News
Student Protesters in Thailand Label their Critics as Dinosaurs
Student protesters in support of the Free People movement in Thailand, have labelled their critics, many of whom come from older age groups, as dinosaurs. A war of words has broken out in Thailand, particularly on social media.
The Thai youth-led protests began with three demands: House dissolution, amendment to the constitution and an end to the intimidation of state critics. Later, a 10-point proposal to reform the monarchy was announced at the Thammasat gathering on Aug 10. Sparking yet more controversy in an already divided Thai political arena.
The Free Youth group has also expanded into the Free People group and over 10,000 people joined the rally at Democracy Monument on Aug 16. The repetition of their calls has also drawn warnings and opposition from those who say politics must be kept out of schools.
Eyebrows were raised again over the past week as anti-government activities spread to even more junior school levels. With the three-finger salute and the use of white ribbons making appearances in many schools around the country.
Respect the civil rights of the students
Arthitaya Pronprom, 18, a leader of political rallies at Mahidol University, told the Bangkok Post in her opinion, politics is everyone’s business. “Everyone’s voice should be equal and everyone should have an equal opportunity to have their opinion heard. However, in Thailand, students and teenagers are being attacked by older members of society who say that we are politically naive or brainwashed,” she said.
Ms Arthitaya said she wants adults to respect the civil rights of the students as well as realize that students have minds of their own.
“Students nowadays learn about Thai political history, which is not taught in schools, through the internet and social media. It may be that we have more sources of information than they ever had. We absorb the facts and realize numerous problems are hidden under the carpet in this country. We see injustice and inequality and we want change,” she argued.
Ms Arthitaya said many among the older generation seek to avoid vigorous face-to-face arguments by changing the subject or making light of it, while she and her peers are more inclined to speak out against what they perceive to be injustice or mistreatment.
“Just because we have a different vision of how Thailand ought to be in the future, it doesn’t mean we hate the nation. The tensions between the generations can be eased if we start to listen to each other. The government should respect students’ freedom of expression and be open-minded towards our demands,” she said.
Students in Thailand risk-taking behaviour is a good thing
Assoc Prof Sirichai Hongsanguansri, a specialist in child and adolescent psychiatry at the Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, said each generation is shaped by a different set of circumstances. Attributing the student protests to a climate of growing inequality and injustice.
When asked whether they are being manipulated by others, Assoc Prof Sirichai said he believed that was a myth. “Their brains can analyze and grasp abstract concepts, such as injustice, at this stage. In fact, anyone can be gullible regardless of their age. They may be careless and single-minded due to their limited experience. But their risk-taking behaviour is a good thing,” he said.
Suriyasai Katasila, dean at Rangsit University’s College of Social Innovation, and a former coordinator of the yellow-shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy and co-founder of the Action Coalition for Thailand (ACT), has called the student movement a “new frontier” in Thai politics which transcends the color-coded conflicts of the past.
Yuttaporn Issarachai, a political scientist from Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, said while the generation gap might also be a factor. Its ideologies and the will to instigate change that brought the protesters together.
However, he also noted that political groupings of the past have also sought to align themselves with the young.
Thai Academics warn of cultural earthquake
Suvinai Pornavalai, a former economics lecturer at Thammasat University, warned that student protests against authorities are creating a “cultural earthquake” in the same vein as China’s Cultural Revolution.
In 1966, Chinese leader Mao Zedong launched a political campaign against capitalist influence, allowing youths known as Red Guards to destroy perceived enemies of Chinese culture. They followed and spread Mao’s teachings contained in Little Red Books. The period of upheaval ended with Mao’s death in 1976.
Wasana Wongsurawat, a history lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, however, dismissed the comparison as well as the context, saying that Thai student protests actually show the government’s lack of cultural power over the younger generation. “Its attempts to manipulate cultural production have not been successful.
For example, textbooks portray Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha as a great leader. But schools are no longer the centre of knowledge when what is on the internet is apparently more convincing,” she said.
Clashes between liberal and conservative values
Kanokrat Lertchoosakul, a political science lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, challenged the tokenisation of the youth-led demonstrations as a generational conflict, stressing that such a discourse is more of an attempt to discredit the movement than it is an effective refutation of its arguments.
“They are clashes between liberal and conservative values. These progressive students are the by-products of liberal efforts over the past 20 years. They grew up in families who encourage out-of-the-box thinking. In addition, they are digital natives used to robust debate on social media,” she said.
Asst Prof Kanokrat cited examples from her research in which she has interviewed over 80 students who joined pro-democracy rallies in seven provinces since the flash mobs began in February.
One student called her school is “the very agent of authoritarianism”, while another described her alma mater as “hell” over its fussy rules on hairstyles, said the professor.
Asst Prof Kanokrat said student protesters know about the Oct 14, 1973 uprising and the Oct 6, 1976 massacre, but believe the expression of political opinions does not necessarily provoke violence and the potential for violence is being played up by ill-intentioned adults who oppose their views.
Effective education reform fro students in Thailand
Mr Suriyasai argues that “It is time to implement national reforms where possible to ease the pressure. Reforms are long overdue and they should no longer be used by parties to vouch for votes in an election.
“If we look carefully and deeply, we will see problems in schools. Opening up for children to discuss and find solutions is a good thing. Creating safe spaces for political discussion in schools is a smart solution by the education minister and it might hopefully lead to effective education reform.”
Asst Prof Kanokrat proposed that schools become forward-thinking institutions and respect student rights in a productive way.
“Don’t just organise hearings. It is reforming government policies that will help defuse tensions,” she said.
While on the 10 demands related to the monarchy, Mr Suriyasai said the question is not if the issue can be raised, but how it can be discussed in a reasonable and proper manner.
Source: Bangkok Post
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?