News

‘ALARMING’: UN rigs debate, silences voices of Iran dissidents and victims

Hillel Neuer of NGO UN Watch is being silenced during a current Human Rights Council debate on Iran, although it was the most widely viewed intervention in the name of dissidents and victims during last November’s session. He urges people to sign his petition.

I have alarming news to report. The U.N. Human Rights Council is now in session, but they’ve rigged the speaker’s lists so that I can’t take the floor.

Today, they’re holding a debate on Iran. The Council gave the floor to numerous dictatorships, and to three “non-governmental”… pic.twitter.com/H6bYTSSoaW

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) July 5, 2023

The post ‘ALARMING’: UN rigs debate, silences voices of Iran dissidents and victims appeared first on World Israel News.

As Israel Smashes Up Jenin, Its British Apologists Are Enabling This Violence

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article

The post As Israel Smashes Up Jenin, Its British Apologists Are Enabling This Violence appeared first on Global Research.

Firefighters Are Dying Suddenly. Another COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine-Mandated Group Suffering From Injuries & Deaths

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article

The post Firefighters Are Dying Suddenly. Another COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine-Mandated Group Suffering From Injuries & Deaths appeared first on Global Research.

Toronto’s Metro Grocery Workers Have Voted Unanimously to Strike

After years of low wages and precarity, Metro grocery workers in the Greater Toronto Area have spoken loud and clear, voting 100% in favor of a strike. It’s a strong start to nationwide grocery sector contract talks in the wake of the pandemic profit surge.

Thirty-seven hundred grocery workers across 27 stores in the Greater Toronto Area are prepared to strike at Metro, the third-largest grocery store chain in Canada. (Roberto Machado Noa / LightRocket via Getty Images)

After years of low wages and precarious work, 3,700 Metro grocery workers across twenty-seven stores in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) are prepared to strike, with a 100 percent vote in favor. This will be the first in a series of contract talks across Canada’s grocery sector, after Canadian grocery companies made record profits through the pandemic.

Approximately 140,000 grocery store workers in Canada are unionized, with the majority divided among the country’s three major grocery chains: Metro, Loblaws, and Sobeys. Starting this summer, they’re up for two years of contract talks. The first company up for talks is Metro, with its 3,400 workers in the GTA. Metro has reported the largest net profit of the three major grocers this year. In 2022, Metro’s net earnings was a record $922 million, building on a 26 percent increase and a total net profit of $2.5 billion since 2018.

Metro CEO Eric La Flèche attributed these profits to the “hard work” of his workers, yet there has been no corresponding raise in wages or benefits, except for a few reportedly provided “gift cards.”

“Our teams continue to demonstrate great dedication and resilience to serve our communities,” he told Bloomberg. “I’m grateful for their hard work.”

Record Profits, Low Wages

Metro maximizes its profits by enforcing a precarious work environment, pushing workers to their limit, and demanding employees maintain an intense pace, often leading to exhaustion. According to data from Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, millions are paid out to injured workers every year. All told, the company had 1,054 injury claims in 2019, 914 in 2020, 942 in 2021, and 827 in 2022.

“At the bargaining table, we have three key priorities: fair pay for all workers; greater access to improved benefits; and more secure, stable work hours and full-time jobs,” says Gord Currie, president of Unifor Local 414.

“The 100 percent strike vote is a clear message from dedicated Metro workers of their unwavering resolve to fight for fair wages, better working conditions, and to protect good jobs,” Unifor president Lana Payne said.

Currently, the union notes, most of Metro’s workers are part-time, receive low wages, and lack benefits — all while they “are constantly being asked to do more with less as each week, hours are cut, staff recruitment and retention dwindles, and workers dive deeper into exhaustion.”

As the company enjoys record profits, slides for a 2023 presentation intended for shareholders reveal indications of plans to intensify the pace of work even more. In the face of “labor shortages and rising costs,” the company maintains the need to “highlight automation as a priority.” Since 2017, the company has continuously issued threats of job cuts throughout its stores, while simultaneously demanding longer and more intense hours from its employees. “We have higher overtime percentages than we’re used to,” La Flèche said. He further vowed to launch “a store-by-store analysis where we think it pays off and where it accelerates service” and “reduces hours for us.”

The latter phrasing is very deliberate. When Metro speaks of reducing “hours,” it does not imply a reduction in working hours for its employees. Instead, it refers to minimizing the hours required to deliver its services and, whenever feasible, rotating among its precarious workers, thereby evading the provision of benefits and job security safeguards. This is what the strike vote aims to end.

Past Lessons

During Unifor Local 414’s round with Metro, in 2019, the local sought an end to their erratic schedules and the company’s related benefit clawbacks. As the union observed: “Our members work incredibly hard and are the driving force behind Metro’s remarkable financial success.”

That collective agreement, which expired last September, saw an increase in the hourly wages at the starting rate from $16.25 to $16.75 over the course of the three-year agreement. That’s an increase of 3.07 percent, against 1.9 percent inflation in 2019, 0.7 percent in 2020, 3.4 percent in 2021, and 6.8 percent in 2022. This sort of inflation means that any pay that doesn’t exceed the increases to the consumer price index is actually a cut to real pay cut. “You know it’s bad when a grocery worker can’t afford the food they’re stocking on Metro’s shelves,” Currie said.

But, for Metro, low pay for intense work is a feature, not a bug.

Metro Inc. opened its first supermarkets in 1972. The company’s long history of opposing unions is a significant factor in its status as one of Canada’s most profitable firms. In September 1984, Metro’s owners directed three hundred of its grocery stores to lock out their truck drivers and warehouse workers and replaced them with scabs. After the union backed down, Gérald Tremblay, then vice president of Metro, told the Montreal Gazette, “Now we can have efficient and flexible operations.”

In 1990, when Pierre Lessard assumed the role of CEO, his leadership signaled the initiation of new rounds of “massive” job cuts, coinciding with the company’s annual sales reaching $2.3 billion.

More recently, as Ontario looked poised to increase its minimum wage to $15 per hour, La Flèche told a conference call in 2017 that the increase would cost about 8 percent of the company’s $586 million in net earnings. Rather than accept a lower profit margin, La Flèche promised: “As a team we will strive to mitigate this impact as much as we possibly can through productivity and cost reduction initiatives, but the size and pace of these increases pose a significant challenge.” Notably, he refused to rule out additional layoffs when asked.

Between Low Wages and Rising Prices

While Metro has done all it can to minimize what it pays to its workers, it has absorbed ever-increasing profits as part of Canada’s grocery oligopoly. Last year, as more and more Canadians were made hungry by rising food prices, La Flèche told the company’s shareholders that they can expect to profit handsomely off of these same price hikes: “Whenever there’s a spike in inflation like this, promotional penetration increases. We’ve seen that before. And we see strong sales whenever we feature a key item that has experienced inflation.”

Metro isn’t alone here. Five retailers — Loblaw, Sobeys, Metro, Costco, and Walmart — control 75 percent of Canada’s food retail market. And they exert their market power to gouge ordinary workers at the point of sale. All of these firms, in turn, also do what they can to cut their own workers’ wages. Both measures leave workers poorer.

According to a report submitted to the federal Competition Bureau by economist Jim Stanford:

The big retail grocery chains — Loblaws, Empire and Metro — have gotten much of the attention for food price inflation. This attention is absolutely deserved, as all three have had higher profit margins during the pandemic. . . . At practically every step along food supply chains, there are corporations seeking the greatest possible profit.

Across industries, the report notes, a monopolization tendency is obvious. And that helps to explain why Canada’s top two hundred thirty firms, across sectors, saw a 40 percent gain in net income of $175 billion last year. Meanwhile the total wages and salaries paid to employees across Canada grew by less than 19 percent.

Firms like these, the bureau previously warned, use their “naked restraints” on competition to impose “restrictions on wages or job mobility.” Precarious work, for them, is just as key to their profit as price gouging.

“Our grocery workers, like all Canadians, know full well the steep price increases on essential food items and the corresponding record profits reported by the biggest supermarket chains,” notes Payne. “CEOs are laughing all the way to the bank while workers and their families continue to struggle.”

The fight at Metro will, if launched, wrest some power away from profiteers like La Flèche and put it in the hands of the workers who feed the country and those who depend on them.

Cluster Bombs for Ukraine? A Warning From Kosovo

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article

The post Cluster Bombs for Ukraine? A Warning From Kosovo appeared first on Global Research.

Breaking: President Biden Backs Ursula von der Leyen to be NATO Chief

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article

The post Breaking: President Biden Backs Ursula von der Leyen to be NATO Chief appeared first on Global Research.

Israel’s Bloodcurdling ‘Poison Policy’ to Replace Palestinians with Jewish Settlers

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article

The post Israel’s Bloodcurdling ‘Poison Policy’ to Replace Palestinians with Jewish Settlers appeared first on Global Research.

The Nomination of Elliott Abrams Is a Stain on Joe Biden’s Human Rights Record

Elliott Abrams is one of America’s worst living human rights abusers. That the Biden administration would nominate him to anything other than a prison sentence is baffling.

Elliott Abrams, then special representative for Iran and Venezuela at the State Department, attends a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing on US Policy in the Middle East on Capitol Hill on September 24, 2020, in Washington, DC. (Erin Schaff-Pool / Getty Images)

Some unforced political errors are so baffling, you wish you could’ve been in the room to witness how multiple brains could have decided they were good ideas. This is the case with the Biden administration’s nomination of war criminal and convicted misleader of Congress Elliott Abrams to the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (ACPD).

On the one hand, few people are less appropriate to be appointed to anything related to diplomacy than Abrams, best known for facilitating and covering up many years of grisly human rights atrocities racked up over the course of the Reagan administration’s covert wars on the Left in Central America. As career foreign services officer Frank McNeil put it, Abrams “practices the Doberman Pinscher school of diplomacy.”

On the other hand, the ACPD doesn’t have that much to do with diplomacy anyway: “public diplomacy” is a Cold War–era euphemism for US government propaganda efforts aimed at foreign populations via vehicles like the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, or the Cuba-targeting Radio Martí, which was envisioned as an affordable way to try and destabilize the Fidel Castro government. In that sense, it’s a perfect fit for Abrams, who views himself as a lifelong counterrevolutionary devoted to opposing leftism in any form.

But Abrams’s appointment is yet another self-inflicted ding to the White House’s public image–conscious foreign policy. Since winning the presidency, Joe Biden and his team have tried to do a reset from the scandal-filled Donald Trump years, when US foreign policy largely chugged on in the same way it had for decades — selective outrage at human rights abuses, self-serving appeals to democracy while coddling dictators and plotting coups — only with the pretense ripped off. They’ve tried this by reframing US foreign policy as revolving around a global “battle between democracy and autocracy” and upholding the “international rules-based order.” Abrams’s nomination makes a mockery of all of this.

Why? It’s not just that Abrams was a high-profile, controversial Trump appointee, undermining Biden’s rhetoric around the former Apprentice host’s presidency being an aberration divorced from American norms gloriously restored. Abrams was the subject of a fair bit of rancor four years ago when he was more or less tasked by Trump with spearheading his administration’s regime-change effort in Venezuela.

It’s not just that Abrams pleaded guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress, a result of his and other Reagan officials’ efforts to cover up their crimes in Central America — though lesser ethical lapses have been scandals at the ACPD in the past. When Ronald Reagan’s United States Information Agency (USIA) director was caught secretly taping his phone conversations with powerful people — including in Florida, where it’s illegal — it led then Middlebury College president Olin Robison to resign in protest from the commission, which oversees the USIA.

It’s not just that Abrams’s role as the “contra commander in chief” was overseeing the delivery of supplies to anti-communist death squads, then lying about them to Congress and the public. Abrams worked to shield from accountability the perpetrators of the El Mozote massacre, where among other things US-backed thugs slaughtered and raped children, and of several brutal assassinations of dissidents, including one where a man was repeatedly sodomized with a stick and had his head sawed off. As Abrams openly said, the “purpose” of the military aid he was directly facilitating was to “permit people who are fighting on our side to use more violence,” and he later admitted to taking part in “excessive micromanagement” of the contras.

And it’s not only that Abrams has shown a career-long contempt for democracy, from playing a pivotal role in the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela, to provoking a civil war in the Palestinian territories when George W. Bush’s administration didn’t like the 2006 election results. Abrams had a simple formula when it came to authoritarian governments: if it was communist, it had to be toppled for the sake of freedom and human rights; if it wasn’t, then the United States needed to deepen its partnership with the government and “use our influence to effect desirable change,” hold off on pushing for liberalization (“The line between progress and anarchy is hard for anyone to draw,” he explained), and support “even a highly imperfect regime,” since it has “a much better prospect of democratization” than a communist government.

Any single one of these factors should be enough to disqualify Abrams from being appointed so much as presidential dog-walker. The fact that, with this entire rap sheet, Abrams still ended up nominated by a Democratic president to a position that puts him within one hundred feet of US foreign policy is a disgrace. And it will make a world that looks more cynically than ever at US rhetoric around democracy and human rights even less likely to swallow it.

Billionaires and Monarchs Now Run Soccer

The transfer of stars like Karim Benzema to the Saudi Pro League has fed calls to stop its poaching of big-name players. But Saudi control is the natural outcome of the sport’s transformation into a plaything for billionaires.

Karim Benzema during his official reception event at King Abdullah Sports City on June 8, 2023 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. (Yasser Bakhsh / Getty Images)

A recent wave of football stars is following in Cristiano Ronaldo’s footsteps. From French striker Karim Benzema to 2018 World Cup winning midfielder N’Golo Kanté, Senegal captain Kalidou Koulibaly, and Portugal international Rúben Neves, they’re all signing for Saudi Arabia’s Pro League.

Former England and Manchester United star Gary Neville has called for the Premier League to stop transferring players to Saudi Arabia to “ensure the integrity of the game isn’t being damaged.” Meanwhile, definitely-not-rattled Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) president Aleksander Čeferin has been forced to assert Saudi clubs poaching big-name European players doesn’t threaten European soccer. For many, a blatant sportswashing project luring superstars for eye-watering sums of money constitutes a danger to football itself.

But Saudi Arabia doing its best to buy football outright with overstuffed cases of blood-splattered petrodollars doesn’t threaten the sport — it’s precisely what the modern game demands. An inconceivably rich state buying European teams outright and doling out $200 million annual contracts at home could indeed shift the balance of power in football — kicking the sums of money involved in transfers and contracts further into the stratosphere. Yet it’s also only the latest step in football’s dreary conversion from the people’s game into a speculative object best suited for sportswashing and investment portfolios.

Diversified

States hijacking the world’s most popular sport is neither new nor rare. The phenomenon has recently reached grim heights in last year’s World Cup in Qatar and United Arab Emirates–backed Manchester City lifting this season’s Champions League trophy. But that doesn’t diminish the morbidly impressive extent of Saudi Arabia’s recent sportswashing onslaught, which is by no means limited to football.

The Private Investment Fund (PIF) is Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund. Worth roughly $650 billion, it’s one of the biggest sovereign wealth funds in the world. Designed to diversify Saudi state investments to break a reliance on oil revenues, PIF’s international investments include such friendly, scrappy small businesses as Uber, Blackstone and Boeing. Domestically, PIF underwrites projects like NEOM, the bleak, futuristic city that will absolutely be built as planned and is in no way a vile PR stunt.

PIF’s notoriously opaque nature means that some of its most transparent investments have been in football. In 2021, PIF purchased an 80 percent stake in Premier League club Newcastle United. Though PIF is chaired by Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Premier League was apparently assured the Saudi state “wouldn’t control the club” and waved the deal through. When a despot directly tied to the murder of a journalist and countless human rights abuses proved a somewhat controversial owner, league administrators responded by introducing regulation that would bar human rights abusers from purchasing clubs. Sure, this passed two years after the Newcastle purchase and has yet to be enforced — but that’s still fairly good, as far as football regulations go.

Claiming a foothold in the world’s most-watched league was a pivotal opening salvo in the Saudi pursuit of sporting soft power. Saudi Arabia has bolstered these efforts with dizzying investment in building up its own league. This began with making Cristiano Ronaldo the best-paid footballer in the world earlier this year when he signed for Al Nassr, a club backed by a PIF subsidiary. In early June, PIF took over the country’s four biggest clubs outright (including Al Nassr) with the intention of further boosting the Saudi Pro League.

In the same week, Benzema’s free transfer from Real Madrid to Al-Ittihad was confirmed. He’ll reportedly make roughly $100 million a year, with bonuses for supporting a potential Saudi bid to host the 2030 or 2034 World Cup. These sums are astronomical. PIF will pay more for a couple seasons of Benzema and Ronaldo than it did to own Newcastle. Since then, they have been joined by N’Golo Kanté, Rúben Neves, Kalidou Koulibaly, and Édouard Mendy.

These outsized contracts will undoubtedly prove hefty enough to lure further stars to the Gulf. A mass exodus of excellent, if aging, players to Saudi Arabia represents a new wrinkle in football, but it is in no way a fundamental change. Star players and entire clubs have long been twinkling baubles for the rich and powerful, and Saudi Arabia just happens to be one of the richest and most powerful forces in the world at the moment.

As Modern as It Gets

If Saudi Arabia’s forays into football sound depressingly familiar, it’s because we’ve heard this macabre tune before. Some of the biggest clubs in European football are sportswashing vehicles. Manchester City, owned by United Arab Emirates vice president Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan, is essentially a powder-blue Emirati PR firm that happens to be fantastic at football. The only enjoyable aspect of the culmination of their plodding, fifteen-year march to a Champions League title was probably Jack Grealish’s resulting bender.

Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) are a similar project with Qatari backing. Unsurprisingly, the financial might of an entire petrostate makes signing players like Neymar and Kylian Mbappé slightly easier, even if they have had less fortune actually winning European trophies. The tradition and built-in fanbases of football clubs make them ideal for deflecting and absorbing criticism and shifting perceptions of states.

Though sovereign wealth funds ostensibly purchase football clubs to diversify their investment portfolios, the egregious arms race to outspend other sides and buy trophies means making money with a football club is a challenging prospect. Which makes the fact that the other most common ownership model at big clubs tends to be American billionaires slightly curious.

“Lucky” fans get a faceless assembly of VC suits that hires the right bean counters to overperform, before skipping out with a profit (if they got in early enough for profit to be possible). Less fortunate ones end up with doofuses like Chelsea’s Todd Boehly, who openly misunderstands the sport he spent billions buying into and whose idiotic tinkering ensured his shiny new club would do significantly worse despite spending an unprecedented $600 million on signings in one season.

While its arguable that none of these ownership options are quite as bad as PIF, none of them are particularly good, either. But American billionaires hoping to wring out all they can from beloved clubs and open sportswashing vehicles are today’s two most potent footballing forces. No surprise then, that Leo Messi’s dramatic choice on where to play next after a frosty exit from PSG was between Saudi Arabia and Miami.

A Long Time Coming

Today’s financialized, morally desolate football landscape is likely worse than many could have imagined even just a decade ago, but it still reflects long-standing trends. The Premier League itself was founded by top English clubs looking to break away from lower leagues in order to increase broadcasting revenue in the early ’90s. The pursuit of TV money also reshaped the Champions League in the same period.

And while it has been a very long time since most top-flight European clubs were community owned, the amount of money that’s been sloshed into the game in the last decades — particularly via ever-ballooning broadcasting deals — has redefined just who is capable of getting involved in football. West London’s favorite oligarch, Roman Abramovich, purchasing Chelsea in 2003 was a further step toward the current predicament. While American billionaires like Arsenal owner Stan Kroenke or the Glazer family at Manchester United invested in Premier League teams at around the same time, they were hoping to leverage what they saw as undervalued assets to pad their wealth.

Abramovich, on the other hand, was more interested in safe-housing his money outside of Russia and building a network of influence in Britain. Like today’s owners at Newcastle, Manchester City, or PSG, profitability (especially in the short term) simply wasn’t a factor. The era of attempting to compete with clubs where money is literally not a factor has begun, and it looks like it won’t end any time soon.

PIF’s foray into English football isn’t the only event echoing the sad, stupid elements of football’s past. For this domestic spending has an unimpressive precedent. In the 2010s, China invested wildly in its domestic league (in addition to Chinese investors snapping up some European sides), splashing the cash on big names in the hope of helping China develop into a global contender at the world’s game. Now, the stars are gone and that dream seems to be imploding. But the usual rules of football accounting reassure us that if Saudi Arabia (or indeed the United States) just spends even more on star players, it will definitely work out better.

Product Placement

Star footballers are some of the most popular athletes on the planet. They undoubtedly deserve to be well-compensated for their hard work — and money is much better off in their pockets than in those of owners, sponsors, or corrupt institutions like FIFA or UEFA. But once the sums of money involved in the game become so earth-shatteringly high, it’s impossible to prioritize the fans that make the players stars.

Every lurching step football has taken toward its current state has been a brutal loss for supporters. Not just because explosive costs have pushed up ticket prices or insatiable addictions to broadcast revenue means matches kick off at inconvenient times for match-going fans. More importantly, every step that sees money take precedence over everything else and commodifies the sport erodes anything resembling democratic control, transparency, and supporter influence.

The evolution of ownership and investment in football has seen clubs transition from community entities to global assets — making fans nothing more than consumers. And even those who support teams from afar have been shortchanged by all of this: broadcast bidding wars means you need a handful of increasingly expensive streaming services just to watch your squad play — whether the club you support is owned by a foreign sovereign state or a friendly, local billionaire.

There have been some flickers of hope. In Germany, a combination of the structural 50+1 ownership model that dictates members — in this case, fans — own a controlling majority of their clubs (outside of some high-profile exemptions, like RB Leipzig, so named after Red Bull) and a highly politicized fan scene demonstrate things can be different. Due to widespread outcry led by fans, the Bundesliga recently decided against selling off a large chunk of its broadcasting rights to private equity vultures, while years of protest from hardcore Bayern fans pressured the club into ending its sponsorship deal with Qatar Airways. But these victories largely maintain an already-broken status quo, especially when leagues with more democratic structures and critical supporters have to compete with ones that show few such qualms.

Without a complete reimagining of football, regulation that bars dictators from snapping up clubs and stars, and widespread democratization of the sport on a global scale, we will be forced to endure the worst elements of football escalating at the hands of PIF and the Saudi state — which will be the worst thing to ever happen to the game, until another country with even more money (and fewer scruples) comes along and does exactly the same thing.

The WHO and European Commission (EC) Launch Digital Health Initiative

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article

The post The WHO and European Commission (EC) Launch Digital Health Initiative appeared first on Global Research.