to become more volatile and erratic until the close of the decade; a trading pattern investors do not like.

    Source: CoinCodex

    Remittix (RTX): Can the new PayFi token be XRP 2.0?

    Remittix doesn’t have Ripple’s war chest or legacy clout, but what it does have is traction and in 2025, that’s proving more valuable than brand recognition. While XRP is still laying down infrastructure, Remittix is already moving money across borders. The platform focuses squarely on crypto-to-fiat remittances, allowing users and businesses to send crypto and have it land as local fiat, straight into a bank account. No fuss, no waiting, no wallet setup required on the other side.

    It’s not just practical, it’s compliant, fast and built for scale. With support for over 30 fiat currencies and 40 crypto assets, Remittix isn’t pitching the dream. It’s already shipping it. Investors are paying attention, too. A $15.5 million raise in its presale phase has given it room to grow, while whispers in analyst circles are calling it “XRP 2.0” not because it’s copying Ripple, but because it’s quietly delivering the kind of real-world utility XRP has been promising for over a decade.

    If 2025 is about function over flash, Remittix may be the one to watch. It’s not trying to win a branding war, it’s trying to fix a broken payment system. And so far, it looks like it’s working.

    Conclusion

    While the crypto headlines are dominated by XRP news, the real star of the show is Remittix, delivering on the dreams Ripple Labs had more than a decade ago. With the XRP price stalling, Remittix could just be the token to pick up the slack. Even YouTube crypto vloggers are now starting to pick up on the action and with 540 million tokens already sold, Remittix is making its name as the go-to investment of the year.

    Remittix is now available at $0.0781 directly from their website.

    Discover the future of PayFi with Remittix by checking out their presale here:

    Website: https://remittix.io

    Socials: https://linktr.ee/remittix

    Legal Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Joint statement between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of Canada

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Press release

    Joint statement between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of Canada

    This Joint Statement follows the meeting of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and Canada on 15 June 2025.

    Today, Sir Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (UK) and Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada met in Ottawa to reaffirm the profound friendship and shared values that unite both nations. The Canada-UK partnership, rooted in a common history and enduring people-to-people ties, continues to grow stronger, with a focus on delivering prosperity and security for the working people of Canada and the UK alike.

    The two leaders discussed the many geopolitical challenges currently facing the world, including in the Middle East and tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, and reaffirmed their steadfast support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal and unjustifiable war of aggression.

    The two leaders underscored the importance of a fair, open and predictable global trading system; reiterated their commitment to a rules-based international order underpinned by respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity; and committed to advancing peace and trans-Atlantic security. They agreed the following joint initiatives aimed at strengthening economic growth and prosperity and enhancing collective security and defence:

    Growth and Innovation Partnership

    Canada and the UK are committed to delivering economic growth for their people. The two Prime Ministers today announced further collaboration on trade, science, technology and innovation. Through their Partnership, Canada and the UK will work together to:

    • Trade: Strengthen trade ties as trusted, reliable partners. This will include expanding trade under the Canada-UK Trade Continuity Agreement. We will establish a new structured UK-Canada Economic and Trade Working Group to deepen our existing trading relationship further, including to address existing market access barriers, to expand existing arrangements into new areas, such as digital trade, and to explore cooperation in the development of critical minerals and sovereign artificial intelligence infrastructure. The working group will report back to both Prime Ministers within six months. Canada will seek to introduce legislation this autumn to ratify the UK’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership.

    • Semiconductors: Deliver industrial R&D projects to enhance both nations’ complementary strengths in semiconductors, photonics, emerging materials and chip design. They will deepen connections between the innovation rich semiconductor ecosystems in Canada and the UK to help build resilient supply chains and accelerate breakthroughs in this key sector that is driving economic growth.

    • Quantum: Announce a joint commitment to develop secure, transatlantic communications based on quantum technologies, allowing us to connect our national systems and lay the groundwork to create a truly global, next-generation network, with applications across our financial and telecoms sectors.

    • Digital: Mutually reinforce nation-building digital public infrastructure by co-developing policy levers and standards, and common technology components.

    • Artificial Intelligence: Deepen and explore new collaborations on frontier AI systems to support our national security. This will include a partnership agreement to strengthen existing collaboration on AI safety and security between the Canadian AI Safety Institute and UK AI Security Institute, and new Canadian and UK MOUs with leading Canadian AI firm Cohere. Under the Canadian MOU, Cohere will collaborate with the Canadian AI Safety Institute and develop their commitment to building cutting-edge data centres in Canada. Under the UK MOU, Cohere will expand their UK presence to support the delivery of the UK AI Opportunities Action Plan. Both MOUs reflect ongoing collaboration on the application of AI tools in security and intelligence and are rooted in Cohere’s strong foundations in Canada and ongoing commitment to the UK.

    • Biomanufacturing: Strengthen collaboration to deliver economic growth and be better prepared for future health emergencies, including a joint investment of $14.8 million to support joint biomanufacturing research and development that will grow the talent and skills pipeline in both countries, and to help businesses scale.

    • Civil Nuclear: Develop a world-leading fusion energy collaboration and deepen cooperation on nuclear energy from fission to reduce the influence of Russia on our international fuel supply chains.

    • Critical Minerals: Intensify bilateral cooperation by conducting a strategic mapping exercise to pinpoint key critical minerals, infrastructure, production and processing capacities. They will identify projects for joint investment to support secure and sustainable critical minerals supply chain development and  leverage all available financial tools to mobilize funding and drive production to strengthen our manufacturing and mining sectors.

    Enhanced Defence and Security Partnership

    The two leaders agreed to strengthen cooperation – both bilaterally and through the NATO Alliance and Five Eyes partnership – to safeguard democratic values advance global stability and ensure the safety of our people in an increasingly complex world. To achieve this, they committed to:

    • Ukraine: Further support Ukraine in its self-defence against Russia’s war of aggression. This will include continued support for the Coalition of the Willing and respective efforts to support Ukraine’s domestic defence industrial production. The UK and Canada will continue to work together to support the Air Force Capability Coalition and develop cutting edge aircraft weaponry technology in support of Ukraine.

    • Military Cooperation: Position the Canada-UK defence relationship for further growth across military operations, industrial collaboration, and defence innovation, catalyzed by Canada’s newly announced defence investment trajectory and the UK’s Strategic Defence Review. Canada and the UK will work towards a new permanent arrangement for the long-term and sustainable use of British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) through the “BATUS Future Project”. The Project will deepen the Canada-UK relationship on defence and showcase CFB Suffield as a multi-purpose facility for the development and testing of new equipment and cutting-edge technology which are vital to maintaining our shared security and prosperity.

    • Intelligence: Build on the long history of deep and productive collaboration between our security and intelligence organizations by launching coordinated operational campaigns to combat terrorism and violent extremism, and deepening collaboration on enhanced intelligence collection, including by expanding officer exchange programs.

    • National Security: Tackle evolving state threats together, including sabotage, transnational repression, foreign interference, malicious cyber activity, information manipulation and economic coercion, all of which seeks to undermine our national security and that of our Allies and partners. This will include joint work to invest in civil society organizations actively working to counter digital transnational repression through the Joint Canada-UK Common Good Cyber Fund, a first-of-its-kind multilateral fund aimed at supporting civil society actors at high risk. To kickstart this fund, Canada and the UK are providing $5.7 million in seed funding to the Fund, which will be disbursed over 5 years. They also agreed to strengthen bilateral development and delivery of secure communications products and cutting-edge cryptography and explore new research partnerships to address gaps in AI security and evolve AI models to support national security.

    • Border Security: Strengthen bilateral cooperation to tackle transnational organized criminal organizations engaged in the illicit movement of goods and narcotics, and bolster our response to combat irregular migration, migrant smuggling and human trafficking, including through deeper bilateral information and knowledge exchange.

    Updates to this page

    Published 15 June 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: PM meeting with Prime Minister Carney of Canada: 15 June 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Press release

    PM meeting with Prime Minister Carney of Canada: 15 June 2025

    The Prime Minister met the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in Ottawa this afternoon.

    The Prime Minister met the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in Ottawa this afternoon.

    They began by discussing the grave situation in the Middle East, agreeing that the upcoming G7 Summit presented an opportunity to come together with partners in pursuit of de-escalation. 

    Turning to the UK-Canada relationship – they had a warm and productive conversation, agreeing that as two like-minded leaders there is huge potential to drive forward our partnership for the benefit of British and Canadian people. 

    Prime Minister Carney confirmed that Canada would ratify the UK’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), seeking to introduce legislation to their parliament in the autumn. This will bring huge benefits to UK businesses by lowering tariffs when buying from and selling to Canada. 

    They also agreed to set up a joint taskforce to turbocharge progress on other areas of mutual benefit, including technology and artificial intelligence – in support of shared growth and our national security. The taskforce will also look to make progress on the wider UK-Canada Free Trade Agreement. 

    The Prime Minister said that the world has changed when it comes to trade and the economy, so he wants teams to go as far and as fast as possible, because it is in all of our interests to lower trade barriers with our closest partners.

    Moving on to defence and security, the leaders agreed that there is no doubt that everyone needs to step up at such a volatile time for the world. The Prime Minister reiterated that all NATO allies must come together to advance our collective security in the coming years. 

    They ended on their enduring support for Ukraine, and Prime Minister Carney thanked the Prime Minister for his invaluable leadership on the Coalition of the Willing. 

    They looked forward to discussing this further at the G7 Summit in the coming days.

    Updates to this page

    Published 15 June 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Joint Statement by Prime Minister Carney and Prime Minister Starmer

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Today, Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, and Sir Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (UK), met in Ottawa to reaffirm the profound friendship and shared values that unite both nations. The Canada-UK partnership, rooted in a common history and enduring people-to-people ties, continues to grow stronger, with a focus on delivering prosperity and security for the working people of Canada and the UK alike.

    The two leaders discussed the many geopolitical challenges currently facing the world, including in the Middle East and tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, and reaffirmed their steadfast support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal and unjustifiable war of aggression.

    The two leaders underscored the importance of a fair, open and predictable global trading system; reiterated their commitment to a rules-based international order underpinned by respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity; and committed to advancing peace and trans-Atlantic security. They agreed the following joint initiatives aimed at strengthening economic growth and prosperity and enhancing collective security and defence:

    Growth and Innovation Partnership

    Canada and the UK are committed to delivering economic growth for their people. The two Prime Ministers today announced further collaboration on trade, science, technology and innovation. Through their Partnership, Canada and the UK will work together to:

    • Trade: Strengthen trade ties as trusted, reliable partners. This will include expanding trade under the Canada-UK Trade Continuity Agreement. We will establish a new structured UK-Canada Economic and Trade Working Group to deepen our existing trading relationship further, including to address existing market access barriers, to expand existing arrangements into new areas, such as digital trade, and to explore cooperation in the development of critical minerals and sovereign artificial intelligence infrastructure. The working group will report back to both Prime Ministers within six months. Canada will seek to introduce legislation this autumn to ratify the UK’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership.
    • Semiconductors: Deliver industrial R&D projects to enhance both nations’ complementary strengths in semiconductors, photonics, emerging materials and chip design. They will deepen connections between the innovation rich semiconductor ecosystems in Canada and the UK to help build resilient supply chains and accelerate breakthroughs in this key sector that is driving economic growth.
    • Quantum: Announce a joint commitment to develop secure, transatlantic communications based on quantum technologies, allowing us to connect our national systems and lay the groundwork to create a truly global, next-generation network, with applications across our financial and telecoms sectors.
    • Digital: Mutually reinforce nation-building digital public infrastructure by co-developing policy levers and standards, and common technology components.
    • Artificial Intelligence: Deepen and explore new collaborations on frontier AI systems to support our national security. This will include a partnership agreement to strengthen existing collaboration on AI safety and security between the Canadian AI Safety Institute and UK AI Security Institute, and new Canadian and UK MOUs with leading Canadian AI firm Cohere. Under the Canadian MOU, Cohere will collaborate with the Canadian AI Safety Institute and develop their commitment to building cutting-edge data centres in Canada. Under the UK MOU, Cohere will expand their UK presence to support the delivery of the UK AI Opportunities Action Plan. Both MOUs reflect ongoing collaboration on the application of AI tools in security and intelligence and are rooted in Cohere’s strong foundations in Canada and ongoing commitment to the UK.
    • Biomanufacturing: Strengthen collaboration to deliver economic growth and be better prepared for future health emergencies, including a joint investment of $14.8 million to support joint biomanufacturing research and development that will grow the talent and skills pipeline in both countries, and to help businesses scale.
    • Civil Nuclear: Develop a world-leading fusion energy collaboration and deepen cooperation on nuclear energy from fission to reduce the influence of Russia on our international fuel supply chains.
    • Critical Minerals: Intensify bilateral cooperation by conducting a strategic mapping exercise to pinpoint key critical minerals, infrastructure, production and processing capacities. They will identify projects for joint investment to support secure and sustainable critical minerals supply chain development and  leverage all available financial tools to mobilize funding and drive production to strengthen our manufacturing and mining sectors.

    Enhanced Defence and Security Partnership

    The two leaders agreed to strengthen cooperation – both bilaterally and through the NATO Alliance and Five Eyes partnership – to safeguard democratic values advance global stability and ensure the safety of our people in an increasingly complex world. To achieve this, they committed to:

    • Ukraine: Further support Ukraine in its self-defence against Russia’s war of aggression. This will include continued support for the Coalition of the Willing and respective efforts to support Ukraine’s domestic defence industrial production. The UK and Canada will continue to work together to support the Air Force Capability Coalition and develop cutting edge aircraft weaponry technology in support of Ukraine.
    • Military Cooperation: Position the Canada-UK defence relationship for further growth across military operations, industrial collaboration, and defence innovation, catalyzed by Canada’s newly announced defence investment trajectory and the UK’s Strategic Defence Review. Canada and the UK will work towards a new permanent arrangement for the long-term and sustainable use of British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) through the “BATUS Future Project”. The Project will deepen the Canada-UK relationship on defence and showcase CFB Suffield as a multi-purpose facility for the development and testing of new equipment and cutting-edge technology which are vital to maintaining our shared security and prosperity.
    • Intelligence: Build on the long history of deep and productive collaboration between our security and intelligence organizations by launching coordinated operational campaigns to combat terrorism and violent extremism, and deepening collaboration on enhanced intelligence collection, including by expanding officer exchange programs.
    • National Security: Tackle evolving state threats together, including sabotage, transnational repression, foreign interference, malicious cyber activity, information manipulation and economic coercion, all of which seeks to undermine our national security and that of our Allies and partners. This will include joint work to invest in civil society organizations actively working to counter digital transnational repression through the Joint Canada-UK Common Good Cyber Fund, a first-of-its-kind multilateral fund aimed at supporting civil society actors at high risk. To kickstart this fund, Canada and the UK are providing $5.7 million in seed funding to the Fund, which will be disbursed over 5 years. They also agreed to strengthen bilateral development and delivery of secure communications products and cutting-edge cryptography and explore new research partnerships to address gaps in AI security and evolve AI models to support national security.
    • Border Security: Strengthen bilateral cooperation to tackle transnational organized criminal organizations engaged in the illicit movement of goods and narcotics, and bolster our response to combat irregular migration, migrant smuggling and human trafficking, including through deeper bilateral information and knowledge exchange.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Exclusive: Belt and Road Initiative Strengthens Academic, Cultural and Humanitarian Exchanges between China and Kazakhstan – KIMEP University President

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    ASTANA, June 15 (Xinhua) — The Belt and Road Initiative has strengthened academic and cultural exchanges between China and Kazakhstan, laying a solid foundation for deeper regional cooperation, Chang Yong-pan, president of the Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research (KIMEP), told Xinhua in an exclusive interview.

    “The Belt and Road Initiative promotes Kazakhstan’s economic development and regional integration. At the same time, the prospects for Chinese-Kazakh exchanges look promising,” he noted.

    Over the past decade, KIMEP has hosted delegations from more than 100 universities in China. In 2018, the university established a joint research center with Beijing Normal University to promote academic dialogue.

    “Since KIMEP’s founding, we have educated 159 Chinese students. We are proud of our role in strengthening ties with China,” Chang Yong Pan emphasized.

    According to him, academic exchanges are developing thanks to high-level cooperation. In 2024, more than 15 thousand Kazakh students studied at Chinese universities.

    The KIMEP President recalled that after the introduction of a visa-free regime at the end of 2023, the flow of tourists from China to Kazakhstan increased by 66 percent, and the number of Kazakhstani tourists in China increased by 31 percent.

    “The arrival of the first tourist train from Xi’an to Almaty in June was an important milestone. I am optimistic about the prospects for cultural and humanitarian cooperation,” he said.

    Chang Yong-ban noted that he has high hopes for the 2nd China-Central Asia Summit, which will be held in Astana. According to the Xinhua source, the 2023 summit in the Chinese city of Xi’an has yielded significant results, and further cooperation should focus on finance, green development, healthcare and digital innovation.

    “The successful model in Central Asia can serve as a model for other regions. Maintaining peace and prosperity here can be an example for the entire world,” he added. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: OCEANIA/PAPUA NEW GUINEA – Peter To Rot, the “mission boy” will be proclaimed a saint

    Source: Agenzia Fides – MIL OSI

    Sunday, 15 June 2025

    by Javier TraperoPort Moresby (Agenzia Fides) – Blessed Martyr Peter To Rot will be canonised on October 19, 2025. His sainthood is the fruit of close cooperation between priests and laity in the evangelising task of mission, specifically that of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart (MSC).‘He, the ‘mission boy’, was very ill and has died’. This was the ironic way the policeman To Metapa spoke when he went to see with his own eyes that Peter To Rot was dead. Shortly before, the doctor at the prison where he was being held had injected him with a so-called medicine and given him a syrup to cure him of a cold. The administration of these substances caused him to vomit, which the doctor himself did not allow him to expel by covering his mouth.Such was the martyrdom of this ‘mission boy’. The martyrdom of a person tremendously committed to missionary work. That of a native Papuan catechist who learned to love Jesus, together with the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.Peter To Rot was born in Rakanui, a village on the island of New Britain in Papua New Guinea, in 1912. But the story of his sainthood, so to speak, began 14 years earlier, with the baptism of his parents. This was tremendously important for the evangelisation of this part of the Pacific.His father, Angelo To Puia, was chief of his community. He was among the first to be baptised at the mission, along with his wife, Maria Ia Tumul. For an authority among the natives to receive this sacrament of Christian initiation meant acceptance of the teachings of Jesus and, very importantly, renunciation of the practices of witchcraft and cannibalism that were very much a part of the culture of those people, as well as others that were contrary to the Gospel.Peter To Rot’s sister spoke of her family when questioned during the beatification process: ‘My father was one of the leaders of the clan. He always took good care of his children, and was concerned about our education, the advice we received and our general welfare. Our family was known as a truly Catholic family, and our parents brought us up according to that faith’.Peter to Rot’s parents had a very close relationship with the missionaries. They helped build the mission, donated the land for the church, the school and the missionary house. They were a very kind and committed family, always ready to lend a helping hand to anyone in need.Fr Joseph Theler, MSC, explains in the Positio for the beatification of Peter To Rot that ‘Angelo To Puia was a wealthy leader with a gentle character. He was undoubtedly the most respected person by all in the Navunaram and Rakunai areas. He was considered the protector of the indigenous people.With this family background, Peter To Rot showed a very special interest in the Eucharist from a very young age, volunteering to help at daily mass. The Eucharist was for him a fundamental pillar in his life of faith. Ulrich, MSC, who had been appointed in charge of the mission in 1926, wanted volunteer acolytes to make up the weekly list, but at the same time he wanted them to be responsible and to come regularly. Once again, To Rot was the first to give his name. When the children at school were asked which of them had said their morning and evening prayers, To Rot always raised his hand to show that he had done so.Such was Peter To Rot’s religious sense that Fr Carl Laufer, MSC, raised the possibility of his becoming a priest, to which his father replied: ‘No, Father, I don’t think one of our generation is ready to become a priest. It’s too early for that. Maybe one of my grandchildren or great- grandchildren will be that lucky. But if you want To Rot to be a catechist, send him to the Taliligap Catechist School’.At the age of 18, Peter To Rot entered the catechists’ school run by Fr. Joseph Lakaff, MSC. It must be said that the concept of a catechist in the mission is that of a person who is very committed to the community, a guide, a point of reference for all its members. Lakaff defined it as follows: ‘The catechist is a true missionary. He is an explorer, a teacher in the most remote places, a watchman. He softens the soil in the unploughed fields where the seed of faith will be planted. He warns against dangers and prepares the way for the final triumph of faith. Because catechists are familiar with the mentality of their own people, their lifestyles, traditions, ideas about various aspects of life and their language, they give the priest working among a native people, with their help, a clear advantage over the unaided foreign missionary’.Catechists are such committed people that, in many parts of the world, they have even given their lives to continue their evangelising mission when priests, missionaries or missionaries have been expelled, imprisoned or killed. This is the case of Peter To Rot.In 1942, in the middle of World War II, the Japanese army invaded Papua New Guinea. In a first phase, they arrested all the priests, but allowed the pastoral activity of the missions. This is where catechists in general and Peter To Rot in particular played a key role in maintaining the faith in their communities. Gradually, religious freedom was curtailed and certain religious manifestations were banned, until in 1944 the ban was total. Laufer wrote: ‘The huts of the natives were regularly searched for religious books, crucifixes, medals, stamps, etc. Possession of any written document was dangerous. To Rot had in his possession the mission register which, together with his personal notes, he managed to hide in the thatched roof of the school. What had been permitted up to this point and carried out in terms of prayers, Sunday services and instructions, was now forbidden, at least outwardly’.The authorities gathered the catechists in the police stations and forced them to stop their pastoral activities. Laufer, Peter To Rot’s reaction was firm: ‘They have taken away our priests, but they cannot forbid us to be Catholics and to live and die as Catholics. I am your catechist and I will do my duty, even if it costs me my life’. Clandestinely, he went out in the evenings to meet with small groups of the faithful. He gave them catechesis, presided at prayers and, when necessary, administered baptisms or blessed marriages. He consciously assumed his responsibility as a catechist in the absence of the missionaries, determined not to abandon the Christian communities.In addition to this prohibition of any religious manifestation, the Japanese army, in order to curry favour with the most sympathetic leaders, restored practices that had almost disappeared, such as polygamy. From then on, Peter To Rot became a staunch defender of marriage. He openly opposed the practice, which led him to oppose influential members such as policemen and judges who wanted to take married women as wives. For this reason, the policeman To Metapa, who had sufficient power to order his arrest, denounced him. During his time in prison, Peter To Rot showed great composure and conviction. He firmly defended his decisions and his fidelity to the Christian faith, without any regrets. He remained steadfast as a catechist and witness to the Gospel to the very end. Hours before his martyrdom he said: ‘I am in prison for those who break their marriage vows and for those who do not want to see God’s work go forward. That is all. I must die. I have already been condemned to death.’ (Agenzia Fides, 15/6/2025)
    Share:

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Sun Dong begins Dutch visit

    Source: Hong Kong Information Services

    Secretary for Innovation, Technology & Industry Prof Sun Dong today met the management of internationally renowned semiconductor company Nexperia as he began his visit to the Netherlands.

    Apart from learning about Nexperia’s latest development directions and technology as well as its businesses in Hong Kong and globally, Prof Sun also explored with the company on its plan of further expansion in Hong Kong.

    Nexperia has businesses around the globe with research and development (R&D) facilities established in the Hong Kong Science Park.

    On Saturday, Prof Sun visited the showroom of Renault Group in Paris, France, and met the group’s management who gave him a briefing on the latest development and planning of the group and its brands as well as its various innovative businesses. Both sides also explored ways to deepen collaboration.

    BeyonCa, a premium electric vehicle enterprise backed by France’s Renault Group and China’s Dongfeng Motor Corporation, was established in Hong Kong in 2021 with its international headquarters being set up at the Hong Kong Science Park.

    Prof Sun pointed out that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government has clearly stated in the Hong Kong Innovation & Technology Development Blueprint that the development of advanced manufacturing and new energy are one of the strategic technology industries.

    He highlighted that the Hong Kong Microelectronics Research & Development Institute, established in September last year, is preparing the set-up of two pilot lines at the Microelectronics Centre this year, striving to put them into operation next year to support product development and trial production.          

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: One person killed in drone attack on enterprise in Tatarstan

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Moscow, June 15 /Xinhua/ — One person was killed and 13 others were injured in an attack by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) on an enterprise in the Russian Republic of Tatarstan, the head of the republic Rustam Minnikhanov reported on Telegram.

    “Today, another attack by enemy drones was carried out on the territory of the Republic of Tatarstan. When the UAV was destroyed, the debris fell on the checkpoint building of the automobile plant in the Yelabuga district. As a result, a worker died. A total of 13 people were injured,” wrote R. Minnikhanov.

    He added that a fire broke out at the site and was quickly extinguished by the relevant services. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: SITI commences visit to Netherlands (with photos)

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

    ​The Secretary for Innovation, Technology and Industry, Professor Sun Dong, began his visit to the Netherlands today (June 15, Amsterdam time).
     
    Professor Sun met with the management of an internationally renowned semiconductor company Nexperia to learn about its latest development directions and technology, as well as its businesses in Hong Kong and globally. He also explored with the company on its plan of further expansion in Hong Kong. Nexperia has businesses around the globe with research and development (R&D) facilities established in the Hong Kong Science Park.
     
    Professor Sun visited the showroom of Renault Group in Paris, France and met with the group’s management yesterday (June 14, Paris time). BeyonCa, a premium electric vehicle enterprise backed by France’s Renault Group and China’s Dongfeng Motor Corporation, was established in Hong Kong in 2021 with its international headquarters being set up at the Hong Kong Science Park. Professor Sun was briefed on the latest development and planning of the group and its brands as well as its various innovative businesses. Both sides also explored ways to deepen collaboration.

    Professor Sun said, “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government has clearly stated in the Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Development Blueprint that the development of advanced manufacturing and new energy are one of the strategic technology industries, and is actively enhancing support for strategic industries such as new energy vehicles and semiconductor technology, so as to promote new industrialisation in Hong Kong. In promoting microelectronics R&D, the Hong Kong Microelectronics Research and Development Institute was established in September last year to spearhead collaboration among universities, R&D centres and the industry on the R&D of third generation semiconductor core technology. The institute leverages the Greater Bay Area’s well-developed manufacturing industry chain and enormous market, and promotes the ‘1 to N’ transformation of R&D outcomes and industry development. It is preparing the set-up of two pilot lines at the Microelectronics Centre this year, striving to put them into operation next year to support product development and trial production.”
     
    During his stay in Paris, Professor Sun was interviewed by local media to introduce the latest situation and opportunities of Hong Kong’s I&T, telling the good I&T story of Hong Kong.
     
    Professor Sun will depart for The Hague this evening to continue his visit to the Netherlands.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Millions rally against authoritarianism, while the White House portrays protests as threats – a political scientist explains

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeremy Pressman, Professor of Political Science, University of Connecticut

    Protesters parade through the Marigny neighborhood of New Orleans as part of the nationwide No Kings protest against President Donald Trump, on June 14, 2025. Patt Little/Anadolu via Getty Images

    At the end of a week when President Donald Trump sent Marines and the California National Guard to Los Angeles to quell protests, Americans across the country turned out in huge numbers to protest Trump’s attempts to expand his power. In rallies on June 14, 2025, organized under the banner “No Kings,” millions of protesters decried Trump’s immigration roundups, cuts to government programs and what many described as his growing authoritarianism.

    The protests were largely peaceful, with relatively few incidents of violence.

    Protests and the interactions between protesters and government authorities have a long history in the United States. From the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights movement, LBGTQ Stonewall uprising, the Tea Party movement and Black Lives Matter, public protest has been a crucial aspect of efforts to advance or protect the rights of citizens.

    But protests can also have other effects.

    In the last few months, large numbers of anti-Trump protesters have come out in the streets across the U.S., on occasions like the April 5 Hands Off protests against safety net budget cuts and government downsizing. Many of those protesters assert they are protecting American democracy.

    The Trump administration has decried these protesters and the concept of protest more generally, with the president recently calling protesters “troublemakers, agitators, insurrectionists.” A few days before the June 14 military parade in Washington, President Donald Trump said of potential protesters: “this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.”

    Trump’s current reaction is reminiscent of his harsh condemnation of the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020. In 2022, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said that Trump had asked about shooting protesters participating in demonstrations after the 2020 shooting of George Floyd.

    As co-director of the Crowd Counting Consortium, which compiles information on each day’s protests in the U.S., I understand that protests sometimes can advance the goals of the protest movement. They also can shape the goals and behavior of federal or state governments and their leaders.

    Opportunity for expressing or suppressing democracy

    Protests are an expression of democracy, bolstered by the right to free speech and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    At the same time, clamping down on protests is one way to rebut challenges to government policies and power.

    For a president intent on the further centralization of executive power, or even establishing a dictatorship, protest suppression provides multiple opportunities and pitfalls.

    Widespread, well-attended demonstrations can represent a mass movement in favor of democracy or other issues as well as serve as an opportunity to expand participation even further. Large events often lead to significant press coverage and plenty of social media posting. The protests may heighten protesters’ emotional connection to the movement and increase fundraising and membership numbers of sponsoring organizations.

    Though it is not an ironclad law, research shows that when at least 3.5% of the total population is involved in a demonstration, protesters usually prevail over their governments. That included the Chilean movement in the 1980s that toppled longtime dictator Augusto Pinochet. Chileans used not only massive demonstrations but also a wide array of creative tactics like a coordinated slowdown of driving and walking, neighbors banging pots outside homes simultaneously, and singing together.

    Protests are rarely only about protesting. Organizers usually seek to involve participants in many other activities, whether that is contacting their elected officials, writing letters to the editor, registering to vote or running a food drive to help vulnerable populations.

    In this way of thinking, participation in a major street protest like No Kings is a gateway into deeper activism.

    Risks and opportunities

    Of course, protest leaders cannot control everyone in or adjacent to the movement.

    Other protesters with a different agenda, or agitators of any sort, can insert themselves into a movement and use confrontational tactics like violence against property or law enforcement.

    In one prominent example from Los Angeles, someone set several self-driving cars on fire. Other Los Angeles examples included some protesters’ throwing things like water bottles at officers or engaging in vandalism. Police officers also use coercive measures such as firing chemical irritants and pepper balls at protesters.

    When leaders want to concentrate executive power and establish an autocracy, where they rule with absolute power, protests against those moves could lead to a mass rejection of the leader’s plans. That is what national protest groups like 50501 and Indivisible are hoping for and why they aimed to turn out millions of people at the No Kings protests on June 14.

    But while the Trump administration faces risks from protests, it also may see opportunities.

    Misrepresenting and quashing dissent

    Protests can serve as a justification for a nascent autocrat to further undermine democratic practices and institutions.

    Take the recent demonstrations in Los Angeles protesting the Trump administration’s immigration raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

    Autocrats seek to politicize independent institutions like the armed forces. The Los Angeles protests offered the opportunity for that. Trump sent troops from the California National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to contain the protests. That domestic deployment of the military is rare but not unheard of in U.S. history.

    And the deployment was ordered against the backdrop of the president’s partisan June 10 speech at a U.S. military base in North Carolina. The military personnel in attendance cheered and applauded many of Trump’s political statements. Both the speech and audience reactions to it appeared to violate the U.S. military norm of nonpartisanship.

    This deployment of military personnel in a U.S. city also dovetails with the expansion of executive power characteristic of autocratic leaders. It is rare that presidents call up the National Guard; the Guard is traditionally under the control of the state governor.

    Yet the White House disregarded that Los Angeles’ mayor and California’s governor both objected to the deployment.

    The state sued the Trump administration over the deployment. The initial court decision sided with California officials, declaring the federal government action “illegal.” The Trump administration has appealed.

    Autocrats seek to spread disinformation. In the case of the Los Angeles protests, the Trump administration’s narrative depicted a chaotic, gang-infested city with violence everywhere. Reports on the ground refuted those characterizations. The protests, mostly peaceful, were confined to a small part of the city, about a 10-block area.

    More generally, a strong executive leader and their supporters often want to quash dissent. In the Los Angeles example, doing that has ranged from the military deployment itself to targeting journalists covering the story to arresting and charging prominent opponents like SEIU President David Huerta or shoving and handcuffing U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat.

    The contrast on June 14 was striking. In Washington, D.C., Trump reviewed a parade of troops, tanks and planes, leaning into a display of American military power.

    At the same time, from rainy Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to sweltering Yuma, Arizona, millions of protesters embraced their First Amendment rights to oppose the president. It perfectly illustrated the dynamic driving deep political division today: the executive concentrating power while a sizable segment of the people resist.

    Jeremy Pressman 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. Millions rally against authoritarianism, while the White House portrays protests as threats – a political scientist explains – https://theconversation.com/millions-rally-against-authoritarianism-while-the-white-house-portrays-protests-as-threats-a-political-scientist-explains-258963

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Millions rally against authoritarianism, while the White House portrays protests as threats – a political scientist explains

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeremy Pressman, Professor of Political Science, University of Connecticut

    Protesters parade through the Marigny neighborhood of New Orleans as part of the nationwide No Kings protest against President Donald Trump, on June 14, 2025. Patt Little/Anadolu via Getty Images

    At the end of a week when President Donald Trump sent Marines and the California National Guard to Los Angeles to quell protests, Americans across the country turned out in huge numbers to protest Trump’s attempts to expand his power. In rallies on June 14, 2025, organized under the banner “No Kings,” millions of protesters decried Trump’s immigration roundups, cuts to government programs and what many described as his growing authoritarianism.

    The protests were largely peaceful, with relatively few incidents of violence.

    Protests and the interactions between protesters and government authorities have a long history in the United States. From the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights movement, LBGTQ Stonewall uprising, the Tea Party movement and Black Lives Matter, public protest has been a crucial aspect of efforts to advance or protect the rights of citizens.

    But protests can also have other effects.

    In the last few months, large numbers of anti-Trump protesters have come out in the streets across the U.S., on occasions like the April 5 Hands Off protests against safety net budget cuts and government downsizing. Many of those protesters assert they are protecting American democracy.

    The Trump administration has decried these protesters and the concept of protest more generally, with the president recently calling protesters “troublemakers, agitators, insurrectionists.” A few days before the June 14 military parade in Washington, President Donald Trump said of potential protesters: “this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.”

    Trump’s current reaction is reminiscent of his harsh condemnation of the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020. In 2022, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said that Trump had asked about shooting protesters participating in demonstrations after the 2020 shooting of George Floyd.

    As co-director of the Crowd Counting Consortium, which compiles information on each day’s protests in the U.S., I understand that protests sometimes can advance the goals of the protest movement. They also can shape the goals and behavior of federal or state governments and their leaders.

    Opportunity for expressing or suppressing democracy

    Protests are an expression of democracy, bolstered by the right to free speech and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    At the same time, clamping down on protests is one way to rebut challenges to government policies and power.

    For a president intent on the further centralization of executive power, or even establishing a dictatorship, protest suppression provides multiple opportunities and pitfalls.

    Widespread, well-attended demonstrations can represent a mass movement in favor of democracy or other issues as well as serve as an opportunity to expand participation even further. Large events often lead to significant press coverage and plenty of social media posting. The protests may heighten protesters’ emotional connection to the movement and increase fundraising and membership numbers of sponsoring organizations.

    Though it is not an ironclad law, research shows that when at least 3.5% of the total population is involved in a demonstration, protesters usually prevail over their governments. That included the Chilean movement in the 1980s that toppled longtime dictator Augusto Pinochet. Chileans used not only massive demonstrations but also a wide array of creative tactics like a coordinated slowdown of driving and walking, neighbors banging pots outside homes simultaneously, and singing together.

    Protests are rarely only about protesting. Organizers usually seek to involve participants in many other activities, whether that is contacting their elected officials, writing letters to the editor, registering to vote or running a food drive to help vulnerable populations.

    In this way of thinking, participation in a major street protest like No Kings is a gateway into deeper activism.

    Risks and opportunities

    Of course, protest leaders cannot control everyone in or adjacent to the movement.

    Other protesters with a different agenda, or agitators of any sort, can insert themselves into a movement and use confrontational tactics like violence against property or law enforcement.

    In one prominent example from Los Angeles, someone set several self-driving cars on fire. Other Los Angeles examples included some protesters’ throwing things like water bottles at officers or engaging in vandalism. Police officers also use coercive measures such as firing chemical irritants and pepper balls at protesters.

    When leaders want to concentrate executive power and establish an autocracy, where they rule with absolute power, protests against those moves could lead to a mass rejection of the leader’s plans. That is what national protest groups like 50501 and Indivisible are hoping for and why they aimed to turn out millions of people at the No Kings protests on June 14.

    But while the Trump administration faces risks from protests, it also may see opportunities.

    Misrepresenting and quashing dissent

    Protests can serve as a justification for a nascent autocrat to further undermine democratic practices and institutions.

    Take the recent demonstrations in Los Angeles protesting the Trump administration’s immigration raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

    Autocrats seek to politicize independent institutions like the armed forces. The Los Angeles protests offered the opportunity for that. Trump sent troops from the California National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to contain the protests. That domestic deployment of the military is rare but not unheard of in U.S. history.

    And the deployment was ordered against the backdrop of the president’s partisan June 10 speech at a U.S. military base in North Carolina. The military personnel in attendance cheered and applauded many of Trump’s political statements. Both the speech and audience reactions to it appeared to violate the U.S. military norm of nonpartisanship.

    This deployment of military personnel in a U.S. city also dovetails with the expansion of executive power characteristic of autocratic leaders. It is rare that presidents call up the National Guard; the Guard is traditionally under the control of the state governor.

    Yet the White House disregarded that Los Angeles’ mayor and California’s governor both objected to the deployment.

    The state sued the Trump administration over the deployment. The initial court decision sided with California officials, declaring the federal government action “illegal.” The Trump administration has appealed.

    Autocrats seek to spread disinformation. In the case of the Los Angeles protests, the Trump administration’s narrative depicted a chaotic, gang-infested city with violence everywhere. Reports on the ground refuted those characterizations. The protests, mostly peaceful, were confined to a small part of the city, about a 10-block area.

    More generally, a strong executive leader and their supporters often want to quash dissent. In the Los Angeles example, doing that has ranged from the military deployment itself to targeting journalists covering the story to arresting and charging prominent opponents like SEIU President David Huerta or shoving and handcuffing U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat.

    The contrast on June 14 was striking. In Washington, D.C., Trump reviewed a parade of troops, tanks and planes, leaning into a display of American military power.

    At the same time, from rainy Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to sweltering Yuma, Arizona, millions of protesters embraced their First Amendment rights to oppose the president. It perfectly illustrated the dynamic driving deep political division today: the executive concentrating power while a sizable segment of the people resist.

    Jeremy Pressman 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. Millions rally against authoritarianism, while the White House portrays protests as threats – a political scientist explains – https://theconversation.com/millions-rally-against-authoritarianism-while-the-white-house-portrays-protests-as-threats-a-political-scientist-explains-258963

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: LEADER JEFFRIES: “WE NEED TO DEFEND OUR DEMOCRACY, UPLIFT AND CHERISH THE CONSTITUTION AND CREATE A BETTER AMERICA”

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (8th District of New York)

    This morning, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries appeared on MSNBC’s The Weekend to discuss the violent attacks against Minnesota lawmakers and the need for leaders that bring America together rather than tear us apart.  

    EUGENE DANIELS: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joins us now. Leader Jeffries, thank you so much for coming on. The thing that I kind of can’t get around is how we unring this bell. It feels to me, and I think to a lot of Americans, that the normalization of violence in our politics, the normalization of assassination attempts in our politics, something we haven’t seen since maybe the Civil Rights Era of the 60s, when those were happening. How do we, how can we actually unring that bell realistically?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, it’s going to be imperative that everyone, across the political spectrum, demonstrate the type of leadership that actually is designed to bring people together, to lift people up and to appeal to the greater values of the American people, the things that should bind us together, patriotic Americans. We can have spirited debates, but we should never allow those spirited debates to inspire others to engage in behavior that’s unlawful. That’s going to fall on the President. It’s going to fall on the House, the Senate, governors, mayors, people all across the country because the trajectory that we are on right now, the violent culture that exists, is not sustainable.

    JONATHAN CAPEHART: And Leader Jeffries, then, is the President doing enough to lower the temperature? Are Republican leaders in the House and the Senate doing enough to lower the temperature or are they exacerbating the tensions in the country by some of the things they say and some of the things they do?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, that certainly remains to be seen in terms of how the President, how my colleagues in Congress handle this moment moving forward. This should be another wake up call amongst many that have happened over the last several years, including, of course, the violent attack on the Capitol that took place on January 6. But at this particular moment in time, the President is going to have to step forward, as is the case with any President when tragedy strikes the United States of America. Now, of course, it’s complicated at this moment by the fact that there’s an ongoing manhunt. All of us should support our law enforcement officials who are engaged in a dangerous endeavor to try to apprehend this suspect, who is clearly violent and likely very disturbed. And we’re thankful for the effort that is being done—city, state and federal officials—to try to apprehend this suspect who engaged in a political assassination of Speaker Hortman. And that’s shocking. That should shock the conscience of everyone. But we also have to come together, and we’re going to need some executive branch leadership partnering with us in the Congress and the Judiciary to keep people safe. It’s not sustainable that Members of Congress, perhaps members of the Judiciary, are being threatened and targeted simply for doing their jobs.

    ELISE JORDAN: Leader Jeffries, are you going to be pushing for any additional security for your members? One of your members, Congresswoman Morrison, was on the list as a target. What has to be done in terms of concrete steps to make sure that Members of the House and also the Senate here in Washington are safe?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Yeah, this is going to require additional resources, in all likelihood, so that Members of Congress, Democrats, Republicans, people in the House, people in the Senate, you know, have the ability to actually vigilantly and vigorously represent their constituents, articulate views that are designed to advance the best interests of their constituents and not be targeted in the process. And so I expect to have a conversation with the four corners of leadership across the Congress sooner rather than later, because we’re going to need to speak in one voice on this issue. And of course, early next week, we’ll convene directly with the Sergeant at Arms and the head of the Capitol Police Department to have a conversation with House Democrats about the steps that can be immediately taken to put people in a position where they can be safe and do their jobs actively and aggressively at the same time.

    EUGENE DANIELS: Leader Jeffries, also yesterday we saw these kind of, you know, split screen moment of what was happening in this country with people taking to the streets and protesting and these ‘No Kings’ protests just while President Trump was having his military parade here. There’s a lot of energy, right? We were seeing folks in big cities, small towns and townships. I was driving to a friend’s baby shower yesterday, and I saw one woman just standing out there with a sign by herself on her street corner. How do you, as a leader, how do Democratic leaders take what seems to be an energy that folks are feeling, both Democrats, Republicans and even some Independents, and channel that into something moving forward? What does that look like?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, yes. Well, you know, it was very inspirational to see that across 50 states, you had peaceful demonstrators coming out in community, after community, after community to make a few things clear—primarily that we need to defend our democracy, uplift and cherish the Constitution and create a better America moving forward that’s less divided and more unified. There’s this principle that is an important part of who we are as a country, that we don’t have kings, we don’t have monarchs, we don’t have dictators. We’re a democracy, and in that democracy, you have three separate and co-equal branches of government. And what we need at this moment is to make sure that the legislative branch actually functions in the way that was intended: a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch. And the way to do that in this current moment is that we just need a handful of Republicans to actually come to the conclusion that they don’t work for Donald Trump, they don’t work for Elon Musk, they don’t work for JD Vance, they work for the American people. Just a handful—four in the House, four in the Senate to do the right thing, to push back against the reckless Republican efforts to jam this GOP Tax Scam down the throats of the American people, the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, on top of the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history, literally ripping food out of the mouths of children, seniors and veterans. And all of it is being done to give massive tax breaks to GOP billionaire donors. That’s unacceptable. It’s an attack on the American way of life, an attack on the rule of law, an attack on democracy itself. And we need people in the Congress to step up and we need to also support the efforts of the Judiciary branch, which by and large, have been tremendous in upholding the rule of law and pushing back against this administration.

    JONATHAN CAPEHART: Leader Jeffries, as you noted a couple times in that response, you just need a handful of Republicans to step forward and do the right thing. Why won’t they step forward? Is it because they are in fear of going against this President, and what that would mean in terms of their constituents and also some of the folks who maybe might go a little too far? Or is the problem also that you actually have true believers within the Republican Party now, more true believers than the handful you need to step forward to do the right thing for the American people?

    LEADER JEFFRIES: It’s a great question, Jonathan, and I think you have 220 Republicans in the House of Representatives. The overwhelming majority of them are true believers in terms of the far-right extremism the Trump administration is trying to jam down the throats of the American people. There are a handful who are not, but we need them to show, with respect to defending our democracy and the rule of law, what I would call Liz Cheney-like courage. And when it comes to policy issues and the extreme efforts to, you know, end Medicaid as we know it, or wipe away the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans or snatch food out of the mouths of children, we need them to show John McCain-like courage when John McCain, of course, several years ago, was the decisive vote in defeating the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We’re going to continue to work on them every day, every week, every month until a handful of them finally decide to cross over. It’s why we’ve been having town hall meetings in our districts and in Republican districts and rallies and speeches and press conferences and hearings and being very aggressive as Democrats in trying to make sure that you have some Republicans partner with us to do the right thing on behalf of our great country.

    JONATHAN CAPEHART: And that John McCain moment was iconic as he walked to the Senate Floor and did a thumbs down on the effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, thank you very much for coming to The Weekend.

    The full interview can be watched here. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Deputy President to lead 2025 Youth Day commemoration

    Source: South Africa News Agency

    Deputy President Shiphokosa Paulus Mashatile will, on behalf of President Cyril Ramaphosa, deliver the keynote address at the 2025 Youth Day commemoration and career exhibition event, to be held in the North West Province.

    Hundreds of young people are expected to gather on Monday, 16 June 2025, at the North West University (NWU) Rag Farm Stadium, Potchefstroom in the JB Marks Local Municipality.

    “As we commemorate this year’s Youth Day, we do so fully aware of the challenges which continue to confront today’s youth, one of them being youth unemployment.  Hence this youth month, Government is putting a strong emphasis on the importance of strong collaboration by all implementing partners on  education, skills and economic development in order to link youth with education and economic opportunities to address youth unemployment in our country,” the Deputy President said on Sunday.

    This year’s National Youth Day Commemorative events are taking place are held under the theme, “Skills for the Changing World – Empowering Youth for Meaningful Economic Participation.”

    This is a call to all government entities and its strategic partners to accelerate and enhance meaningful interventions in bridging the gap between skills development programmes and services available for access by youth to realise economic gain.

    In South Africa, June 16 has been declared a National Youth Day due to the active role and participation of young people in the liberation struggle, noting specifically the student uprising of 16 June 1976. 

    The 1976 uprising raised the political awareness and introduced a renewed sense to protest against the oppressive apartheid regime. The peaceful 1976 youth demonstrations were met with brutal force from the apartheid regime, resulting in the tragic loss of innocent lives, including that of Hector Pieterson, who became the face of the brutality worldwide. 

    To date, not only does South Africa continue to pay homage to the youth of 1976, but the country also recognises and applauds the greatness of today’s youth as they make up 34% of South Africa’s total population. 

    During the Youth Day Commemorative event, Deputy President Mashatile will be accompanied by the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture, Gayton McKenzie, Minister in the Presidency responsible for Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, Sindisiwe Chikunga, Premier of the North West Province, Lazarus Mokgosi, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the National Youth Development Agency, Mafiki Duma, Mayors, senior government officials and Young Trailblazers. –SAnews.gov.za

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why we still need a women’s prize for fiction

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Binhammer, Katherine, Professor of Literary History, University of Alberta

    As we make summer reading lists, some of us will turn to lists of prize winners for recommendations.

    One influential prize, the Women’s Prize for Fiction, recently celebrated its 30th award winner, The Safekeep by Dutch writer Yael van der Wouden.

    The international prize honours the best novel by a woman written in English and published in the United Kingdom. The prize, first awarded in 1996, was founded after no women writers made the 1991 Booker Prize shortlist.

    Considering that fiction by women now regularly makes the shortlists of major prizes, it seems timely to ask: do we still need a prize dedicated to women?

    We explored this question by creating a new dataset containing information on 15 British literary prizes, with demographic information for 682 shortlisted and winning authors. Our analysis of the dataset shows how there is still a ways to go before women’s writing is valued — awarded, remunerated and read — equally to men’s.

    Who wins what prizes?

    We are four research collaborators affiliated with the University of Alberta’s Orlando Project, a project that harnesses the power of digital tools and methods to provide new knowledge about feminist literary scholarship. The Orlando Project has published a searchable digital archive with original coding that focuses of women’s relationship to literary production.

    We compiled a new dataset to explore how gender, ethnicity and educational achievement impacts who wins what prizes.

    When the Women’s Prize first came on the scene in 1996, the average percentage of women winning other U.K. literary prizes actually dropped. The average only began to rise around 2003 when it steadily increased until 2012.

    Women won just eight per cent of the prizes in our dataset in 2003, whereas they won 53 per cent in 2012. But that increase plateaued in 2012, and for the next decade it held steady at a running average of 45 per cent. As well, we note no steady linear progression upwards or downwards on average, but there were highs and lows (21 per cent in 2016 followed by 64 per cent in 2017).

    Booker winners

    Some fluctuation in the winners’ genders is, of course, to be expected. But as is apparent by looking at the percentage of women winners year to year, we should not assume things will always get better.

    Other insights from our dataset suggest caution is required in assuming women’s fiction is now equally valued by the literary establishment.

    Thirty-nine per cent of Booker shortlisted writers were women, but women have only won 32 per cent of the time. The claim that we don’t need a prize for women since many recent shortlists have been dominated by women needs to be tempered with the fact that while women have made up 57 per cent of the Booker’s shortlist since 2016, only 33 per cent of winners have been women.

    Gender and genre

    While we expected some differences between genres, we were surprised by just how gendered certain genres are. Seventy-one per cent of the winners of the (now defunct) Costa Children’s Book Award were women, whereas women only constituted 21 per cent for the British Science Fiction Award and 31 per cent for the Crime Writers Association Gold Dagger Award.

    Non-fiction writing — which includes history, political science, sport and current affairs — remains male-dominated: the Baillie Gifford award, which bills itself as “U.K.’s premier annual prize for non-fiction books,” has one of the higher percentages of winners who are men, at 67 per cent.

    Race and ethnicity

    Our dataset includes demographic information on race and ethnicity. It shows that amplifying women’s voices is not simultaneously connected with amplifying all women’s voices.

    The Women’s Prize may have succeeded in pushing the Booker to include more women’s fiction (from zero shortlisted when the Women’s Prize was announced in 1990, to 26 per cent when it made its first award in 1996, to 58 per cent in 2022). But the Booker marginally out-performed the Women’s Prize in relation to racialized writers over the period of our dataset (26 per cent for the former, 22 per cent for the latter).

    A recent book on white literary taste concentrates on the Women’s Prize to show how prizes in general are part of a literary eco-system that is racially biased.

    Fiction reading not as valued as used to be

    We also question what it means that women’s fiction has greater visibility at the same time when fewer and fewer people, and especially men, read fiction.

    Using Nielsen BookScan data, the Women’s Prize 2024 Impact Report points to statistics on fiction authorship and gendered readership: women published 57 per cent of the top 500 bestselling novels in 2023, but while women constitute 44 per cent of readers of the top men’s fiction, men only account for 19 per cent of readers of fiction by women.

    The fact that fewer people are reading fiction at the same time that women are winning more awards, could suggest we are witnessing a repeat of the familiar pattern in women’s history where, at the same historical moment when women achieve dominance, or increase, in a field, and it becomes “feminized,” the field as a whole loses its value or prestige. Examples are family medicine or humanities professors.

    Pattern around gender and genre

    The Orlando Project’s research on 800 years of women’s writing in Britain reveals a pattern around gender and genre when in comes to remuneration and literary prestige. Genres where women writers dominate, like children’s literature and romance, tend to be the least lucrative.

    Novels in the time of Jane Austen illustrate the point. Before Walter Scott and other male writers developed a highbrow “serious” Victorian novel over what they saw as trashy romances, women writers temporarily dominated fiction like they do today. As one of us has argued, when women writers published more novels than men did in the 1790s, novels were the literary genre that paid the least.

    There remains a gender pay equity gap in writing: British women earned 58.6 per cent of what men did in 2022, mostly because the genres they chose to write in do not garner the highest earnings.

    Rewarding women authors

    One way to answer our question of whether we still need a Women’s Prize is this: we will no longer need it when women begin to dominate prizes for prestige genres such as non-fiction; when men read as much writing by women as that by men; and when we pay authors as much as football players.

    So far, we’re not there. We therefore celebrate that in 2023, the Women’s Prize added a new award in non-fiction to address that genre’s gender disparity. The Story of a Heart by practising palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke won this year.

    We encourage readers to take all the Women’s Prize-winning and nominated books to the beach this summer.

    Binhammer, Katherine receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Kanika Batra receives funding from Fulbright Canada.

    Maryse Jayasuriya and Theo Gray 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. Why we still need a women’s prize for fiction – https://theconversation.com/why-we-still-need-a-womens-prize-for-fiction-257494

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Canada’s ‘jail not bail’ trend: 4 ways to support victims

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Carolyn Yule, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Guelph

    Tough-on-crime rhetoric is reshaping bail laws to correct a perceived imbalance that “tips the scales in favour of the criminals against the victims.”

    But do these changes reflect what victims actually want and need?

    We argue that victims are positioned as both “sword and shield” in bail reform debates — as a sword, to advocate for more restrictive laws, and as a shield, to defend those laws from criticism.

    The appeal of ‘jail not bail’

    Victims have been a central focus of those arguing in favour of changes to the bail system as they suggest a need to “crack down with tougher rules” to “protect victims” and to stop turning “loose the most violent, rampant criminals into our communities to destroy our families.”

    These concerns culminated in the passage of the federal government’s Bill C-48, which introduced additional reverse-onus provisions — shifting the burden onto the accused to demonstrate why they should be released as opposed to the Crown — in cases involving weapons and repeat intimate partner violence.

    Largely absent from these discussions is the possibility that more restrictive measures may actually have negative consequences for victims.

    In cases of intimate partner violence, for instance, dual charging policies — when both parties involved in a domestic incident are charged with an offence, even when one person may be primarily the victim and the other primarily the aggressor — risks criminalizing and incarcerating women pre-trial. These victims are also disproportionately Indigenous, Black and racialized. This risks deepening systemic inequalities rather than providing meaningful protection for survivors.

    Furthermore, victims may hesitate to call the police, knowing that doing so may result in indeterminate detention before trial. Expanding reverse-onus provisions could also lead to false guilty pleas to avoid pre-trial detention.

    Politicizing crime victims

    While media coverage on victims’ experiences at bail hearings is emotionally compelling and expedient, it does not necessarily reflect what victims want with any accuracy.

    Certainly, some victims view the bail system as a slap in the face. Others call for a stronger social safety net to address the root causes of crime.



    Read more:
    The grieving mother of a murdered teen pleads for a stronger social safety net

    Our preliminary research exploring how victims are presented in news media amid bail proceedings supports other evidence that victims’ voices are often used strategically by politicians and lobbyists to amplify concerns about public safety.

    News media can be an effective tool to provide education about the causes and consequences of victimization. When it comes to bail, however, victims are often characterized as “ideal types” — people who were subjected to severe violence at the hands of a stranger while engaging in “respectable” activities at the time of the offence.

    In reality, victims represent a diverse group, with a wide range of needs, identities and experiences that are not always captured in media coverage or political debates.

    What do victims really need at bail hearings?

    Prior research focuses on the rights of the accused concerning bail reform, yet pre-trial decisions are a pivotal moment for crime victims. They can determine whether those accused of crimes are detained or released with conditions.

    The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights stipulates victims have the right to be informed of case matters, to express their views and to have their perspectives considered at all stages of the legal process, including at bail. During bail proceedings, justices must record that they have considered victim safety and security when imposing conditions, and victims may receive a copy of a bail order upon request.

    In practice, however, victims are rarely consulted on how the release of an accused may affect their safety, and are often left unaware of bail outcomes. That’s because there’s no legal requirement for police or Crown attorneys to inform them.

    While programs are available to support victims during the pre-trial phase — such as those offered by Victims Services and Victim/Witness Assistance — access can vary widely across jurisdictions.

    4 ways to support victims’ needs at bail

    We offer four strategies to create more responsive and equitable bail processes to better support victims:

    1. Better understand victims’ needs: Victims have diverse perspectives and differing priorities regarding how to protect their safety, and their voices deserve to be meaningfully included in decision-making processes.
    2. Uphold victims’ rights: Protecting the rights of the accused at bail is not incompatible with upholding victims’ rights. Access to information and communication concerning bail decisions should be better prioritized to position victims to undertake informed safety planning.
    3. Invest in victim resources: Dedicated and sustained funding for community-based supports will directly enhance the safety and well-being of victims, including access to social services, advocacy and legal resources, as well as counselling.
    4. Address the causes of crime: Long-term victim and community safety depends on addressing underlying causes of crime like poverty, mental health, addiction, trauma and systemic discrimination.

    Systemic reform needed

    Throughout the criminal legal system, victims’ voices are frequently ignored, disbelieved or dismissed. Too often, victims are excluded from the very policy decisions made in their name.

    While high-profile bail cases tend to dominate media coverage, policy on criminal and legal matters must be guided by evidence, not headlines.

    Without broader systemic reform, legislation will remain an important but insufficient tool for upholding victims’ rights and community safety.

    Carolyn Yule receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

    Kaitlin Humer, Laura MacDiarmid, and Sophia Lindstrom 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. Canada’s ‘jail not bail’ trend: 4 ways to support victims – https://theconversation.com/canadas-jail-not-bail-trend-4-ways-to-support-victims-258365

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Canadian international relations experts share their views on global politics and Canada’s role

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Anessa L. Kimball, Professor of Political Science; Director, Centre for International Security, ESEI, Université Laval

    A survey of Canadian international relations professors has found they disagree on how to respond to potential Chinese aggression against Taiwan and which global regions will matter most to Canada in the future.

    For the past 20 years, the Teaching, Research and International Policy (TRIP) survey has asked university professors about how they teach international relations and what they think about global affairs. Originally based in the United States, the survey expanded to Canada in 2006 and is now conducted regularly in many countries.

    The Canadian faculty survey was conducted from March 5 to July 12, 2024. Of the 109 who participated, most held permanent academic positions, including 22 full professors, 31 associate professors and six emeritus professors.

    Participants were asked to agree or disagree with statements about global politics. Seventy-five experts agreed that states are the main players in global politics, but there was less agreement on the importance of domestic politics.

    Most felt that international institutions help bring order to the chaotic global system. However, whether globalization has made people better off — even if there are some losers — divided experts, with 21 believing no one is better off due to globalization while two-thirds believed the opposite.

    Major themes

    When it came to more critical or less mainstream ideas — such as whether major international relations theories are rooted in racist assumptions — opinions were split.

    More than 50 agreed, but more than a third disagreed, and many gave neutral responses. Disagreement over the role of racism in shaping world politics highlights the difficulty of decolonizing international relations and incorporating post-colonial perspectives — particularly when trying to understand complex “failed cases” like United Nations peacekeeping efforts in Haiti.



    Read more:
    For Haitian migrants in the Dominican Republic, ‘reproduction is like a death sentence’

    Professors were also asked where they get their international news. Most rely on major newspapers, international media and internet sources.

    When asked which world region is strategically most important for Canada today, nearly half — or 43 of 97 experts opting to respond to the question — chose North America (excluding Mexico); in other words, the United States. Sixteen selected the Arctic and another 16 chose East Asia.

    Very few picked regions like the Middle East, Europe or Russia. Looking ahead 20 years, 10 experts shifted their answer from North America to the Arctic.

    Views on China and Taiwan, and Justin Trudeau

    Experts were asked what Canada should do if China attacks Taiwan. Most supported non-military responses: 72 supported sanctions and 69 supported taking in refugees.

    About half supported sending weapons or banning Chinese goods. Fewer supported cyberattacks (18), sending troops (15) or a no-fly zone (14).

    Surprisingly, six said Canada should launch military action against China.

    Justin Trudeau was prime minister when the survey was conducted. When asked about his performance, 50 per cent rated him poorly or very poorly, 30 per cent were neutral and only a small minority rated him positively.

    Key takeaways

    Canadian international relations professors don’t always agree, but a few trends stand out.

    Despite recent government focus on the Arctic in terms of its Our North, Strong and Free policy, many professors still view the U.S. as Canada’s most important strategic region. East Asia drew some attention, but few see it growing in importance.

    With a new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney, there may be opportunities to improve on areas where Trudeau was seen as weak by respondents to the survey.

    For example, despite having developed a strategy for the Indo-Pacific region, vital Canadian trade and maritime security interests were minimized by the previous Liberal government. Carney could therefore contemplate expanding Canada’s maritime assets, improving its artificial intelligence and cybersecurity capacity and investing in digital infrastructure and quantum computing.



    Read more:
    Defence policy update focuses on quantum technology’s role in making Canada safe

    Carney had pledged to fulfil Canada’s commitment to NATO’s target of two per cent of GDP spent on defence, saying Canada will meet the threshold by the end of 2025.

    However, Canada will still lag behind. NATO is calling on allies to invest five per cent of GDP in defence, comprising 3.5 per cent on core defence spending as well as 1.5 per cent of GDP per year on defence and security-related investment, including in infrastructure and resilience.

    Canada’s 2024 GDP was $2.515 trillion, which means a five per cent defence investment of nearly $125 billion annually would have accounted for more than a quarter of a federal budget (which was under $450 billion in 2024-2025).

    Canada, a founding NATO member, leads a multinational brigade in Latvia and supports Ukraine in other ways.

    Ukraine seems on an irreversible path towards NATO membership. Though 69 per cent of respondents supported NATO membership for Ukraine, only 44 per cent felt it was likely. Though the U.S. tariff crisis attracts attention, some experts are increasingly looking to the Arctic to understand Canada’s strategic interests — a trend sure to be reflected in future surveys of Canadian international relations experts.

    Anessa L. Kimball 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. Canadian international relations experts share their views on global politics and Canada’s role – https://theconversation.com/canadian-international-relations-experts-share-their-views-on-global-politics-and-canadas-role-257949

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Trump Administration Suspends Immigration Enforcement on Farms, Hotels, Restaurants — Media

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    NEW YORK, June 15 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has ordered immigration agents to stop making arrests at farms, restaurants and hotels, a policy change amid concerns that recent immigration measures could hurt those industries, CBS News reported Saturday.

    These industries rely heavily on immigrants, many of whom are in the United States illegally, the channel reported, citing sources who asked to remain anonymous.

    The move comes as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has stepped up raids on workplaces across the country to arrest and deport undocumented migrants. Stories of ICE agents detaining migrants in fields and car washes have dominated the news over the past week.

    The crackdown on migrants has sparked protests in cities across the United States, including Los Angeles and New York. Violence during the protests has prompted the Trump administration to send National Guard troops and Marines to the Los Angeles area, despite objections from California Governor Gavin Newsom and other local officials.

    For now, Washington can continue to use troops to protect ICE agents and quell protests. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an emergency stay of the case just hours after Circuit Judge Charles Breyer ruled Thursday night that Trump illegally deployed the California National Guard and violated the Constitution. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –