News

Rohingyas ‘Murdered’ Sailing to Malaysia

Rohingya Muslims fleeing Myanmar by boat praying for safety

KUALA LUMPUR— When Hussein Juhar, a Rohingya Muslim from Burma’s western Arakan (Rakhine) State, saw the crew of the boat that would smuggle him to Malaysia, he knew he was in trouble. The six men, all armed, were ethnic Arakanese—the very people he was fleeing from.

The 30-year-old decided to leave in mid-October after security forces raided his home during sectarian violence between Buddhists and Muslim Rohingyas that left around 100 dead and 100,000 displaced.

Some pay smugglers to take them to Muslim-majority Malaysia, which they reach overland after sailing to Thailand.

“The police and border security forces came house-to-house arresting young men and raping women,” alleged Hussein Juhar, a resident of the predominantly Muslim township of Maungdaw. “They broke into my house like robbers and beat my younger brother. I escaped out the back and was on the run for almost three months. I realized I couldn’t return home, and so I decided to try to get to Malaysia by boat.”

Hussein Juhar, who left behind his wife and four children, paid a smuggler the equivalent of US $2,000 for a place on a boat, but instead of the promised seat and two meals a day, he was packed into the hold along with over 300 other Rohingya to share a space so small there was only room to sit or lie down.

“After we had been at sea for a day, one man became seasick. He begged to go up on deck, but the crew refused,” he said. “The man fought back and so they grabbed him, tied his hands and then shot him. They threw his body into the sea.”

According to Hussein Juhar, on the second day the crew pulled another man from the hold and threw him overboard just to terrify the Rohingya below.

“By the third day, we were all desperate for water,” he said. “Three men forced their way onto the deck, but the crew stabbed one of them and slit his throat. All three were thrown into the sea.”

The Rohingya, a Muslim minority who are not recognized as citizens by the Burmese government according to the widely-condemned 1982 citizenship law enacted by xenophobic former dictator Gen Ne Win, have been taking to the sea for years to escape discrimination, forced labor and land confiscations enacted by the Burmese authorities.

Some pay smugglers to take them to Muslim-majority Malaysia, which they reach overland after sailing to Thailand. The number of Rohingya making the dangerous journey has increased in recent weeks, as hundreds seek to flee the sectarian violence, which flared up again in late October, displacing a further 30,000 people, almost all Muslims.

The start of the “boat season,” when calmer seas are meant to make travel less risky, is likely to encourage yet more Rohingya to attempt this escape route, yet the journey remains as treacherous as ever.

In the past two weeks, at least two boats carrying Rohingya to Malaysia have sunk off the coast of Bangladesh, claiming around 150 lives. Last Sunday, 112 Rohingya landed in a leaking boat near the Thai tourist resort of Phuket. Passengers onboard reported that a further six vessels had left Sittwe, the capital of Arakan State, at the same time.

Chris Lewa, the director of the Arakan Project campaign group which has been documenting the Rohingya for over 10 years, said, “Sectarian violence in Arakan has uprooted the Rohingya, not just physically but also mentally. Unwanted in Burma and Bangladesh, they have nowhere else to go, no other option than risking their lives at sea in search of a place to survive.”

On his recent visit to Burma, newly reelected US President Barack Obama called for national reconciliation in Arakan State. “There’s no excuse for violence against innocent people,” he told an audience at Rangoon University. “The Rohingya hold within themselves the same dignity as you do, and I do,” he added, a criticism perhaps of the perceived ambivalence by both President Thein Sein and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi regarding the crisis.

A Rohingya activist in Malaysia suspects the Burmese authorities are quite happy for the Muslim exodus to continue. “They make money by taking bribes from the smugglers, and at the same time they get rid of the Rohingya,” he said. “It’s win-win for them.”

Government collusion in the flight of the Rohingya appears to extend to the Thai authorities. Until 2009, Thailand allegedly dealt with boatloads of Rohingya asylum-seekers by towing them back out to sea, removing their engines and leaving them to fend for themselves.

When these tactics were exposed by local journalists, Thailand instead adopted a “help-on” policy of taking refugees to their final destination. While some argue that this is better than pushing them back out to sea, others accuse the Thai government of being complicit in people smuggling and even human trafficking.

“I know the Thai police are well-connected with an infamous trafficker,” said the Rohingya activist in Malaysia. “The police and traffickers work together. They are the same.”

Najumul Haque claims he was one of those “helped on” by the Thai authorities in late September. A Rohingya from Maungdaw, he paid a smuggler to get him to Malaysia after his two brothers were arrested by the Burmese authorities in June.

After seven days at sea, Najumul Haque was desperate to reach land, but as the boat neared shore in Thailand, his heart sank. The 27-year-old saw seven smaller boats occupied by armed men in military uniform approach their vessel. But rather than arrest those onboard, they were taken ashore where they spent a night in the jungle.

“The following morning we were collected by a police truck and more men in uniform,” he said. “Our truck was enclosed in tarpaulin, but I could see through gaps in it, and every time we passed a police checkpoint, they saluted the truck. They dropped us off near the border with Malaysia.”

Both Hussein Juhar and Najumul Haque eventually reached Malaysia, but life for the Rohingya in the capital Kuala Lumpur is not easy. “They are not recognized by the Malaysian government, which hasn’t signed the UN Convention on Refugees, and so they cannot get a formal job or even send their children to school,” said Dr. Abdul Hamid, president of the Rohingya Society in Malaysia. “But on the other hand they cannot be deported, because there is nowhere to deport them to.”

And so the Rohingya who risk all to escape Burma, find that they are not even welcome in Muslim-majority Malaysia,. “At least I got here safely, thank God,” said Hussein Juhar. “But I’m worried for the future, and my family back in Burma. How can I support them? How will they survive? I think about them every second of every day, but what can I do?” – By PETER PATTISSON / THE IRRAWADDY

News

Trudeau’s Gun Grab Could Cost Taxpayers a Whopping $7 Billion

Trudeau plans to purchase 2,063 firearm from legal gun owners in Canada - Rebel News Image

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.

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

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

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.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(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