Monday, October 9, 2006

Controversy is being expressed over Stephen Harper’s decision to skip the House of Commons vote for the Kyoto Protocol on climate change on Wednesday for a hockey game at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto. Liberal MPs say that this reveals Mr. Harper’s true attitude toward the environment. “It shows the importance he gives to Kyoto and climate change,” said Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez. “What kind of example does that send to Canadians?”

Harper was with his ten-year-old son Ben cheering on for the Toronto Maple Leafs and sat in seats in the platinum level of the Air Canada Centre, next to Larry Tanenbaum, head of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, the company that owns the Leafs. Also seated with Mr. Tanenbaum was Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and his wife, Terri.

“You know I’m dead meat if I make those kind of predictions in hockey,” said Harper, who must juggle support from voters in six Canadian NHL cities. “I think Ben will be cheering for the Toronto Maple Leafs,” Harper told The Canadian Press. “That’s his team.”

Harper and his son met with the members of the Toronto team after the game was finished.

Opposition MPs say that “the decision to put pucks over Parliament shows that environmental issues rate as a low priority for Mr. Harper, who had no other reason to be in Toronto the day he attended the NHL season opener between the Maple Leafs and the Ottawa Senators.”

Members of Parliament and the prime minister are not required to attend votes in the House of Commons and routinely miss them when dealing with other business. If Mr. Harper was there, his vote would not have changed the outcome.

The PM will be writing a whole book on the history of the game. But demands of his day job have slowed down the project.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

With the Climate Conference in Bali having come to a successful conclusion, Wikinews journalist Sean Heron interviewed Christoph Bals from the German NGO Germanwatch on his opinion of the outcome, and an outlook on the future negotiations. Christoph is the Senior Political Executive of Germanwatch, Co-Author of the Climate protection-Index and did lobby work on Bali.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Wikinews interviewed author Amy Scobee about her book Scientology – Abuse at the Top, and asked her about her experiences working as an executive within the organization. Scobee joined the organization at age 14, and worked at Scientology’s international management headquarters for several years before leaving in 2005. She served as a Scientology executive in multiple high-ranking positions, working out of the international headquarters of Scientology known as “Gold Base”, located in Gilman Hot Springs near Hemet, California.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Journalist, counselor, painter, and US 2012 Presidential candidate Joe Schriner of Cleveland, Ohio took some time to discuss his campaign with Wikinews in an interview.

Schriner previously ran for president in 2000, 2004, and 2008, but failed to gain much traction in the races. He announced his candidacy for the 2012 race immediately following the 2008 election. Schriner refers to himself as the “Average Joe” candidate, and advocates a pro-life and pro-environmentalist platform. He has been the subject of numerous newspaper articles, and has published public policy papers exploring solutions to American issues.

Wikinews reporter William Saturn? talks with Schriner and discusses his campaign.

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Few artists ever penetrate the subconscious level of American culture the way RuPaul Andre Charles did with the 1993 album Supermodel of the World. It was groundbreaking not only because in the midst of the Grunge phenomenon did Charles have a dance hit on MTV, but because he did it as RuPaul, formerly known as Starbooty, a supermodel drag queen with a message: love everyone. A duet with Elton John, an endorsement deal with MAC cosmetics, an eponymous talk show on VH-1 and roles in film propelled RuPaul into the new millennium.

In July, RuPaul’s movie Starrbooty began playing at film festivals and it is set to be released on DVD October 31st. Wikinews reporter David Shankbone recently spoke with RuPaul by telephone in Los Angeles, where she is to appear on stage for DIVAS Simply Singing!, a benefit for HIV-AIDS.

DS: How are you doing?

RP: Everything is great. I just settled into my new hotel room in downtown Los Angeles. I have never stayed downtown, so I wanted to try it out. L.A. is one of those traditional big cities where nobody goes downtown, but they are trying to change that.

DS: How do you like Los Angeles?

RP: I love L.A. I’m from San Diego, and I lived here for six years. It took me four years to fall in love with it and then those last two years I had fallen head over heels in love with it. Where are you from?

DS: Me? I’m from all over. I have lived in 17 cities, six states and three countries.

RP: Where were you when you were 15?

DS: Georgia, in a small town at the bottom of Fulton County called Palmetto.

RP: When I was in Georgia I went to South Fulton Technical School. The last high school I ever went to was…actually, I don’t remember the name of it.

DS: Do you miss Atlanta?

RP: I miss the Atlanta that I lived in. That Atlanta is long gone. It’s like a childhood friend who underwent head to toe plastic surgery and who I don’t recognize anymore. It’s not that I don’t like it; I do like it. It’s just not the Atlanta that I grew up with. It looks different because it went through that boomtown phase and so it has been transient. What made Georgia Georgia to me is gone. The last time I stayed in a hotel there my room was overlooking a construction site, and I realized the building that was torn down was a building that I had seen get built. And it had been torn down to build a new building. It was something you don’t expect to see in your lifetime.

DS: What did that signify to you?

RP: What it showed me is that the mentality in Atlanta is that much of their history means nothing. For so many years they did a good job preserving. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a preservationist. It’s just an interesting observation.

DS: In 2004 when you released your third album, Red Hot, it received a good deal of play in the clubs and on dance radio, but very little press coverage. On your blog you discussed how you felt betrayed by the entertainment industry and, in particular, the gay press. What happened?

RP: Well, betrayed might be the wrong word. ‘Betrayed’ alludes to an idea that there was some kind of a promise made to me, and there never was. More so, I was disappointed. I don’t feel like it was a betrayal. Nobody promises anything in show business and you understand that from day one.

But, I don’t know what happened. It seemed I couldn’t get press on my album unless I was willing to play into the role that the mainstream press has assigned to gay people, which is as servants of straight ideals.

DS: Do you mean as court jesters?

RP: Not court jesters, because that also plays into that mentality. We as humans find it easy to categorize people so that we know how to feel comfortable with them; so that we don’t feel threatened. If someone falls outside of that categorization, we feel threatened and we search our psyche to put them into a category that we feel comfortable with. The mainstream media and the gay press find it hard to accept me as…just…

DS: Everything you are?

RP: Everything that I am.

DS: It seems like years ago, and my recollection might be fuzzy, but it seems like I read a mainstream media piece that talked about how you wanted to break out of the RuPaul ‘character’ and be seen as more than just RuPaul.

RP: Well, RuPaul is my real name and that’s who I am and who I have always been. There’s the product RuPaul that I have sold in business. Does the product feel like it’s been put into a box? Could you be more clear? It’s a hard question to answer.

DS: That you wanted to be seen as more than just RuPaul the drag queen, but also for the man and versatile artist that you are.

RP: That’s not on target. What other people think of me is not my business. What I do is what I do. How people see me doesn’t change what I decide to do. I don’t choose projects so people don’t see me as one thing or another. I choose projects that excite me. I think the problem is that people refuse to understand what drag is outside of their own belief system. A friend of mine recently did the Oprah show about transgendered youth. It was obvious that we, as a culture, have a hard time trying to understand the difference between a drag queen, transsexual, and a transgender, yet we find it very easy to know the difference between the American baseball league and the National baseball league, when they are both so similar. We’ll learn the difference to that. One of my hobbies is to research and go underneath ideas to discover why certain ones stay in place while others do not. Like Adam and Eve, which is a flimsy fairytale story, yet it is something that people believe; what, exactly, keeps it in place?

DS: What keeps people from knowing the difference between what is real and important, and what is not?

RP: Our belief systems. If you are a Christian then your belief system doesn’t allow for transgender or any of those things, and you then are going to have a vested interest in not understanding that. Why? Because if one peg in your belief system doesn’t work or doesn’t fit, the whole thing will crumble. So some people won’t understand the difference between a transvestite and transsexual. They will not understand that no matter how hard you force them to because it will mean deconstructing their whole belief system. If they understand Adam and Eve is a parable or fairytale, they then have to rethink their entire belief system.

As to me being seen as whatever, I was more likely commenting on the phenomenon of our culture. I am creative, and I am all of those things you mention, and doing one thing out there and people seeing it, it doesn’t matter if people know all that about me or not.

DS: Recently I interviewed Natasha Khan of the band Bat for Lashes, and she is considered by many to be one of the real up-and-coming artists in music today. Her band was up for the Mercury Prize in England. When I asked her where she drew inspiration from, she mentioned what really got her recently was the 1960’s and 70’s psychedelic drag queen performance art, such as seen in Jack Smith and the Destruction of Atlantis, The Cockettes and Paris Is Burning. What do you think when you hear an artist in her twenties looking to that era of drag performance art for inspiration?

RP: The first thing I think of when I hear that is that young kids are always looking for the ‘rock and roll’ answer to give. It’s very clever to give that answer. She’s asked that a lot: “Where do you get your inspiration?” And what she gave you is the best sound bite she could; it’s a really a good sound bite. I don’t know about Jack Smith and the Destruction of Atlantis, but I know about The Cockettes and Paris Is Burning. What I think about when I hear that is there are all these art school kids and when they get an understanding of how the press works, and how your sound bite will affect the interview, they go for the best.

DS: You think her answer was contrived?

RP: I think all answers are really contrived. Everything is contrived; the whole world is an illusion. Coming up and seeing kids dressed in Goth or hip hop clothes, when you go beneath all that, you have to ask: what is that really? You understand they are affected, pretentious. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s how we see things. I love Paris Is Burning.

DS: Has the Iraq War affected you at all?

RP: Absolutely. It’s not good, I don’t like it, and it makes me want to enjoy this moment a lot more and be very appreciative. Like when I’m on a hike in a canyon and it smells good and there aren’t bombs dropping.

DS: Do you think there is a lot of apathy in the culture?

RP: There’s apathy, and there’s a lot of anti-depressants and that probably lends a big contribution to the apathy. We have iPods and GPS systems and all these things to distract us.

DS: Do you ever work the current political culture into your art?

RP: No, I don’t. Every time I bat my eyelashes it’s a political statement. The drag I come from has always been a critique of our society, so the act is defiant in and of itself in a patriarchal society such as ours. It’s an act of treason.

DS: What do you think of young performance artists working in drag today?

RP: I don’t know of any. I don’t know of any. Because the gay culture is obsessed with everything straight and femininity has been under attack for so many years, there aren’t any up and coming drag artists. Gay culture isn’t paying attention to it, and straight people don’t either. There aren’t any drag clubs to go to in New York. I see more drag clubs in Los Angeles than in New York, which is so odd because L.A. has never been about club culture.

DS: Michael Musto told me something that was opposite of what you said. He said he felt that the younger gays, the ones who are up-and-coming, are over the body fascism and more willing to embrace their feminine sides.

RP: I think they are redefining what femininity is, but I still think there is a lot of negativity associated with true femininity. Do boys wear eyeliner and dress in skinny jeans now? Yes, they do. But it’s still a heavily patriarchal culture and you never see two men in Star magazine, or the Queer Eye guys at a premiere, the way you see Ellen and her girlfriend—where they are all, ‘Oh, look how cute’—without a negative connotation to it. There is a definite prejudice towards men who use femininity as part of their palette; their emotional palette, their physical palette. Is that changing? It’s changing in ways that don’t advance the cause of femininity. I’m not talking frilly-laced pink things or Hello Kitty stuff. I’m talking about goddess energy, intuition and feelings. That is still under attack, and it has gotten worse. That’s why you wouldn’t get someone covering the RuPaul album, or why they say people aren’t tuning into the Katie Couric show. Sure, they can say ‘Oh, RuPaul’s album sucks’ and ‘Katie Couric is awful’; but that’s not really true. It’s about what our culture finds important, and what’s important are things that support patriarchal power. The only feminine thing supported in this struggle is Pamela Anderson and Jessica Simpson, things that support our patriarchal culture.

Sunday, April 24, 2011

An investigation by the United States Coast Guard has concluded the largest oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry was partly the result of a “poor safety culture” aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. The April 2010 explosion aboard the rig, which is located in the Gulf of Mexico, triggered a disaster that led to widespread environmental damage.

The report squarely blames Transocean, which managed the Deepwater Horizon, for being largely responsible for the explosion that claimed eleven lives. The rig had “serious safety management system failures and a poor safety culture,” the report says. Transocean fiercely rejected allegations that crews aboard the rig were badly trained and equipment was poorly maintained.

A slapdash safety environment on Deepwater Horizon would mean equipment was not mended or replaced if it meant losing valuable hours of drilling, the Coast Guard found. Electrical equipment believed to have caused a spark that ignited flammable gas was described as being in “bad condition” and “seriously corroded.” The report found that other deficiencies—improperly assembled gas detectors and emergency equipment; audible alarms switched off because of nuisance false warnings; complacency with fire drills; and poor preparation for dealing with a well blowout—all contributed to the disaster.

Transocean attacked the report’s conclusions and suggested the Coast Guard may have played a role in the disaster. A spokesperson for the company said Deepwater Horizon had been inspected by Coast Guard officials only months before the explosion, officials who said it complied with safety standards. “We strongly disagree with—and documentary evidence in the Coast Guard’s possession refutes—key findings in this report,” the company said.

This week, Deepwater Horizon owner BP launched legal action against Transocean. It also filed a lawsuit against Halliburton, the company that cemented the well, and Cameron, which manufactured the rig’s failed blowout preventer. BP is reportedly seeking to claim US$40 billion in damages, and alleges it has taken a massive financial hit and loss of reputation. In a statement, BP said it filed the lawsuits “to ensure that all parties … are appropriately held accountable for their roles in contributing to the Deepwater Horizon accident”.

In the lawsuit against Transocean, BP claims the company missed signs that a disaster was imminent and that it “materially breached its contractual duties in its actions and inactions leading to the loss of well control, the explosion and the loss of life and injuries onboard the Deepwater Horizon, as well as the resulting oil spill.” Halliburton, BP alleges, was riddled with “improper conduct, errors and omissions, including fraud and concealment” which led to the disaster, and continues to refuse to cooperate with investigators.

Transocean dismissed the lawsuit as “desperate” and “unconscionable,” and announced a countersuit against BP, which it claims was responsible for the disaster “through a series of cost-saving decisions that increased risk, in some cases severely.” Halliburton and Cameron, which is also countersuing, announced they would defend themselves against BP’s allegations.

U.S. President Barack Obama marked the anniversary of the explosion by conceding that although “progress” has been made to ensure the safety of deep water drilling rigs, “the job isn’t done.” Obama’s comments came less than a week after leading experts raised serious questions over the security of deep water drilling as the U.S. government approves more exploration without improving safety measures.

Charles Perrow, a professor at Yale University, said the oil industry “is ill prepared at the least” to deal with another oil spill, despite repeated assurances from the industry and the government, which insists lessons have been learned from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. “I have seen no evidence that they have marshaled containment efforts that are sufficient to deal with another major spill,” he said. “Even if everybody tries very hard, there is going to be an accident caused by cost-cutting and pressure on workers. These are moneymaking machines and they make money by pushing things to the limit.”

However, politicians have insisted they are doing all they can to help clean the coast of oil. “Cleanup efforts in some places are still ongoing, and the full scale of the damage done to our state has yet to be calculated, but the good news is that most all of our fishing waters are back open again,” said Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal at a press conference. “All of us here today want the entire nation to get the message that Louisiana is making another historic comeback.”

Gulf Coast residents, activists and relatives of the crewmen who were killed in the explosion paused this week for the anniversary of the oil spill’s beginning. A helicopter took the victims’ families from New Orleans to over the site where the rig stood, where it circled. “It was just a little emotional, seeing where they were,” said one victim’s mother. Remembrance services and candlelight vigils were held in the Gulf Coast region, which continues to suffer from the fallout of the catastrophe. The families have expressed anger at BP, who they say is being unfair and slow in paying out compensation from a $20 billion fund.

The area is still heavily affected by the disaster and reconstruction of the seafood industry that once thrived is slow. While tourists are beginning to return to the region, many are angry at BP and the Obama administration over how they handled the disaster. All the fishing waters in the area have now opened again, but people who live in the area remain dissatisfied. “I don’t see any daylight at the end of this tunnel,” one fisherwoman said. “I don’t see any hope at all. We thought we’d see hope after a year, but there’s nothing.”

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

On Monday, Canada, the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom and the United States imposed new sanctions on senior officials and entities in Belarus over the May 23 diversion of a Ryanair flight and subsequent arrest of dissident journalist Roman Protasevich and his girlfriend Sofia Sapega, as well as “repressive practices” committed by the Belarusian government.

The joint action was aimed at putting pressure on Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko’s “regime”, a joint statement read, citing “continued attacks on human rights, fundamental freedoms, and international law”, as well as the “politically motivated” arrest of Mr Protasevich and Ms Sapega.

The statement went on to express support for “the long-suppressed democratic aspirations of the people of Belarus”, calling for Belarusian co-operation in investigations into the incident, the release of all political prisoners, adherence to the recommendations of an expert mission by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), of which Belarus is a participating state, and OSCE-facilitated dialogue between the government and opposition.

The circumstances surrounding the forced landing of Ryanair flight FR4978 from Lithuania to Greece in Minsk, the Belarusian capital, are contested. As reported by Sky News, state media says the diversion was due to threat of explosives on board, a claim Global Affairs Canada calls “dubious and still unverified”.

Total restrictive measures varied between the countries and regional organisation. Canada sanctioned 17 new individuals for a total of 72, and five entities described in a press release as being “due to the ongoing disregard for human rights demonstrated”.

The EU, through the Council of the European Union, extended its restrictive measures by 78 individuals and eight entities related either to human rights violations or the “forced and unlawful landing”, to a total of 166 individuals and fifteen entities. Those who are impacted, including judges, businesspeople, university rectors and government ministers, will be subject to an asset freeze, and persons affected prohibited to enter or transit through EU territory.

The measures also prohibit EU citizens and companies from making money available to the designated. According to the Associated Press, EU policy chief Josep Borrell said the measures “are going to hurt […] the economy of Belarus heavily”. The decision to affect entities, not just individuals, foreign minister of Germany Heiko Maas said, will impact the “economic areas that are of particular significance for Belarus and for the regime’s income”; those targeted include the export of fertiliser ingredient potash, and those of tobacco and petroleum.

The United Kingdom furthered sanctions levied with Canada in September on eight Belarusian officials, including Lukashenko, his son, and senior government members. New restrictions include eleven individuals and two entities, which are henceforth subject to asset freezes and travel bans.

Among those targeted includes petroleum exporter BNK (UK) Ltd, which, according to its 2019 report of the director presented to Companies House, “provides intermediate services to oil sector companies” in Belarus. According to a government press release, UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab said “cutting off oil export revenue streams” was one way the government would “hold the [Belarusian] regime to account”.

The United States, through the State Department and Office of Foreign Assets Control under the Treasury Department, imposed visa restrictions on 46 Belarusian individuals holding “key positions” in the country, according to a press release, and added 16 individuals and five entities to a designated list. In addition to concerns of the country’s “transnational repression” and “affronts to international efforts”, the US also cited the “fraudulent” 2020 Belarusian presidential election as cause for the sanctions’ imposition.

The timing of the sanctions was questioned by Belarusian Nikolai Shchekin on state media network the Belarusian Telegraph Agency, noting the date June 21 is one day before the anniversary of the start of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, or the “Great Patriotic War”. According to CNN, the US attempted to announce its sanctions earlier, prior to a meeting between US president Joe Biden and president of Russia Vladimir Putin, but was held up by the EU.

Monday, December 11, 2006

There are suppositions that the US Democratic Congress may re-establish the luxury taxes, which were already once introduced in the 1990s. The suppositions resulted in the National Association of Watch and Clock Collectors commissioning a report on various tax issues.

Material goods such as jewelry, watches, expensive furs, jet planes, boats, yachts, and luxury cars had already been subjected to additional taxes back in 1990. After 3 years these taxes were repealed, though the luxury automobiles tax was still active for the next 13 years.

Rodderick A. DeArment, a representative of law firm and lobbyist Covington and Burling, guided the report. The report outlined the fact that, in 1993, the Congress did not collect as much money from the luxury taxes as it had predicted. It also stated that although its ravaging effect on employment in several industries was sensible, “the turnover that occurred in Congress made it possible for the new group to learn the same lessons again”.

The luxury tax could produce unpredictable effects for the watch industry and the report was meant to inform the members of this branch about the effects of these taxes on this luxury goods’ industry.