Mediaboss Marketing

Extreme problems require extreme solutions may be an overused clich, but we do have an extreme situation on the India-China border. Even the most friendly and moderate media voices concede that weve had the most serious military stand-off with the Chinese since 1962. We need an extraordinarily extreme man to fix the Chinese for making extraordinary efforts to send infiltrators into New India.

We need a new Raksha Mantri.

Most strategic experts will readily concede that in recent years, our optimal pursuit of maximum national security has been critically weakened because we have had an unfortunate string of inadequate defence ministers. Starting with A.K. Antony (compulsively indecisive ), Arun Jaitley (part-time), Manohar Parrikar (unwell, unexcited, un-engaged), Nirmala Sitaraman ( fish out of water), and, now, Rajnath Singh, a mofussil man, locked in the political rhetoric of 1990s. And they all have one common trait: they have all been reactive.

Rajnath Singh may once have been a senior political figure but is now completely without any weight. The rise of Yogi Adityanath in Uttar Pradesh has been so choreographed as to hack away whatever clout the defence minister may have once had. And, the generals, always good at reading the political leaves, do not take him seriously. Nor can he take them on for the Chinese ingress into our territory. The Krishna Menon precedent need not necessarily be re-activated but surely everyone agrees we need a change of guard at the Ministry of Defence.

We need to convert our current adversity into an opportunity to give New India a proactive, activist, and perhaps interventionist defence minister. And Amit Shah is the very man for the moment.

He is tough, even tougher than the prime minister. And, what is more, he can easily handle defence in addition to his current responsibility at North Block. In fact, he is today quite underworked as he has fulfilled all the promises the BJP made in its 2019 manifesto, that too in just one year. In any case, home is a status-quo ministry and as home minister, Shah has ensured that the juggernaut of coercion and control remains well-oiled. His surplus energy and time can thus be better utilised in South Block rather than getting squandered in virtual rallies for a no-contest in Bihar, so many months away.

Whereas the Chinese have posed a-here-and-now challenge that needs to be dealt.

Chinas Galwan valley grab is designed to weaken us psychologically and damage our morale. As it seeks an assertive global role for itself, Beijing wants to deter India from its resolve to become a vishwa guru.

True, the Chinese leadership may have a civilisational claim to Sun Tzu, but we also have the historical heritage of Chanakya. And, Amit Shah has more than once proven himself to be the rightful legatee of that heritage. Repeatedly, the best and the brightest among our media have anointed him Modern-day Chankaya.

It helps that Amit Shah has two other qualities: he is obsessed with infiltrators, and is a nibbler par excellence. If Chinese infiltrators can nibble our territory, we also need to have a minister who is adept at the art of nibbling. A man who can nibble Congress MLAs in state after state can be confidently relied upon to start playing the nibbling game with the Chinese. It is an enterprise that admits of no restraint, no moral qualms, and no second thoughts.

The idea of the same man presiding over the home and defence ministries may not be all that palatable to the Lutyens lobby but it is an idea whose time has come. India needs to think out of the box on how to bring about maximum symbiosis between the tools of internal security and the instruments of external security. We need the strategic convergence of four Ss, as Modi might put it: Shakti (strength), Suraksha (security), Samanvaya (harmony) and Samajhdari (insightfulness). The man to bring about this convergence is Amit Shah.

He will bring to the job a raw energy. He will know how to make the generals respect the political leadership. Perhaps the corrosive juglabandi between mediocre ministers and mediocre generals will finally be disrupted.

And there is more. Amit Shah brings in an uncluttered clarity. If violence is deemed to have a curative, beneficiary effect at home in taming opponents as well as in firing up the partisans then, why should we be so squeamish about the use of force against our national enemies?

As home minister, Amit Shah had, on August 5, 2019, undone one of Jawaharlal Nehrus follies, Article 370; now, he can be tasked with the responsibility for undoing the consequences of Nehrus greatest folly of trusting the Chinese. He is perhaps the only man who has the Chankayan cunning to divine the adversarys deepest design and then to move to neutralise the enemys ill-intent.

An additional benefit perhaps a totally intended consequence of a joint home-defence minister will be that Amit Shah would take on the role of Indias security czar. He will acquire a decisive voice in the conceptualising and conducting of our foreign policy. And that may not be all that bad, because it would put an end to the undeserved and unnecessary importance the Ministry of External Affairs gets accorded in our scheme of things

The new India has to recognise that it is time to drain out the Nehruvian politeness that has got institutionalised in the MEAs organisational blood-stream. This effete mandarinate thinks that etiquette and protocol are a solution to an aggressive China. Too much importance is attached to diplomacy; it got us nowhere with Islamabad, and finally it was only surgical force that made the Pakistanis read the message on the Modi wall.

In recent times, the prime minister has repeatedly and earnestly assured the nation that it is time to take bold reforms. A new Raksha Mantri, a new Security Czar is the boldest reform possible. It will send an unmistakable and unambiguous message across to all of Indias enemies, internal and external.

Continue reading here:
Why Amit Shah Should Take Charge of the Defence Ministry As Well - The Wire

Ontario to Resume Family Visits in Long-Term Care Homes, Retirement Homes, and Other Residential Care SettingsStrict Health and Safety Guidelines Will Be Required to Protect Residents, Visitors and Staff

TORONTO In consultation with the Chief Medical Officer of Health, the Ontario government announced the gradual resumption of visits to long-term care homes, retirement homes, and other residential care settings.

Family and friends will be allowed access to these settings beginning June 18, 2020. Long-term care homes will allow outdoor visits of one person per resident each week at a minimum. Retirement homes will resume indoor and outdoor visits in designated areas or resident suites when physical distancing can be maintained. Other residential care settings will be able to allow outdoor visits of two people at time. Physical distancing will be required for all visits.This approach will ensure the health and safety of residents, staff and visitors.

Details were provided today by Premier Doug Ford, Christine Elliott, Deputy Premier and Minister of Health, Dr. Merrilee Fullerton, Minister of Long-Term Care, and Todd Smith, Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

"Thanks to the hard work of our frontline workers and the collective efforts of everyone in stopping the spread, we can now allow families to reunite with their loved ones safely and in person with strict public health measures to protect residents, visitors and staff," said Premier Ford. "But I ask everyone to be cautious and act responsibly as the battle to contain COVID-19 is not over and the risk to our loved ones still remains."

Visits will resume next Thursday, one week after the release of visitor guidelines. They will be subject to strict health and safety protocols, including requiring visitors to pass active screening every time they visit, confirming with staff that they have tested negative for COVID-19 within the previous two weeks, and complying with the infection prevention and control protocols. This includes bringing and wearing a face covering during visits.

Additionally, long-term care and retirement homes, as well as other residential care settings, must meet the following conditions before they welcome visitors:

For retirement homes, visitor admissions will vary from home to home depending upon their individual circumstances.

"We know the visitor restrictions have been tough on residents, as families and loved ones play an important role in providing care and emotional support to residents. We are confident these visits can occur safely," said Minister Fullerton. "With the possible spread of COVID-19 in our long-term care homes still being a real threat, people will need to follow strict health and safety protocols in order to protect our most vulnerable."

"Seniors living in retirement homes have been doing their part to stop the spread of COVID-19," said Raymond Cho, Minister for Seniors and Accessibility. "Our government appreciates their cooperation and we are happy they will soon be able to enjoy visits with family and friends while continuing to stay safe."

Other residential care settings will also be allowed visitors under similar rules. These residential care settings include homes serving people with developmental disabilities, shelters for survivors of gender-based violence, and children's residential settings.

"We are all looking forward to the day when we can once again see family and friends, and spend time together," said Minister Smith. "Today is an important first step in reconnecting loved ones who have been separated all spring."

As the COVID-19 outbreak evolves in Ontario, the direction on visits at long-term care homes, retirement homes and residential settings will continually be updated keeping the safety and emotional wellbeing of residents and staff at the forefront.

Visits have been restricted since mid-March, with only essential visitors permitted to enter long-term care and retirement homes.

Originally posted here:
Ontario to Resume Family Visits in Long-Term Care Homes, Retirement Homes, and Other Residential Care Settings - Government of Ontario News

SINGAPORE - Drones will dot the skies above Singapore's southern coastal waters as part of a 5G trial to improve port surveillance.

The one-year flight trial, which will start in August near Marina South Pier, will test how Airbus drones can be remotely controlled over 5G mobile networks for the inspection and management of port incidents.

In a joint statement on Thursday (June 11), the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and M1 announced the partnership with with aviation giant Airbus.

"We believe that 5G will sharpen Singapore's competitive advantage as a key trading and connectivity hub in the region and beyond," said IMDA chief executive Tan Kiat How, urging other enterprises big and small to join in building Singapore's 5G ecosystem.

"This collaboration will establish key cellular 5G performance... requirements to enable (unmanned aircraft) to safely integrate and fly in national airspace systems," said Airbus head of unmanned traffic management Isabel Del Pozo De Poza.

This localised 5G network to be set up by telco M1 is not part of Singapore's two planned nationwide networks that will blanket the entire island with 5G signals by 2025.

Singtel and a joint venture between StarHub and M1 have been awarded licences to build the two nationwide 5G networks.

5G networks promise lower latency and higher surfing speeds than their 4G predecessors. These advantages are expected to translate to more precise, safe and reliable communications for unmanned aircraft operations.

5G technologies also provides more precise real-time data on the location and position of drones than satellite technologies, which are more commonly used today.

In addition to the coastal trials, M1 and Airbus signed a memorandum of understanding to conduct 5G trials for inland areas to address the growing interest in unmanned aircraft systems such as drones from other industries.

Last month, IBM, Samsung and M1 announced a tie-up for a 5G smart manufacturing trial to look at ways the technology can improve the control of smart devices on factory floors such as robotic arms.

Singtel and M1 previously began testing the remote control of port equipment like cranes and driverless vehicles over a 5G connection with port operator PSA International last year.

IMDA launched a $40 million fund with the National Research Foundation last June to accelerate the rollout of 5G technology in six strategic clusters, including maritime operations.

Link:
Port surveillance to get 5G boost as trial involving drones begins - straits times

Broad criminal justice reform is needed to change policing in the United States, and it should originate at the local level, Duke scholars said Thursday.

Three Duke experts spoke to media Thursday about a variety of policy and reform issues as well as about what can be learned about policing at the nations founding.

Here are excerpts:

ON POLICING, DEADLY FORCE AND REFORM

Brandon Garrett, law professor

Police in America have incredibly broad discretion to use deadly force. About 1,000 people are killed each year by police, making police violence a leading cause of death for black men in particular. This is a public health and civil rights crisis. Its also a legal and cultural crisis.

The law is not particularly constraining of police. The Supreme Court has said that officers can basically react to potentially deadly situations based on what seems reasonable in the moment.

That shoot-from-the-hip approach has led to black suspects far more likely to be killed by police. George Floyd posed no risk to anyone when he was killed in the neck hold in Minneapolis. Tamir Rice had a toy gun when he was killed in Cleveland. We can go on and on.

We need to think more broadly about what is public safety. What do we need police for? And when is it appropriate to have armed people intervene in our society?

Our (Duke Center for Science and Justice) does work on use-of-force policy and this is a deep legal and institutional and culture problem. A joint statement by our center, with others, including collaborators on ALI Principles sent this out in a Changing the Law to Change Policing statement yesterday.

ON WHAT DEFUND THE POLICE MEANS RIGHT NOW

Darrell Miller, law professor

The question about defund the police is about what the slogan means. Unfortunately, I think its got so much meaning it really doesnt work effectively as a slogan. Defund the police, at its most useful and constructive, is a request to totally re-think how we do policing in America. Who does it, with what kind of tools, where, under what circumstances. Its about re-deploying resources to other non-policing functions that are also social services like job training, substance abuse programs, domestic violence prevention work.

Because its a slogan and easily misunderstood, its easily misunderstood to mean abolish the police. I really think that will be detrimental to Black Lives Matter and to black lives in general.

I think that will empower and embolden vigilantes, people who will engage in armed self-help in the way that led to the deaths of Trayvon Martin 10 years ago and Ahmaud Arbery earlier this year.

The issue about abolishing the police or dis-establishing the police has the potential to abolish the one police function thats politically accountable. If someone designates himself as an armed neighborhood watchman and stops me, I dont have any control over that person. I cant make them wear a body camera. I cant make them engage in de-escalation techniques. I dont even know who to file a report with.

With a police force that is taxpayer-supported, that is politically accountable, I have some control as a voter and a taxpayer over what kind of force is being used in my community.

ON HOW OUR NATIONS FOUNDERS ENVISIONED POLICING

Laura Edwards, history professor

At the time of the nations founding, policing as a term was used broadly to refer to governing.

It was about resolving a wide range of problems and injustices, and everybody had responsibility for policing in this broad sense. And everyone could draw on police powers as well, and that was particularly important for people who were unequal, who were on the margins of society, who could then call on government and their authority to back them in various complex problems in their lives. We tend to forget all that today.

We think of policing now only as police forces of uniformed officers. But that didnt exist in the 18th and early 19th century. And we think policing only refers to crime, but that was not what policing was about then. It was about this broader sense.

It was written into our constitutional order. States delegated authority to local governments so people could participate actively in the policing of their communities.

People have the constitutional authority to hold modern-day police forces accountable. But they also have more power than that. They have the right to actually hold and define how government uses police powers, and to what end.

This is important because police powers are actually about more than crime and criminals. Theyre about resolving conflicts. Theyre also about addressing the problems of people in trouble. Theyre about rectifying deep-seeded injustices.

The past tells us that policing isnt an either/or issue. Its not that you do it or dont to it. Its actually about how we do it and that really is about our constitutional order.

ON HOLDING POLICE ACCOUNTABLE

Garrett

Its very, very hard to hold police officers liable, even in fatal shootings captured on video. Because police benefit from another layer of benefit of the doubt, reasonableness, what could they do in the circumstances? They have to make split-second decisions. Thats sort of the tenor of a lot of the reasoning of federal judges.

Also important, though, is internal accountability within police departments. Police discipline. Police policies matter even though theyre just on paper because if police officers do something to violate their policies, something should happen.

ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF REFORM FIRST AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

Miller

I think were seeing it already. To the extent that some of the demands of activists in the streets over the last few days are actually percolating to thought leaders, to political leaders. Some of the proposals for police reform are already being drafted as draft legislation in Congress. Abolishing qualified immunity for police officers, conditioning funding for local police on keeping accurate records on use of force or discriminatory policing.

To the extent that there are truly groups that truly believe that police are not needed, they are also active. I am doubtful that as a nationwide matter we will see the widespread disestablishment of police. But if local communities, in Minneapolis or Seattle, want to take some or all of the defund the police rhetoric and implement it as policy, they have the ability to do so. I just hope they choose wisely when they end up making these demands into policy.

ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORMING POLICE

Garrett

I think we do need to rethink what we need police for. What the structures are for policing agencies. Why do we so often arrest people? Why do we so often place people in jail, which we didnt even just a few decades ago? During COVID, urgent new questions have been asked about why people end up in jail for petty crimes, largely due to the inability to afford cash bail.

Policing agencies are needed in many places for public safety, obviously. But there are lot of very small police agencies that cant possibly follow best practices or have good training. We need to consolidate police departments.

We need to revise criminal codes and consider decriminalizing (some) offenses. We dont need to be arresting people, let alone holding them in neck holds, for using a counterfeit $20 bill.

ON HOW POLICING WAS SEEN POSITIVELY EARLY IN US HISTORY

Edwards

At our founding, policing had very broad and positive connotations. We now associate all these negative connotations to it in the sense that we associate it with police forces that are separate from people and are enforcing laws and trying to root out crime. Its become a very negative kind of thing.

People imagine policing in the past to be simply about militias. But militias were actually organized to address specific threats, and were very temporary, and then disappeared after the threats were gone.

Ordinary people, marginalized people could also use police powers to address what they saw as the major issues and problems in society. I think were missing that part of it. Historically, police powers belonged to everyone.

ON ONE POSITIVE CHANGE YOUD LIKE TO SEE RIGHT NOW

Garrett

Id like to see comprehensive, state-level police reform and criminal justice reform legislation in states like North Carolina.

We need comprehensive reform. We need to be looking to our local elected leaders to make deep change.

Edwards

Id like to see us think about the protesters and also their demands as what is a part of our original constitutional order, and return to that, and what we see now with the way police forces are acting, and what theyve become, is actually aberrant, what is actually a move away from the original constitutional compact.

Miller

The fact that were at a moment, I think, where people really do recognize that this is a problem, that this is a problem that needs to be addressed, that America is not living up to the best version of itself, and that some kind of real, substantial, data-driven changes are available and can be implemented soon I hope people will recognize the magnitude of this moment.

The experts:

Laura EdwardsLaura Edwardsis a professor of history at Duke University. Her areas of expertise include womens history and legal history, including history of the law in the 19thcentury South and the legal history ofpolicing.She is the author of several books, including A Legal History of the Civil War and Reconstruction: A Nation of Rights.ledwards@duke.edu

Brandon GarrettBrandon Garrettis a law professor at Duke University and a leading scholar of criminal justice outcomes, evidence and constitutional rights. Garretts research and teaching interests include forensic science, eyewitness identification, corporate crime, constitutional rights and habeas corpus and criminal justice policy. He is the author of five books.bgarrett@law.duke.edu

Darrell MillerDarrell Milleris a law professor at Duke University who specializes incivil rights, constitutional law, civil procedure and state and local government law. He also co-directs theCenter for Firearms Lawat Duke. Miller is the co-author ofThe Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller(2018).dmiller@law.duke.edu

Read the original here:
Reimagining the Criminal Justice System | Duke Today - Duke Today

FOX Business Stuart Varney weighs in on Seattles autonomous zone.

FOX BusinessStuart Varney, in his latest My Take, argues the autonomous zone in Seattle, Washington, poses a problemfor Democrat leaders.

An insurrection in Seattle. Inelite, polite society, the occupied downtown is called an autonomous zone, Varney said. Its really a no-go area for police. The rule of law, overthrown. Yes, an insurrection. The mayor, Jenny Durkan, says its ok for the people to challenge authority. Its patriotism she says. Patriotic to reject and throw out the rule of law? Thats a stretch!

VARNEY: IT'S TIME FOR SOME SERIOUS QUESTIONING OF LIBERAL POLITICS

Pedestrians walk past a mural painted on plywood covering a window Monday, June 8, 2020, in Seattle, near the site of a demonstration the night before at a Seattle police precinct where protests continued over the death of George Floyd, a black man w

Varney said the center of an American city has been turned over to anarchists and liberals dont know how to handle it.

They are embarrassed. This insurrection is their creation, but they've lost control, Varney said. In Seattle, the police left their precinct, removed files and equipment and turned the building over to the mob. Who is going to take it back and how?

He said one reason behind this is mayors turning a blind eye to violence and looting.

VARNEY: AMERICAN UNITY REPLACED BY A NATION ON EDGE

The police get the blame. Looters go free. Nobody cares about burned out small businesses, Varney said. America's big cities have become victims of their own liberal leadership.

President Trump has said he wont let Seattle be occupied by anarchists.

If they don't straighten that situation out, we're going to straighten it out, Trump told Fox News' Harris Faulkner during an interview on Thursday.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Two people embrace Monday, June 8, 2020, in Seattle, near the site of a demonstration the night before at a Seattle police precinct where protests continued over the death of George Floyd, a black man who was in police custody in Minneapolis. (AP Pho

Imagine, a president threatens to take back control from anarchists and its considered inflammatory! Varney said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Varney believes the revoltin Seattle is an issue for Democrats.

America does not look kindly on burning, looted cities and has very little time for anarchist takeovers. And this is happening in Democrat-run areas, he said. They really should learn the lesson of 1968. Back then, cities were burning. The media hated the Republican candidate in that year's presidential election. Richard Nixon stood for law and order and won!

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

See original here:
Varney: There's an insurrection in Seattle - Fox Business