Mediaboss Marketing

Exceptionally low female labour force participation in Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon will get worse with the Covid-19 pandemic and action must be taken to improve the situation, according to the World Bank.

Less than 15 per cent of women work in Iraq and Jordan, and only 26 per cent in Lebanon, according to the Washington-based lenders latest report on womens economic participation in the three countries.

The participation rates for women in these three Mashreq countries, lie between 25 and 35 percentage points below the international average given their per capita GDP.

Iraq and Jordan rank among the countries with the lowest female participation rates in the world, only after war-torn Syria and Yemen.

To make matters worse, women are likely to be disproportionally affected by the labour market effects from Covid-19, the report said.

Women will probably experience a significant burden on their time given their multiple care responsibilities as school closures and confinement measures are adopted, possibly leading to reductions in working time and permanent exit from the labour market among those who currently participate.

The International Monetary Fund downgraded its forecast for the world economy and said it would contract by 4.9 per cent this year due a more severe economic fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic. The fund said the steep decline in economic activity has led to a catastrophic hit to the worlds labour market.

Women tend to work in sectors that have been hit particularly hard, such as the service sector, and in more vulnerable forms of employment, such as part-time or informal work, the World Bank report said.

These factors leave them out of formal social protection measures targeted to workers, making it even more complicated to cope with the crisis, the World Bank said.

Females are also likely to be left out in a context where societal attitudes suggest that in times of scarcity of jobs, those should go to men.

Women in the Mashreq countries who are willing to participate in the labour market face high unemployment rates and tend to be paid less for similar work. Female unemployment is nearly twice that for men, reaching almost 25 per cent in Jordan.

The gender wage gap for women and men working similar jobs with similar education and experience is about 17 per cent in Jordans private sector and 18 per cent and 22 per cent for all workers in Iraq and Lebanon, respectively.

The report calls for action in the areas of stronger economic growth, effective policy action to close legal gaps, promotion of more egalitarian attitudes, access to quality healthcare and the provision of safe transportation.

The three governments have targeted increases in womens labour force participation rates by 2025 of 5 percentage points in Iraq and Lebanon and 9 percentage points in Jordan.

If increases of five points were to be met and continued for a further decade, annual economic growth would increase by 1.6 percentage points in Iraq, 2.5 points in Jordan, and 1.1 points in Lebanon by 2035, the report said.

Updated: June 26, 2020 03:48 PM

See the original post:
Covid-19 blow to female workforce in Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon - The National

Baghdad (AFP) - Iraq's economy could reach irreversible lows within the next year unless urgent reform measures are adopted, its finance minister warned in an exclusive interview with AFP on Monday.

"Reform is inevitable," said Ali Allawi, who has been tasked with stabilising Iraq's economy following an oil price crash that saw state revenues slashed by half.

"If we do not amend the situation throughout the next year, we may face shocks we cannot fix."

Iraq's economy is already projected to shrink by 10 percent this year following a dramatic drop in oil prices from over $50 per barrel to around $20.

OPEC's second-biggest oil producer relies almost exclusively on its crude exports to fund its budget, which includes a bloated public sector and mass subsidies.

When he took over the finance ministry in May, Allawi told AFP, he was "shocked" to find so little liquidity.

"A government should normally have at least one-and-a-half months of spending in its accounts in case of emergencies or shocks, but in reality there was only a tenth of this amount. There should have been 10-15 trillion IQD (up to $12 billion), but there were only two trillion dinars," he said.

Iraq spends at least $4.5 billion a month just to pay public workers and run the government.

"The finances are worse than it was in 2005 or 2006. We are in an existential economic situation," said Allawi, 73, who was also finance minister at that time.

Then, Iraq was paying public salaries to around a million people, with oil prices at around $35.

Now, a barrel sells for the same amount -- but the state is responsible for 4.5 million workers, 2.5 million retirees and around a million welfare recipients.

- 'Hit a wall' -

At his family home in Baghdad, surrounded by books on history and economics, Allawi told AFP he hoped to pay June and July's public salaries on time by borrowing internally.

"We can do this up to a certain ceiling, but if we exceed that ceiling then we'll face serious risks," he said, sporting a pink tie and glasses with translucent frames.

Story continues

To navigate these dangers, Allawi said he would propose a full reform plan to parliament within three months, including austerity measures that could last two years.

He hopes to cut senior salaries, halt "double-dipping" for Iraqis who receive multiple state welfare packages, access aid from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and boost Iraq's non-oil revenues to make it less vulnerable to dramatic price changes.

Economic experts -- including Allawi -- have advocated such steps ever since the 2003 US-led invasion.

"If oil prices stay at this level for a year, and our expenses stay the same, without a doubt we're going to hit a wall," Allawi told AFP.

"We can't lead a country, particularly from the economic side, by hoping oil prices rise enough to cover costs."

Allawi, who served as finance minister in a transitional government Iraqi in 2005, finds himself in a similar position now: part of a short-term cabinet that has inherited a web of challenges from its predecessors.

Former prime minister Adel Abdel Mahdi's cabinet discussed austerity measures at length but never implemented them, top Iraqi officials told AFP, fearing backlash from the public and the political elite using state coffers to buy influence.

- 'Major failures' -

Instead, public outrage has focused on new Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhemi -- and Allawi.

The new cabinet sought to save by cutting monthly disbursements to ex-political prisoners and retirees earning a double-wage, but that sparked accusations it was targeting the country's most vulnerable citizens while turning a blind eye to graft among top officials.

Iraq is perceived as the 16th most corrupt country in the world according to Transparency International, with some $450 billion in public funds vanishing into the pockets of shady politicians and businessmen since 2004.

Asked if he thought he could regain the public's trust, Allawi admitted it would be a tremendous task.

"There have been major failures on behalf of successive governments in recent years, leading to a loss of confidence between the state and citizens," he said.

"I'm not asking them to trust us first, but to wait for the measures that we will take if they are fair, equitable and useful," he added.

View post:
Without urgent reform, Iraq economy will face irreparable shocks: minister to AFP - Yahoo News

Qassim Abdul-zahra and Samya Kullab, Associated Press

BAGHDAD (AP) Iraqi security forces arrested over a dozen men suspected of a spate of rocket attacks against the U.S. presence in Iraq, the Iraqi military said Friday.

Two senior Iraqi officials said the 14 men who were arrested had ties to an Iran-backed militia group. The arrests marked a bold move by the government to crack down on groups that have long been a source of tension for U.S.-Iraq relations. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.

A raid by Iraq's elite Counter-Terrorism Service was carried out late Thursday in Baghdad's Dora neighborhood. A military statement did not explicitly state the men had militia ties and said a special investigative committee formed to include the Interior Ministry and other Iraqi security forces would follow up on the case.

Following the arrests, armed groups in government vehicles entered the Green Zone without official approval and surrounded the headquarters of the counter-terrorism service, the statement said.

These parties do not want to be part of the state and its obligations and seek to remain outside the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, the statement said.

The operation was carried out according to a judicial order based on Iraq's anti-terrorism laws, and was issued following intelligence reports indicating the men had orchestrated attacks against U.S. installations in Baghdad airport and inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, where the U.S. embassy is located.

The statement said further intelligence reports indicated another plot targeting the Green Zone. Two launching pads for rockets were discovered during the raid by security forces.

On Monday, a rocket struck in the vicinity of the airport without causing casualties. It was the fourth such attack targeting the U.S. presence since Baghdad embarked on strategic talks with the U.S. on June 11. The attacks were proving to be a key challenge for Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, whose government had promised to take action against militia groups suspected of orchestrating them.

Two senior government officials said the men detained had ties to the Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia group, which the U.S. has blamed for orchestrating attacks against its embassy and troops located inside Iraqi bases.

The arrests are an indication of the prime minister's determination to clamp down on terrorist activity, on official said.

They said intelligence reports indicated the group was planning on carrying out more attacks targeting the airport. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.

Read more from the original source:
Iraqi forces arrest men suspected of attacks targeting US - The Ridgefield Press

Free speech is under attack today, but more in spirit than in lawand thats the problem. The First Amendment, which precludes the government from abridging a citizens right to speak their mind, doesnt apply to the reactions citizens have when others offer unsavory opinions. That means the core sensibility the Founders wanted to protectthe culture of free expressionis vulnerable not only to unconstitutional attacks from the state, but from what are perfectly permissible attacks from citizens and employers.

That problem cant be solved in the courtsit needs to be addressed in the public square. And at the moment, the spirit of free speech has too few champions.

Lets be clear: There are plenty of noxious, racist and objectionable ideas floating around in America today. Few believe that the Justice Department should prosecute those who articulate those points of viewlegal restrictions would be clear violations of the First Amendment. But legal prohibitions arent the only barriers to free expression.

Set the Constitution aside for a moment: At what point does the social or economic cost of expressing an idea others find unsavory become so high that democratic discourse is fundamentally undermined? At what point does fear of being a social outcast suffocate the democratic discourse that is the lifeblood of democracy?

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump administration calls for Supreme Court to strike down ObamaCare Trump says there will be 'retribution' for those who deface monuments White House task force tracking coronavirus spikes even as Trump says virus is 'going away': report MORE skirted a line ahead of his rally in Tulsa, Okla. By suggesting that protesters would be treated differently than they had been treated in other cities, he didnt specify how things would be differentor who would do the treating. Would it be government officials? Would it be counter-protesters acting of their own volition?

As president, many will assume hes threatening to use law enforcement to stifle free speecha clear First Amendment violation. But we shouldnt fall down the rabbit hole of legal wrangling. The issue is whether people who oppose the presidents agenda should, absent government interference, be able to voice their opinion in the public squareand Trump seems to be saying no. Thats a problem regardless of the legal implication. We should want our president to see and hear and consider the objections of those who oppose the administrations agenda. Thats how democracy is supposed to work.

But its not just Trump and his supporters who seem inclined to silence their opposition. Something remarkable has happened on the left as well. The haste with which individuals are canceledfired from jobs, castigated on social media, treated almost like lepers in their own social circlesfor expressing unpopular opinions is chilling. Theres too often no recourse for those who have expressed ideas at odds with the prevailing culture, and no tolerance for mistakes.

As The Washington Post reported recently, two people who attended a Halloween party hosted by the newspapers award-winning columnist took exception to another attendees costume: In an attempt to poke fun at NBC News host Megyn Kellys comments on the legacy of blackface, a woman had dressed up as Megyn Kelly in blackface. The attendees were angry that the host had not passed along the womans name. A New York Times story recently revealed the degree to which young people now apply the tactics of online bullying to peers who hold various political opinions.

People should be confronted when they reveal prejudice. But in the age of social media, transgressions may never be lived down, no matter how you atone. We can all believe in accountability without embracing the notion that anyone uttering the words All Lives Matter should forever be emblazoned with a scarlet R.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That famous turn of phrase has long been used to explain the value and importance of the First Amendment. And few Americans would dispute that the government should be prevented from stifling free expression. Thats why, decades ago, the ACLU fought to allow Nazis to march through Skokie, Ill., despite the chilling effect their march was likely to have on the Holocaust survivors who lived nearby.

Today, the nations democratic discourse is threatened less by a shift in the government policythough, frankly thats at issue too. Whats happening in the wider culture should be of real concern. None of us are obligated to befriend a racist or invite a bigot over for a picnic in the backyard. But free expression doesnt exist de facto if expressing an opinion at odds with the prevailing view of either the left or the right leads to dire, immutable consequences.

The spirit of democracy depends on providing citizens the opportunity to talk through their differences. It cannot survive if citizens are too fearful to divulge what they really think.

Margaret White is executive director of No Labels, a group that seeks to move Washington beyond partisan gridlock and toward solutions to challenges faced by the country.

The rest is here:
The First Amendment may be safe, but free expression is not | TheHill - The Hill

Words matter. Reporting matters. But sometimes, its a video that matters most.

When a Minneapolis police officer knelt on George Floyds neck for more than eight minutes while he died, gasping for breath, a cellphone video shot by a teenage girl on her way to get a snack made the horror undeniable.

The world needed to see what I was seeing, Darnella Frazier told the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Days later, when Buffalo police knocked down 75-year-old protester Martin Gugino and a pool of blood spread under on the sidewalk under his head, a cellphone video enraged people all over the world.

It just so happens I was in the right place at the right time with exactly the right angle, Mike Desmond of the local public radio station WBFO explained to the Buffalo News.

Video can change the world or at least a few million opinions. But what about the potentially explosive video that cant be shot or never gets seen because law enforcement has confiscated cameras or arrested the people using them?

This week, New York Universitys First Amendment Watch released A Citizens Guide to Recording the Police a primer for amateur videographers on the rights they are entitled to in these encounters. The guide explains why, under most circumstances, the police can neither seize nor demand to view such recordings though some may try and it provides case-law examples to back up its assertions.

It comes along at a crucial time.

In this new era, we have armies of citizens out on the streets capable of producing evidence that checks the conduct of public officials, said Stephen Solomon, the organizations founding editor. The First Amendment right to record public officials, such as the police performing their official duties in public, is central to our democracy, he said.

Who can forget the bizarre and disturbing arrest of Omar Jimenez and a CNN crew while on live television in Minneapolis on May 29? That incident was roundly denounced by press freedom groups and resulted in an apology from Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz: There is absolutely no reason something like this should have happened.

But less heralded and far less visible offenses have happened throughout the United States, as the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker makes clear.

Sue Brisk, a freelance photographer, told the Tracker that she was photographing demonstrations at 42nd Street in Times Square that same day with her NYPD-issued press pass clearly displayed. I watched the police beat people with billy clubs and then they threw a woman up against a pole right in front of me, Brisk said. After that its a blur.

Brisk said that, before she knew what was happening, her head was slammed to the ground and she found herself pinned under at least three New York City police officers. Weeks later, she was still trying to retrieve her camera.

By the Trackers count, well over 400 aggressions against the press including dozens of examples of equipment being damaged have marred recent Black Lives Matter protests.

The NYU guide cites a 2012 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit decision that drew a direct connection between the creation of a recording and something thats better understood to be constitutionally protected: the publication or dissemination of a recording.

The right to publish or broadcast an audio or audiovisual recording would be insecure, or largely ineffective, the decision in ACLU v. Alvarez stated, if making the recording were unprotected. Restricting the use of [a recording] device suppresses speech just as effectively as restricting the dissemination of the resulting recording.

However, the right to record police isnt, well, bulletproof, at this moment.

About three-fifths of the U.S. population lives in states where federal appeals courts have recognized a First Amendment right to record the police in public, the guide says. The U.S. Supreme Court hasnt ruled directly on the issue.

That means legal protections arent nailed down everywhere. Yet the outlook is good: Given the resounding support so far for this First Amendment protection, it seems highly likely that the remaining federal appeals courts would reach the same conclusion if the issue appears on their docket.

Of course, the legal right to record is no guarantee of respectful treatment when events are unfolding. And they are small comfort to journalists or members of the public who have been injured or had their equipment seized as they tried to document protests.

Still, Solomon told me, its helpful to know your rights to confidently assert them when it matters most. After all like 17-year-old Darnella Frazier who started a movement by pointing her cellphone almost anyone can capture evidence of what the world needed to see.

Should that happen, its good to know the First Amendment has your back.

Read more from the original source:
Taking a cellphone video of police? Theres a First Amendment for that - Seattle Times