Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Infinite disagreement on Dignitas Infinita…

Infinite Human Dignity? A Look at the Mixed Reactions to the Latest DDF Declaration

With its release of the declaration Dignitas Infinita on Apr. 8, 2024, the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Destruction of the Faith has added more fuel to the fire of disagreement and confusion that has been raging in the Vatican II Church.

From all sides, reactions have been pouring in, and they vary widely, even within the various ideological groups. From the new document being hailed as a “dramatic” statement that is nothing short of a “masterpiece” to it being “quite possibly the most wicked statement possible” on the subject, any and all opinions are represented in the spectrum.… READ MORE

“Neighbor love,” “loving one’s neighbor,” and “love for one’s neighbor” are everywhere in Christian discourse about social ethics. How could they not be? The principle comes from our Lord Jesus Christ in such places as Matthew 19:19 and 22:37–39, Mark 12:30–31, and Luke 6:31. 

Last year, I wrote a long-form essay explaining the moral logic of loving one’s neighbor and what such a principle entails. The general thrust of my argument then was that loving one’s neighbor is a principle that calls us to will the good of others. In our interactions with others and in society, we are to cultivate flourishing and not privation. It might as well be the equivalent of Aquinas’s first principle of practical reason applied to social ethics. We should seek to do no harm to others. It is both a scriptural principle and a natural law principle. 

But crucially, it is just that—a principle. On its face, it is not a policy prescription. If you survey its use in contemporary Christian ethics, however, it is used to justify virtually whatever policy preference one wants justified. If not carefully weighed and considered, it easily becomes a wax nose that can be shaped in whatever way one wants to get the outcomes one prefers. 

Consider the ways that loving one’s neighbor can be invoked: in defense of COVID-19 quarantines, same-sex marriage, LGBT rights, paying taxes, public healthcare, wearing masks, thriftiness, gun control, environmentalism, and, yes, eating vegetables. A simple Google search shows how far this logic goes. 

You get the point: “Love of neighbor” is an ad-lib or choose-your-own-adventure approach to Christian ethics. Take one’s desired outcome and reason backward from it under the supposition that loving one’s neighbor requires unfettered support for the cause at hand and, voilà, all ethical deliberation is complete. 

Confusion over this matter stems from confusion over the Bible’s moral language. 

In the Bible, there are moral “genres.” There are clear moral rules, like “do not murder.” A rule has a fairly clear application that offers specificity. There are also moral paradigms, like the Good Samaritan. A paradigm offers an exemplary template one should replicate or embody. Then there are moral principles. A principle is like the glow of a candle. The burning wick is the clearly stated principle while the glow emanating from the wick illuminates in all directions. A principle does not dictate an outcome, but rather informs the moral deliberation around it. 

Here’s the problem with the sort of moral analysis that comes with ceaseless invocations of “love of neighbor”: it confuses a general moral principle for a specific applied outcome. Its temptation is seen most frequently in confusing a moral principle for a moral rule. 

Love for one’s neighbor should, of course, undergird all Christian ethical decision-making. But love for one’s neighbor is a principle. It should motivate us to care for our neighbors but does not specify, by itself, what the care looks like. It does not give us guidance on precise applications of what actions are required to love one’s neighbor (even if some actions are clearly incompatible with loving one’s neighbor). It offers a framework by which to evaluate the rationale for one’s actions. As I said, some actions are clearly prohibited by this principle. For example, I see no way to reconcile loving one’s neighbor with allowing for their termination through abortion. 

Let’s take another example we saw on repeat in recent history: loving one’s neighbor means taking, and encouraging others to take, the COVID-19 vaccine.  

Allow me to lay the critique I’m making on others to myself.  

In December 2020, I co-wrote an essay in these pages about why love for one’s neighbor should lead one to take the COVID-19 vaccine.  

Upon reflection, I now regret making the argument in the manner that I did, for all the reasons I have cited above—I went farther in applying the principle than what the Bible specifically calls for. I now think I was wrong, though well-motivated in my wrongness. 

Consider alternative perspectives: others could refuse to take the vaccine and invoke loving one’s neighbor. For example, it is reasonable to conclude that one could love one’s neighbor by not participating or encouraging others’ participation in a vaccine regime they believe was unsafe, rushed to market, or was complicit in some evil. That’s not my position, but it is a reasonable concern. However, my argument could be read that an individual was unloving if one did not take the vaccine. I genuinely regret that and apologize for my error. 

The article made allowances for conscience freedom for those who did want to take the vaccine, but it saddled the consciences of those refusing to take the vaccine with the burden of justifying their refusal. This was unfair and done under a “love of one’s neighbor” principle. 

I want to be clear about what I am, and am not, apologizing for: I do not regret recommending the vaccine. I remain convinced that taking the vaccine lessened the severity of COVID in affected patients. I do not regret the essay’s analysis concerning the vaccine’s safety, efficacy, complicity, and compliance. I regret only the “love of neighbor” element to our argument.  

I also want to be clear that I am not condemning my co-authors, both of whom I esteem and respect immensely. They are free to make the argument they believe they should make. They are free to disagree with the argument I am making right now. My conscience, however, has brought me to the conclusion for which I write. 

I regret invoking the love for one’s neighbor as one of the motives for taking the COVID-19 vaccine. I prioritize intellectual honesty and intellectual consistency. My views on this have changed upon reflection. When I err publicly, I need to correct my error publicly. 

My error in this situation has led me to broadly rethink how evangelicals invoke this principle for public ethics. Here is my conclusion: we need more restraint when appealing to the love of one’s neighbor when supporting our causes. I am not calling for us to have less concern for loving one’s neighbor. I am calling for us to have greater restraint in exercising certainty that love for neighbor necessarily entails support for one’s particular cause. 

Without more restraint, more abuse is possible. We also need to consider in any moral event how someone’s understanding of love for neighbor could lead them to a different conclusion than your own. 

For example, I could justify supply-side economics and consumption taxes in the name of loving one’s neighbor if I really wanted to do so. After all, is it not more loving to have a lower unemployment rate, which I think supply-side economics better achieves? Is not a lower tax rate more loving to one’s family budget than regimes with income taxes that are typically much higher? Is it not more loving to insist one own the fruits of his own labor instead of surrendering a portion to the government by the threat of force? A person who supports wealth redistribution could also argue that material relief for the poor is evidence of loving one’s neighbor. Who, then, is right? Who is wrong? Who has loved their neighbor the best or least? 

This logic, when extended, can reach morally ambiguous and disturbing ends. If you wanted me to, I could justify dropping the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki under the “love your neighbor” rubric. One could argue that it’s more loving to my neighbor by preventing millions from dying in a land invasion of Japan.

And herein is the problem. To justify supply-side economics and consumption taxes is biblically attenuated. It stretches biblical principles beyond recognition. I could make arguments for both from the Bible, but my stridency in making such arguments is less clear than the Bible’s opposition to abortion. To be clear: I prefer supply-side economics and consumption taxes. I may think the Christian who disagrees with me is wrong, but they are not sinning or unloving.  

Now, I can imagine the critic reading this piece and saying, “Well, how expected and callous it is that some conservative Christian is seeking to diminish the command to love one’s neighbor or to narrow its application.” 

But no such thing is in view whatsoever. The Christian should wake up every day with the full intention to order his whole life to love others in both a general and particular sense. 

Loving one’s neighbor is a moral imperative. How best to do so, however, is more complex than just recklessly citing this principle as immediate justification. All my point amounts to is a plea for caution. 

Image by  ImagineStock and licensed via Adobe Stock.

The counterstrike needs to be acceptable to the US, local media have said

Israel's war cabinet has decided on “clear and decisive” action following Iran’s mass missile and drone attack on Saturday. The response will have to comply with the will of the US, however, according to Israeli media.

Tehran launched a barrage of cruise and ballistic missiles, and drones, in retaliation for the bombing of its consulate in Damascus, Syria earlier this month that killed several senior officers of the Islamic revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force. 

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) say that they shot down the vast majority of the incoming projectiles, with the help of the US, UK, France, Jordan, and others.

“This launch of so many missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs into the territory of the State of Israel will be met with a response,” IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Herzi Halevi said on Monday.

Halevi spoke from the Nevatim Air Base near Beersheba, one of the sites hit by the Iranian attack. The IDF has reported “minor damage” to the facility, but released no details.

“Iran wanted to harm the strategic capabilities of the State of Israel – that is something that had not happened before,” said Halevi, adding that the IDF had prepared ‘Operation Iron Shield’ to counter the strike.

“Israel is very strong and knows how to deal with it alone, but with a threat so numerous and so far away, we are always happy to have [the US] with us,” Halevi added.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war cabinet has agreed to mount some kind of action in response to Tehran, the prominent Israeli outlet Mako reported on Monday evening.

According to the publication, the retaliation will need to be acceptable to the US and “comply” with the rules set by Washington, while also be measured in such a way as to “not degenerate the region into a war.”

Another issue that has come up is the need not to damage the ad hoc coalition assembled to repel the Iranian strike, which includes Jordan and reportedly even Saudi Arabia. Both Halevi and Defense Minister Yoav Galant have insisted that “it is forbidden under any circumstances” to endanger the coalition, Mako noted.

Tehran has announced that it would respond “within seconds” if Israel decides to launch any form of attack against Iran.

The Scranton Army Munitions Plant has produced artillery shells for Ukraine

The US Army factory in Scranton, Pennsylvania that specializes in artillery ammunition caught fire on Monday afternoon, according to local media reports and eyewitnesses.

The Scranton Army Ammunition Plant started spewing black smoke shortly before 3pm local time. Local emergency services were summoned to deal with what was described as a “structure fire.”

No further details were available. 

The Joint Munitions Command (JMC) facility is owned by the US military but operated by General Dynamics-Ordnance and Tactical Systems. It makes 155mm and 105mm artillery projectiles, 120mm mortar rounds, 203mm naval shells, as well as a variety of smoke, illumination and incendiary rounds.

The US has been trying to ramp up production of artillery ammunition to supply Ukraine for its conflict with Russia. 

Scranton is a community of about 75,000 residents in northeastern Pennsylvania. It is the birthplace of US President Joe Biden. He is scheduled to visit the town on Tuesday.

A large container ship collided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge last month, leaving six people dead and the structure completely destroyed

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has launched a criminal probe into the deadly collapse of a large bridge in Baltimore, multiple US media outlets reported on Monday, citing sources close to the investigation.

The Francis Scott Key Bridge was destroyed on March 26, when the Singapore-flagged container ship ‘Dali’ ran into one of its supports. The collision resulted in a catastrophic structural failure of the bridge, which collapsed along most of its span, largely blocking maritime traffic to and from the port of Baltimore. Six members of a roadwork crew who were doing maintenance on the bridge at the moment of the collision were killed.

FBI agents are now working to determine whether federal laws were followed amid the disaster, as well as seeking to establish all the circumstances that led to it, AP reported, citing an unnamed person familiar with the matter. 

The US Coast Guard is participating in the investigation as well, CNN reported, citing an anonymous official, who said the probe also seeks to determine whether the ship’s crew failed to properly report an earlier technical issue with the vessel that delayed its departure shortly before the collision. While still at port, the container ship reportedly experienced issues with its electrical supply.

The vessel’s manager, Singapore-based Synergy Marine Group, said it has been fully cooperating with the US authorities in the probe. 

“Due to the magnitude of the incident, there are various government agencies conducting investigations, in which we are fully participating,” Synergy Marine spokesperson Darrell Wilson said in a statement on Monday without explicitly naming any agencies involved. “Out of respect for these investigations and any future legal proceedings, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time,” he added.

Meanwhile, Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott on Monday announced a partnership with two law firms to launch legal action over the collapse, vowing to “hold the wrongdoers responsible” and receive compensation for the damage done to the people of the city and redress the economic fallout of the accident.

Riyadh has refuted Israeli media reports about its alleged participation in repelling Iranian drone and missile attack

Correction: A previous version of this article was based on a report by Israeli public broadcaster Kan and contained a link to a site posing as an official website of the Saudi royal family. The article has been amended to remove this link and to clarify the official position of the government of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has dismissed reports about its alleged participation in defending Israel from the Iranian strikes over the weekend.

The claims were originally circulated by Israeli public broadcaster Kan and a fake website purporting to be an official outlet of the Saudi royal family. Riyadh, however, has reportedly said no official websites provided such information and the country did not participate in the interception of the drones and missiles launched by Tehran.

“There is no official website that published a statement about Saudi participation in intercepting attacks against Israel,” informed sources told Al Arabiya on Monday.

According to the claims circulated by the fake website, “a source from the Saudi royal family, who prefers anonymity,” in their response to a report by Kan, had “subtly acknowledged” the kingdom’s participation in repelling the Iranian attack.

The ‘source’ also bluntly accused Tehran of instigating the conflict in Gaza between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas, claiming it was a “deliberate attempt to unravel the progress” in repairing ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Iran launched a major attack on Israel over the weekend, using kamikaze drones, cruise and ballistic missiles, and citing a recent deadly strike on its consulate in Syria, widely attributed to West Jerusalem. Israel and its allies have insisted the strike was successfully repelled, with a majority of incoming projectiles shot down before even reaching the country’s airspace by US and UK fighter jets.

Critics argue the ruling sets a dangerous precedent threatening free speech and right to assembly

A Louisiana police officer will be allowed to press charges against BLM organizer DeRay McKesson after losing several teeth and suffering brain damage during a civil rights protest, the US Supreme Court has ruled.

In July 2016, McKesson led a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Baton Rouge over the fatal police shooting of an armed black man named Alton Sterling. During the protest, Officer John Ford was injured by a rock or piece of concrete thrown by one of the activists, who has remained unidentified. 

Ford’s lawsuit claimed McKesson should have known the protest would turn violent when it started and is therefore liable for his injuries. Initially dismissed by a district judge, it was revived last year by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear McKesson’s appeal.

McKesson was arrested by Baton Rouge police on the day of the protest but was later released and charges against him were dropped. In November 2016, the city paid out a $100,000 settlement to 92 activists arrested during the riot, amounting to about $230 a person after legal fees.

Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), McKesson had argued before the Fifth Circuit that he was engaging in free speech and assembly activities protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In a 1982 case involving black civil rights activists in Mississippi, the Supreme Court ruled that participants in such activities were shielded from liability arising from the conduct of others.

The appeals court rejected this line of argument, though one dissenting judge invoked Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s 1965 march in Alabama and said that political upheavals – from marches to riots – have “marked our history from the beginning.”

Judge Don Willett argued that the majority’s legal theory “would have enfeebled America’s street-blocking civil rights movement, imposing ruinous financial liability against citizens for exercising core First Amendment freedoms.”

The ACLU has warned that the ruling could set a precedent, making it easier to sue protest leaders for illegal conduct of attendees, which would “stifle activism seeking political or societal change,” according to Reuters.

McKesson was one of the early leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement, which claimed that police across the US were racist and too aggressive towards African Americans. The district judge that rejected Ford’s initial lawsuit had argued that Black Lives Matter is an idea and not an entity, and therefore can’t be sued.

Since it evacuated its settlements in 2005, the Jewish state has had no presence in the enclave. Twenty years later, it seems ready to permanently return

“It will happen – there’s a date,” reassured Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, referring to the Rafah offensive that’s aimed at eliminating the remaining battalions of Hamas, the Islamic movement responsible for the massacre on October 7, 2023 that claimed the lives of more than 1,200 Israelis.

The international community is objecting to the planned assault, fearing it will lead to a high death toll. The area – approximately 64 square kilometers – is now home to 1.3 million Gazans who have escaped from the north and center, where clashes between Israeli security forces and Palestinian fighters are still raging.

The Israeli prime minister however, is determined to go ahead. Last month, the IDF presented its plans for the takeover of the area. Once the green light is given, the army will move in, and experts say it is just a matter of months until Rafah falls into the hands of the Israelis.

But what are Israel’s plans for the longer term? RT spoke to two political analysts to discuss possible scenarios for the “day after,” the reaction of Gazans and the Arab world, and what it could mean for Israel. In Jerusalem: Yoni Ben Menachem, a veteran journalist and an author specializing in the Middle East, and in Istanbul: Shadi Abdelrahman, a Gaza native, who escaped the territory shortly before the war.

Scenario One: re-occupation of Gaza under full Israeli control

Ben Menachem: A full occupation of Gaza might only be possible as a temporary solution to dismantle the battalions of Hamas. The group is now concentrated in Rafah and a couple refugee camps in the center, so Israel will operate there to make sure that the threat is gone and that their military infrastructure is eliminated.

Once this is achieved, Israel will establish a buffer zone – that will be one kilometer wide – in the north of the enclave to protect Israel’s southern communities, but it has no plans to remain there forever. Gazans will reject it, [and] Hamas will fight against it, endangering our soldiers and staging terror attacks against civilians. The Arab world and the international community will also stand against it – so a full re-occupation of the strip is unsustainable in the long term, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has already stated that he had no such plans.

Abdelrahman: I don’t think Israel will make the mistake of re-occupying the strip. First of all, it wouldn’t want to take responsibility for a place with very few resources and with a population that largely lives below the poverty line. But if for some reason they do decide to recapture it, Gazans will not take it lightly, primarily because they see how Israel is limiting Palestinians’ freedom of movement in the West Bank, how they storm Palestinian houses, how they erect checkpoints and arrest those they deem terrorists – so they won’t want to see that taking place in Gaza as well.

The population in Gaza is more aggressive than in the West Bank, and if Israel does decide to try its luck, the resistance will be strong and Israel will be paying a very high price. 

Here, I am not only talking about throwing stones, although that will occur too. There will be attacks on settlements and on soldiers and that means that Israel will need to fork out a pretty penny for their security, something that Tel Aviv is not ready to do. This cycle of violence will continue as long as Israel remains in the strip and I am pretty sure that soon enough they will understand that they need to evacuate, just as they did in 2005.

International pressure might also play a role but I am not counting on it that much. Protests will be staged against this occupation here and there but governments, either in the Arab world, or the West, will remain largely silent. So everything will depend on Palestinians’ resistance and this, I can assure you, will be violent.

Scenario Two: Israeli military control and Palestinian Authority civil control

Ben Menachem: For Israel, a scenario where the Palestinian Authority controls the civil life in the Gaza Strip is the last option, and it will happen only if Israel fails to find a partner whom it can trust and who can govern the enclave, or if Netanyahu yields to American pressure. 

Right now, Netanyahu strongly opposes this scenario primarily because Israel considers the PA as an inciting force. It believes it supports, finances and educates terror. But the PM is also rejecting this idea because of political considerations. Inside his own coalition there are several hawkish voices, including those of Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich and Homeland Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who oppose the idea of the PA governing the Strip. Netanyahu is fearful of losing their support because if that happens, his coalition will fall and Israel will need to go to the polls.

Abdelrahman: I believe this is the most likely scenario. Israel would want to create a conflict between Palestinian factions over who will control the Gaza Strip. On the one hand, there is the Palestinian Authority that would like to re-establish its control over this territory [from which it was expelled in 2007 following elections won by Hamas – ed.]. They would like to prove that they are the legitimate rulers, who will be representing the Palestinians in the peace process. On the other hand, there is Hamas, who are not planning to relinquish power that easily. So what Israel will do in this case is that it will support one faction against the other, creating tensions and violence between them.

This conflict can easily play into the hands of the Israelis. To the outside world, Israel can claim that these Palestinian factions cannot agree amongst themselves, so how can anyone give them an independent state? They fight with one another, so how can Israel live safely next to them? I am sure they will use this narrative to continue their occupation.

Naturally, the population of Gaza will reject such a scenario because it will only create additional problems for them. As for the Arab states, they will largely not care. 

Scenario Three: Israeli military control; civil control by moderate Arab states like Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia 

Ben Menachem: This scenario can only exist in the imagination. No Arab country will agree to take such a huge responsibility and invest billions of dollars to reconstruct the area. Two weeks ago, the Arab League already stated that they are not ready to govern the Gaza Strip. It won’t work. 

Abdelrahman: Such a scenario is highly unlikely. Although it is very profitable for Israel, the Saudis and the Emiratis will not engage directly with Hamas; they won’t send their troops to fight against the group. Yet their involvement might take place on a financial level. They can be involved in a number of reconstruction projects, they might provide the intelligence to curb the threat of terror but I doubt they will put in place their own civil administration, and if they do, Gazans will reject it. They will treat such a foreign administration just as they treat Israel – as an enemy.

Scenario Four: Full Israeli withdrawal and the establishment of a Palestinian state

Ben Menachem: Israel will of course withdraw from the entire Gaza Strip after it dismantles Hamas and its military infrastructure, but no Palestinian state will be established there. As long as the right-wing government is in power, this option is out of question. 

Yet, Israel might go to elections and another government might come to power. But whoever comes, I honestly don’t think that after the massacre of October 7, the public will agree to a Palestinian state. The majority of Israelis are against it, according to public opinion polls. Besides, for such recognition to happen, Israel would need to hold a referendum and the chances that it would pass are slim, at least in the coming years.

Abdelrahman: When we talk about the establishment of a Palestinian state, we need to ask ourselves, what kind of state is it going to be? Many things have changed since the Oslo Accords of 1993 and the process that started back then, when a Palestinian state was supposed to be established over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Many things are not applicable anymore. Over the years, Israel has erected many settlements in the West Bank. Plus the American elections will also play a role here. If Donald Trump is going to be re-elected, and I believe he will, he will not allow a Palestinian state to be established. And even if Gaza does become independent, it is probably going to be an unarmed state, something that will not be accepted by the Palestinian factions, especially those with violent ideologies like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Neither will that be accepted by Iran.

However, the establishment of an independent state in Gaza might play to the hands of Israel. This way, they can say that they gave Palestinians the freedom they have been looking for. Under this scenario, any bullet fired from Gaza could drag the area into a war because the Palestinians, who would be independent, would no longer be able to say that they are fighting an occupation. 

Scenario Five: Israel fails to eliminate Hamas 

Ben Menachem: Israel can only destroy the infrastructure of Hamas and perhaps eliminate their leaders. But the ideology, the ideas of Hamas will live on. Hamas will remain as a political movement. So honestly speaking I don’t see that this region will see peace. Their hatred towards Jews is only getting stronger because of the war.

Abdelrahman: Israel failed to get any major gains in their ultimate goal to get rid of Hamas. And I don’t see how they can manage to achieve it in the near future. The children who have seen this war, who have lost their parents, will grow up, will want to take revenge for the suffering they have endured, and they will join Hamas. Therefore, the future looks bleak to me because it promises more clashes and violence.

How will the people of Gaza react to Hamas staying? I am sure they will not like this option because they have been living under them since 2007 and witnessed the destruction they brought on the Strip. But Gazans will not be happy with the Palestinian Authority either simply because for all these years they have failed to bring an independent state. So there should be a third option, a third party that can take the lead, but we are still in the dark on who that might be.

Russia has maintained it is ready for talks about a ceasefire but will be guided by its “national interests and the situation on the battlefield”

French President Emmanuel Macron has vowed to “do everything possible” to have an ‘Olympic truce’ in the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine during the upcoming summer Games in Paris.

The Games will run from July 26 to August 11. Over 300,000 people are expected to watch the opening ceremony on the Seine River.

“We want to work towards an Olympic truce and I think this is an occasion for me to engage with a lot of our partners,” Macron said in an interview with BFMTV on Monday.

The French leader indicated he would ask for help in organizing a truce from Chinese President Xi Jinping, who will be visiting Paris in early May. Xi had “the same work to do” in 2022 on the occasion of the Winter Olympic Games, Macron noted.

The tradition of an ‘Olympic truce’ dates back to ancient Greece, when warring rulers agreed to lay down arms during the games so that athletes and spectators could travel safely to and from the venues.

Enacting such a truce was first floated by Macron in March, when he said that Russia would be asked to observe a ceasefire in Ukraine during the Paris Olympics. “They [Russia] must do this. That is what has always happened,” the French president said at the time in an interview from Paris shown on Ukrainian television and posted by a Ukrainian journalist on YouTube.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said later he had no information about Macron’s proposal to declare an Olympic truce during the games in Paris.

“We are ready to consider all proposals, but always, under all circumstances, we will be guided by national interests and the situation on the battlefield,” Putin stated, adding “I’ve said it before and I will say it again that we favor peace talks, but they should not be organized simply because our adversary is running out of ammo.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry has echoed the president’s statement. Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova insisted that France should stop supplying arms to Ukraine. “I come up with a response proposal to Macron: stop supplying weapons that are used to kill civilians, and also stop sponsoring terrorism,” Zakharova urged.

Despite growing international calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, Israel has vowed to continue fighting until all Hamas militants are eliminated and all Israeli citizens taken hostage are freed. Macron has not publicly stated how he plans to pressure the Israeli leadership to halt its operation during the Olympics.

A bill adopted by the Bundestag allows parents to register children as young as five as a different sex

German citizens will be able to change their sex on legal documents without undergoing surgery or hormone therapy, under a new bill passed by the Bundestag last Friday. It stipulates that an oral request is sufficient, eliminating the need for expert assessment, which was previously mandatory. The law comes into effect in November.

The legislation on ‘self-determination’ in gender was backed by 374 MPs, mostly from the ruling ‘traffic-light’ coalition, with another 251 lawmakers against and the remaining 11 abstaining.

The current regulations date back to 1981, and state that individuals wishing to change their gender must first undergo two psychological evaluations. The final decision under that law rests with a district court.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s ruling coalition argued that the existing procedures were degrading toward transgender individuals, as they had to share intimate details with officials.

Under the new law, parents will be allowed to make a request to change the gender of a child as young as five, with the consent of the child present. Minors over 14 will be able to change their first name and gender alone, as long as they have the consent of their parents or legal representatives.

Individuals will be allowed to make a change once per year.

Germans will also have the right to replace the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ in the family register with the neutral term ‘parent.’

Non-binary individuals can register as ‘diverse’ instead of having to choose between ‘male’ and ‘female.’

Under the recently passed legislation, anyone who attempts to expose an individual’s past gender identity can be fined up to €10,000 ($10,630).

The law leaves it up to saunas, swimming pools, gyms, and other sports facilities to decide whether to allow biological males into women’s changing rooms and toilets. When it comes to competitive sports, individual associations may decide if biological males identifying as women can compete against females.

The bill faced heated debate in the Bundestag on Friday, with the government’s commissioner for LGBTQ+ issues, Sven Lehmann, hailing it as historic and ending “human rights abuse.”

However, opposition parties were largely unconvinced, with a lawmaker from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Mareike Wulf, describing the legislation as “irresponsible” and “socially explosive.” Wulf also argued that criminals could use the new regulations to obscure their identity.

Sahra Wagenknecht, a former leader of the Left Party who now leads her own party, warned that with males now allowed to proclaim themselves female, “women’s protection rights and women’s protection shelters [are] a thing of the past.”

A representative of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party said the bill poses a threat to young people, denouncing it as “trans-hype.”

The proceedings mark the first time a former US president has stood trial on criminal charges

Jury selection has begun for a trial in which former US President Donald Trump stands accused of falsifying records related to hush-money payments to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, during the 2016 election. Trump has become the first former president to stand trial on criminal charges.

Twelve jurors, along with six alternates, will be chosen from among hundreds of New Yorkers. The judge in the case has released the extensive questionnaire that potential jurors will have to fill out.

“Nothing like this has ever happened before,” Trump told reporters outside the courtroom, calling the trial “political persecution” and “an assault on America.”

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, charged Trump last year with 34 counts of “falsifying business records,” alleging that the Republican politician sought “to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election.” 

The case is based on claims by Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, that he paid $130,000 to the adult film actress, so she would keep quiet about an alleged affair with him. Trump has denied any relationship with the porn star. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to charges of campaign-finance violations, tax and bank fraud, and spent two and a half years in a federal prison. He also lost his New York bar license.

Judge Juan Merchan has granted Bragg’s request for a gag order, meaning that Trump can’t criticize the prosecutor or his staff. 

Merchan has threatened to arrest Trump if he does not appear in the courtroom each day the trial is in session. The judge also refused to recuse himself, even though his daughter works for a marketing company representing several Democrats – in apparent violation of state law that requires “six degrees of separation” from a family member.

The trial will keep Trump at the Manhattan courtroom every day of the proceedings for the next six weeks or more, effectively taking him off the campaign. Trump was the 45th president of the US (2017-2021) and is currently the presumptive Republican nominee to challenge President Joe Biden in November.

The French president has condemned Tehran’s attack on Israel and called for sanctions to be strengthened

French President Emmanuel Macron has called for international sanctions on Iran to be strengthened following its attack on Israel over the weekend.

Tehran carried out a massive airstrike on Israeli territory on Saturday in response to the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus earlier this month. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied its role in the bombing, but its responsibility was later implied by Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

In an interview to BFMTV and RMC radio, Macron condemned Iran’s response, calling it “disproportionate.”

“Instead of targeting Israeli interests outside Israel, [Tehran] went after Israel on its soil, and attacked from their own soil, which is a first,” he said, noting that the airstrikes had caused “a profound rupture” in already strained relations between the two Middle Eastern states, paving the way for further “dangerous reactions” on both sides.

Macron said the international community “will do everything to avoid escalation” in the conflict and urged Israel not to retaliate via military means. Instead, he said the focus should be on “isolating“ Iran and called for more sanctions on Tehran, including “boosting pressure on its nuclear activities,” which he believes would help “find a path to peace in the region.”

Iran has justified Saturday’s attack by citing its right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. It also pledged not to take further action, unless Israel strikes again, but warned that a military response from would prompt an even bigger escalation. Israel has called Iran the “greatest threat” to regional and world peace, and called for “painful sanctions” on Tehran, including its nuclear industry.

Iran has been the subject of various international sanctions for decades amid fears in the West that its nuclear enrichment program was aimed at producing a nuclear bomb. Sanctions were eased somewhat in 2015 when Tehran agreed to some restrictions on the program under the Iran Nuclear Deal, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), between Iran, the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the EU.

However, the deal was scuppered in 2018 after then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from it and reimposed old sanctions on Tehran. Several attempts to revive the deal in recent years have proven unsuccessful.

I have today the permission of the surgeon to use my right hand for typing for the first time in over three weeks, provided I am careful not to extend the arm. On Saturday I put my arm in a sleeve and managed to remove my sling while making a speech in Blackburn, which I hope to bring you shortly (it was filmed by Consortium News but there is a job to do on sound synchronisation). The ligaments in my shoulder need another three weeks to heal and may require an operation, but my spirits are lifted enormously by being able to use the hand, even though it hurts.

I am going today to write an article on my decision to stand in Blackburn.

Huge thanks for your patience and messages of support, especially those who kindly subscribe.

Craig

————————————————

Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: craigmurray1710@btinternet.com

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

The post Free at Last appeared first on Craig Murray.

The Great Dispossession Part 2

Paul Craig Roberts

In Part 1 ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/04/11/the-great-dispossession/ ), I reported that we already do not own anything. The immediate response from readers is: what can we do to avoid dispossession? Offhand, the answer might appear to be debt-free property and gold and silver in personal possession. However, if the goal is that we own nothing and are controlled under a digital currency regime, these assets will be taken as well.

Webb says if the billionaires and large financial institutions can be made aware of the situation, they could make Congress aware of the regulatory changes and force Congress to use its law-making power to undo the regulatory changes. After all, if there is no private financial property, there is no one to contribute to Congressional elections. Billionaires’ campaign donations elect the politicians, and what the regulatory changes do to billionaires is to reduce them to the same poverty as a homeless person. What the changes mean for large financial institutions such as Merrill Lynch, Schwab, etc., is their existence ceases. Webb’s hope is the combined influence can undo the regulatory changes. The question is whether awareness can be generated. The fate of Congress is also at stake. In the Great Reset there is no input from the people and no function for Congress.

As in all of my writings, I am trying to bring awareness. Little doubt the messenger will be shot.

The purpose of Part 2 is to outline the regulatory changes that have been made that have turned our property in financial assets into the property of “secured creditors.” Webb terms them legal changes, which they are, but as I read it from regulatory, not legislative, action. Webb says the changes are global, but he only describes how the US and EU effected the changes for themselves. I am unable to imagine that Russia, China, Iran and any parts of the world not captured in the Western financial system are parties to the dispossession, especially under the regime of sanctions. As I read it, the dispossession that awaits is limited to the Western world and its captive countries. By global, perhaps Webb means the global operations of Western world financial organizations.

First some definitions: an “account holder” is you, your IRA, your pension plan, your stock and bond investments held at an “account provider” or “intermediary” or “depository institution” such as Merrill Lynch, Schwab, Wells Fargo. An “entitlement holder” is the definition of you whose ownership claim to your financial assets has been subordinated to the claims of “secured creditors” of the institution where you have your accounts. Please do understand that the dispossession of which I write is your dispossession.

As reported in Part 1, a country’s securities are pooled in a Central Security Depository (CSD). Each national CSD is linked to the International Security Depository (ICSD), which in the words of a 2013 report by the Bank for International Settlements Committee on the Global Financial System, makes available to “secured creditors” all available collateral (all of our stocks and bonds) and provides cross-border mobility of collateral from the “collateral giver” to the “collateral taker.” Yes, these terms are explicitly used, indicating recognition that theft is taking place.

Webb writes that these arrangements were “designed and deliberately executed to move control of collateral to the largest secured creditors behind the derivatives complex. This is the subterfuge, the endgame of it all.”

To achieve these arrangements took many years and many regulatory changes that did not involve financial market participants (you) in the decisions. The differences between financial property rights in the US and in some European countries were a special obstacle which required “harmonization” of Europe with the US. The first effort was signed only by the US, Switzerland, and Mauritius. The EU did not sign, because in some EU member countries (Sweden, Finland, for example) the purchasers of securities had inviolable property rights based on the ancient legal principle of lex rei sitae.

Webb describes, citing the documents, the 10-year work-around of this blockage.

The creation of cross-border collateral mobility began with the Depository Trust Corporation moving from physical stock certificates held in the owners name to book-entries. A “paperwork crisis” was claimed from having to process transactions of individually owned shares of securities.

Then the US Uniform Commercial Code was quietly amended over many years without requiring an act of Congress. Here are the changes:

Ownership of securities as property has been replaced with a new legal concept of a “security entitlement”, which is a contractual claim assuring a very weak position if the account provider becomes insolvent.

All securities are held in un-segregated pooled form. Securities used as collateral, and those restricted from such use, are held in the same pool.

All account holders, including those who have prohibited use of their securities as collateral, must, by law, receive only a pro-rata share of residual assets.

“Re-vindication,” which is the taking back of one’s own securities in the event of insolvency, is absolutely prohibited.


Account providers may legally borrow pooled securities to collateralize proprietary trading and financing. 


“Safe Harbor” assures secured creditors priority claim to pooled securities ahead of account holders.

Webb reports that “the absolute priority claim of secured creditors to pooled client securities has been upheld by the courts.”

Webb reproduces the New York Federal Reserve Bank’s reply to questions from the European Community’s Legal Certainty Group about the new system Washington was developing. The Fed was asked if investors have rights attaching to particular securities in pooled securities. The NY Fed responded “No.”

The Fed was asked if investors are protected against the insolvency of an intermediary or depository or account provider. The NY Fed answered “creditors have priority over the claims of entitlement holders.”

The Fed was asked if creditors still had priority if failure involved fault, negligence or similar breach of duty of the intermediary. The NY Fed answered: “In terms of the interest that the entitlement holder has in the financial assets credited to his securities account: regardless of fault, fraud, or negligence of the securities intermediary, under Article 8, the entitlement holder has only a pro rata share in the securities intermediary’s interest in the financial asset in question.”

In short, omnibus accounts pool assets so that individual securities cannot be identified with specific investors. When bankruptcy occurs causing default of the account provider, clients are left with a mere contractual claim and have to line up with all other unsecured creditors.

The objective of using all securities as collateral has been obtained. “Comprehensive ‘collateral management’ systems have been implemented which assure the transport of all securities cross-border through the mandated linkage of CSDs to ICSDs to the CCPs (where the risk of the derivatives complex is concentrated), and on to the anointed secured creditors which will take the collateral when the CCPs fail, having assured for themselves that their taking of assets cannot be legally challenged.”

Nevertheless, two problems remain. What happens if the pools of collateral are insufficient to cover the claims of secured creditors and what is the risk that a CCP (Central Clearing Party) could fail?

The 2013 Bank for International Settlements Global Financial Committee report says that if there is insufficient pooled collateral (our stocks and bonds) to prevent the collapse of the financial system (by which is meant apparently the mega-banks), then non-collateral has to be transformed into collateral. What non-collateral is and how it is transformed is not clear. The BIS Global Capital Committee’s report says: “some market participants may need to exchange available, but ineligible [as collateral], securities for other securities that meet eligibility criteria [as collateral] in order to fulfill their collateral obligations. Undertaking transactions to achieve this outcome has been defined as ‘collateral transformation.’”

Webb writes: “Collateral transformation is simply the encumbrance of any and all types of client assets under swap contracts, which end up in the derivatives complex. This is done without the knowledge of the clients, who were led to believe that they safely owned these securities, and serves no beneficial purpose whatsoever for these clients.”

As Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, my bailiwick was the management of the domestic economy, and my task was to replace the Keynesian demand-management policy that had resulted in “stagflation” with a supply-side policy. Moreover it was 40 years ago prior to the era of derivatives that exceed many times the size of world GDP and, as I understand, the combined value of all stocks and bonds in the Western world. Therefore, I cannot provide the answer. Webb does not explain, nor does the BIS committee, how more collateral is created when the pooled accumulations of all stocks and bonds are insufficient to meet secured creditors’ claims. But it is not from money creation by the central bank.

Under the new Dispossession, a Central Clearing Party (CCP) has the counterparty risk between parties in a transaction and provides clearing and settlement. The CCP has “the obligations of the failed clearing participant.” So what happens if a CCP itself fails? The answer seems to be financial Armageddon. “If a large CCP is in trouble because of its members’ default, then we will be having a banking crisis” says Benoît Gourisse, Senior Director, European Public Policy at ISDA.

The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation states that it has no solution to the undercapitalization of CCPs.

Webb concludes that the CCPs are deliberately under-capitalized and designed to fail.

In Part 3 we will consider the likely result of the pending financial crisis.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron said he hoped there would be no “retaliatory response” to Iran’s attack

Israel has every right to retaliate after the Iranian drone and missile attack over the weekend but would be better served by refraining from an escalation, UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron has said. 

The Iranian strikes, which Israeli officials say involved around 300 drones and missiles of various types, came in response to the bombing of an Iranian consular compound in Syria earlier this month that left several senior Iranian military officers dead. Iran believes that Israel was behind the strike, although West Jerusalem has neither claimed nor denied responsibility.

In an interview with Sky News on Monday, Cameron, who served as UK prime minister between 2010 and 2016 and was appointed foreign secretary last year, described the Iranian strike as a “double defeat.” He argued that the attack “was almost a total failure, and they’ve revealed to the world that they are the malign influence in the region.”

Pointing to the scale of the attack, Cameron remarked: “Of course if you’re sitting in Israel this morning you’re thinking quite rightly – ‘We have every right to respond to this’… But we are urging that they shouldn’t escalate.”

“I totally understand those in Israel who want to see more, but I think this is a time to think with head as well as heart and to be smart as well as tough,” he argued.

Cameron added that he hoped there would be no “retaliatory response,” and that the world would shift its focus back to Hamas and the hostages that had been captured by the Palestinian armed group after it attacked Israel last year.

Israeli officials claimed that the military shot down 99% of the incoming Iranian drones and missiles and that the attack did “only minor damage to the infrastructure at the Nevatim base.” Air force operations in the area were not affected, the officials added. 

Iran, however, has insisted that the barrage was more successful than expected, claiming that “important military targets” had been destroyed, and that Nevatim air base was rendered inoperable. Tehran said that it had no intention of continuing the attacks but warned Israel of a harsh response if it were to retaliate.

CNN, citing sources, reported that Israel has so far made no decision on how to respond. One of the network’s sources noted that an Israeli official told the US that his country was not looking to escalate the standoff.

The US president is keeping a “low profile” to discourage tensions, his aides have told the news outlet

US President Joe Biden has avoided making a public statement on the Iranian attack on Israel at the weekend in a bid to reduce tensions and stave off potential domestic criticism over the Gaza war, Politico has reported.

Iran launched hundreds of drones and missiles at Israel on Saturday, declaring it was “punishing” the Jewish state for striking Tehran’s consulate in Damascus earlier this month. Israel, which did not publicly claim credit for killing Iranian officers at the diplomatic compound, has claimed that along with its partners, it repelled some 99% of Iranian weapons.

The US was among the nations to help defend Israel and has pledged continued support, although Biden did not comment publicly at the weekend in an effort to discourage further escalation in the Middle East, White House officials told Politico.

“Putting the president behind the Resolute Desk turns up the temperature,” one source said. “That’s something to ideally avoid.”

Some Biden advisers hope that the Iranian attack could grant them a temporary reprieve from Democratic critics, who disagree with Washington’s response to the hostilities with Gaza, the report added. Israel launched a massive military operation in the Palestinian enclave in retaliation for an incursion by the militant movement Hamas last October which left more than 1,200 people dead.

Pro-Palestinian voices in the US, particularly from younger and progressive voters, have accused Biden of failing to keep Israel in check. The death toll in Gaza has surpassed 33,000 as a result of Israel’s bombardment, according to local health officials.

Members of Biden’s reelection team are concerned that voter discontent could cost him swing states such as Michigan during the November election, Politico said. Over 100,000 people voted “uncommitted” in the Democratic primary race in the state in February, following a campaign to show the incumbent leader their anger with his Israel policy.