News
Brazilian Muslims face growing Islamophobia over Gaza War
(CTN News) – Batull Sleiman, a physician at a hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, reported that patients frequently arrived in a bad mood at the emergency room.
After all, each day brought fresh medical emergencies and pleas for urgent care. Sleiman had seen everything. But she didn’t expect the kind of rage she received many weeks ago.
A patient entered her examining room, irritated by the time he had waited for a doctor’s attention. Sleiman noted that his problem was “not urgent”. Nonetheless, he accused her of disrespect based on how she handled him.
“You’re being rude with me because you’re not from Brazil,” Sleiman recalls him saying. “If you were in your country…”
Survey findings on Muslim Brazilians experiencing harassment.
Sleiman stated that she turned away rather than hear the rest. The daughter of Lebanese immigrants believes the man’s reaction was motivated by one factor: her hijab.
“I was surprised and outraged,” Sleiman told Al Jazeera. However, she added, the mood in Brazil has become more hostile since the conflict in Gaza began. “I’ve been noticing that people have been staring more at me on the street since October.”
However, Sleiman is not alone in feeling singled out. As the battle in Gaza continues, Brazil is one of many countries concerned about religious prejudice, notably against its Muslim community.
According to a recent poll conducted by the Anthropology Group on Islamic and Arab Contexts at the University of São Paulo, Muslim Brazilians have reported pervasive harassment since the war began.
An estimated 70% of respondents indicated they knew someone who had faced religious discrimination since October 7, when the Palestinian group Hamas began an offensive on southern Israel, killing 1,140 people.
Israel has subsequently launched a military offensive against Gaza, a Palestinian territory, killing over 21,000 Palestinians. This approach has sparked human rights concerns, with UN experts warning of a “grave risk of genocide”.
According to Professor Francirosy Barbosa of the University of São Paulo, the events of October 7 resulted in religious intolerance in Brazil due to the conflation of Palestinian and Muslim identities, even though Palestinians are an ethnic community rather than a religious one.
She directed the November poll of 310 Muslim Brazilians. Respondents, she noted, reported receiving insults reflecting tensions in the Gaza conflict.
“Many Muslim women told us they are now called things like ‘Hamas daughter’ or ‘Hamas terrorist’,” she stated in an interview with Al Jazeera.
The online survey revealed that many of the respondents had firsthand experience with religious prejudice.
“About 60 percent of the respondents affirmed that they suffered some kind of offence, either on social media or in their daily lives at work, at home or in public spaces,” Barbosa said in a press release.
The study found that women reported slightly greater incidences of religious prejudice.
This month, a video on social media showed a resident of Mogi das Cruzes, a neighbourhood of São Paulo, approaching a Muslim woman and pulling her hijab, bringing the issue of Islamophobia to national attention. The footage was also aired on major networks such as CNN Brazil.
Karen Gimenez Oubidi, also known as Khadija, was married to a Moroccan guy and converted to Islam eight years ago. She told Al Jazeera that the argument involved one of her neighbours, and she was unhappy because their children had argued.
“She came down with her brother and was extremely aggressive.” She called me a ‘cloth-wrapped bitch’. I quickly saw it wasn’t only about the kids fighting,” Gimenez Oubidi stated.
The neighbours sought to separate the two women. One man in the video, however, grabbed Gimenez Oubidi from behind and wrapped an arm around her throat to restrain her. Gimenez Oubidi described him to Al Jazeera as her neighbour’s brother.
Encouraging Muslim Brazilians to speak up and raise awareness for government action.
He asked me several times, ‘What are you doing now, terrorist?’ He didn’t say it loudly; it was only for me to hear. “He knew what he was doing,” Gimenez Oubidi explained. She stated that her son’s fight with the neighbour’s youngster was also about her hijab.
Fernanda, the lady who attacked Oubidi, denied this narrative, saying she did not want her real identity exposed for fear of public outrage.
Fernanda claimed Oubidi’s son hit her son on the playground, and while she physically assaulted Fernanda, she made no mention of her faith. “I never mocked her for her religion. That did not happen. “I’d never do something like that,” she replied.
According to a July government assessment, religious intolerance “occurs most intensely against those of African origin, but it also affects Indigenous, Roma, immigrant, and converted individuals, including Muslims and Jews, as well as atheist, agnostic, and non-religious people”.
Brazil is largely Christian, with an estimated 123 million Catholics—more than any other country.
But it has a long-standing, albeit modest, Muslim community. Academics believe Islam entered the area through the transatlantic slave trade, as captured African Muslims practised their religion in their new surroundings.
In 1835, one group of enslaved Muslim Brazilians launched a rebellion against the government known as the Malê insurrection, which was named after the Yoruba word for Muslim.
Brazil’s Muslim community grew in response to waves of immigration in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, particularly following the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Arab immigrants from Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine came to call Brazil home.
The precise number of Muslims in Brazil now remains unknown. The 2010 census counted 35,167 Muslims, although subsequent estimates put the number at 1.5 million.
Some proponents, however, argue that other demographic and political developments are laying the groundwork for rising conflicts between Muslim and non-Muslim populations.
Evangelical Christians constitute the fastest-growing religious component in Brazil today, accounting for around one-third of the population. Their numbers have transformed them into a formidable political force.
Evangelical voters were credited with helping to elect far-right President Jair Bolsonaro in 2016, with polls suggesting 70% support for him.
During his failed 2022 re-election campaign, Bolsonaro frequently used Christian imagery in his pleas to voters, describing the race as a “fight of good against evil.”
Mahmoud Ibrahim, who leads a mosque in Porto Alegre, says that the us-versus-them mindset has resulted in hostility towards his group.
During recent protests against the war in Gaza, he said that passersby branded him a “terrorist” and a “child rapist”.
“Evangelicals and Bolsonarists constantly abuse us. “They even chased a person who was going to our demonstration the other day,” he explained.
Ibrahim added that he has heard of at least one woman bleeding after attackers tried to take her hijab off, causing the scarf’s pins to burrow into her skin.
Girrad Sammour leads the National Association of Muslim Jurists (ANAJI), a body that provides legal assistance in cases of Islamophobia. He stated that the amount of reports to ANAJI has always been high, but it has increased dramatically since the war began on October 7.
“There was a 1,000 percent increase in the denunciations that we received,” he told Al Jazeera, attributing some to provocative remarks from far-right evangelical pastors.
However, Barbosa, the survey leader, believes there are ways to reduce the animosity and suspicion aimed against Muslim Brazilians. She cited a lack of media representation as an example.
“Few Palestinian leaders and experts in the Middle East with a pro-Palestine view have been invited by TV shows, for instance, to comment on the conflict in Gaza,” Barbosa said in a statement.
However, she encouraged Muslim Brazilians to share their stories to increase awareness.
“What is not denounced doesn’t exist for the government,” she said. “Only if the authorities know what is happening will they be able to take adequate measures, like investing in education against religious intolerance.”
A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.
Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
-
News3 years agoLet’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment1 year ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years agoHow Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years agoTop Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles2 years agoAries Soulmate Signs
-
Health2 years agoCan I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Movies2 years agoWhat Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Learning2 years agoVirtual Numbers: What Are They For?