Source: France 24

The post Italy, Africa seek to lay foundation for socioeconomic partnership through ‘financial, policy tools’ appeared first on Policy Print.

Public health academic Michael Baker is baffled by the new government’s “incoherent” approach to World Health Organisation (WHO) regulations.

New Zealand’s new government has urgently lodged a reservation – a letter saying the country would not sign up yet – for amendments to WHO health regulations.

It was part of National’s agreement with New Zealand First, which requires the government to ensure a ‘National Interest Test’ before New Zealand accepts any United Nations agreements, or those from its agencies, “that limit national decision-making, and reconfirm that New Zealand’s domestic law holds primacy over any international agreements”.

“As part of the above, by 1 December 2023 reserve against proposed amendments to WHO health regulations to allow the incoming government to consider these against a ‘National Interest Test’,” the agreement stated.

That test would assess whether it is in New Zealand’s interests to sign up to proposed amendments, but Prof Baker said the agreement seemed to be calling for what was already happening.

“Before New Zealand does sign any substantial international agreements including those from the World Health Organisation … it will carry out a national interest analysis, and then there’s a parliamentary treaty examination,” he said.

“All of those happen routinely, the only time when that wouldn’t happen is if there’s very minor insubstantial change to international law where government agencies and Cabinet decide that it’s not necessary.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said including the provision in the plan for the government’s first 100 days was because of the short timeframe allowed.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

“We just, as a new government, want to be able to take a pause and make sure that it meets a national interest test,” he said. They had nothing against the regulations, “we’re just saying there’s a decision that needs to be made”.

Just one amendment to the WHO regulations would need a reservation to be lodged by the end of November, but it merely shortens the time countries can lodge a reservation from two years to one – speeding up the WHO’s ability to come to agreement on health regulations.

“That strikes me as rather odd,” Baker said. “It’s an administrative shift, and that was reviewed by [Cabinet] and I’ve got the Cabinet minutes here – which has been released publicly, anyone can download it – that explains why this was an inconsequential change in didn’t require lengthy review process.

“I just can’t see that you would want to go through that whole process for a trivial amendment like this.”

The amendment had been part of a larger suite of changes proposed by the United States in May last year, which was the subject of criticism for overreach in an international law blog, but as the WHO’s decisions show only the change to timeframes was adopted.

WHO member states are also set to vote next year on a much broader revision of the regulations in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, with New Zealand’s Dr Ashley Bloomfield co-chairing a working group of 15 representative countries to agree on changes over the past 18 months.

Once agreed, these would be presented to the next World Health Assembly in May 2024. Proposals for changes are publicly available, but have not yet been finalised.

As Baker says, however, all of that would be subject to a national interest test anyway – as the last major amendments were.

“Frankly, I find the points being made about these international health agreements incoherent, and I just do not know what they’re doing there… I am baffled by seeing this clause in the agreement because in many ways, it’s just stating what New Zealand already does.”

He said he expected the changes from that broader review would lead to improvements in global security for future health emergencies.

“I think people should look at what changes are proposed and then hopefully there’ll be opportunities for all of us to voice our opinions publicly.

“Because really, the world needs more coordination rather than less, because we are all in it together. And countries cannot insulate themselves from pandemic threats.”

There’s also currently a process for an international treaty for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response which countries hope to have finalised for the May 2024 meeting, as well as an international panel reviewing the pandemic response led by former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark.

Theories about the UN and the WHO have been circulating online as one of the major recurring touchpoints of conspiracist movements, long before the Covid-19 pandemic began.

NZ First leader Winston Peters, now the deputy prime minister, posted on social media in May saying New Zealanders would be “highly concerned that the World Health Organisation proposes to effectively take control of independent decision making away from sovereign countries and place control with the Director General”.

NZ First leader Winston Peters at his swearing-in. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

His second-in-command Shane Jones penned an opinion in the NZ Herald in June railing against globalism and the risks of handing more power to the WHO.

Asked whether the reservation laid out in New Zealand First’s coalition agreement was pandering to conspiracy theorists, Baker said: “it would be easy to read it like that, I guess you just have to ask the people who wrote it”.

New Zealand First did not respond to requests for comment.

‘Interim position’ – Shane Reti

National’s Shane Reti, however, did – confirming in a statement the Health and Foreign Affairs and Trade ministries had formally notified the WHO about Cabinet’s reservation about the health regulation amendments “in their entirety” on Wednesday.

Health Minister Shane Reti being sworn in on Monday Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

“They did this until the government can conduct a national interest test,” Reti said. “The only way to give effect to this is to formally reject the amendments. Rejections may be withdrawn by New Zealand at any time, after which the amendments would come into force.

“Reserving against provides for a pause on New Zealand’s response to amendments suggested by the WHO, while they’re considered against a national interest test. This is an interim position to give the new government the opportunity to receive advice and fully consider the amendments.”

Labour’s Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall said she was deeply concerned “that I see that sort of rubbish about the WHO and international health regulations on the internet, and all of a sudden it’s in a coalition document.

Labour’s Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

“Those health regulations are used to make sure that when there is a disease with pandemic potential, there is an early warning given out across the world.

“The government needs to be able to speak, and justify the decisions that it has taken on these quite fringe concerns.”

Reti however said it was unjustified for Labour to “somehow suggest that the government’s commitment to international health outcomes has been compromised”.

“New Zealand remains committed to working with other Member States to ensure the WHO is best able to fulfil its mandate. We are not going to walk away from all the good work on international health carried out by the WHO over decades,” he said.

Source : RNZ

The post Coalition’s Who Policy Leaves Public Health Expert ‘Baffled’ appeared first on Policy Print.

Ukraine’s Defence Minister Rustem Umierov has signed an order approving the Military Personnel Policy Concept through to 2028, which focuses on meeting the human resources needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU).

Quote: “The document defines a strategic vision for developing military personnel policy in defence over the next five years, both during martial law and peacetime.

The main emphasis of the concept is to ensure that the needs of the AFU in personnel are met during a full-scale war, integration into the Euro-Atlantic security space, and interoperability of the AFU with the armed forces of NATO member states.”

Details: The Ukrainian Defence Ministry expects the following effects:

The AFU will switch to contract military service. Conscript military service will be replaced by intensive military training for citizens of draft age;

Ukraine will have an effective system of recruiting professional and motivated personnel for the AFU;

A human-centred approach to career management of military personnel, taking into account their education;

Professional development, and gender equality. Equal opportunities for men and women in the AFU;

Improved electronic military registration system;

Automated and digitalised personnel management processes;

Expanded cooperation between Ukrainian higher education institutions and those of NATO and EU member states;

An effective and transparent system of financial support for servicemen and women and provision of housing;

Improved psychological support;

A new style of relations between commanders and subordinates;

Proper conditions for transitioning from military career to civilian life for service members subject to discharge from military service.

Source : Yahoo

The post “Recruitment Instead of Conscription”: Ukraine’s Defence Minister Approves New Military Staffing Policy Concept appeared first on Policy Print.

This past May, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of a life insurance company, finding that California’s lapse statute applies only to life insurance policies initially “issued or delivered” in California.

In Elmore v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co., the insured alleged that the company improperly terminated his policy under California’s lapse statute, sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 of the California Insurance Code, which outlines procedural notice requirements that insurers must follow before they can terminate a policy. Despite receiving termination notices sent to his work address, which was the current address on file, the insured did not timely pay his premiums, and his policy lapsed in May 2017.

The insured, a California resident, filed suit alleging that the insurer violated California’s lapse statute “by failing to notify him of his right to designate an additional party to receive lapse-of-payment notices and to send these notices to that designee before terminating his policy.” The insurer moved for summary judgment, contending that the notice provisions of the 2013 statute did not apply retroactively and did not extend to the policy in question, which was originally issued in Illinois. The district court agreed and entered summary judgment for the insurer.

On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the first ground for summary judgment (that California’s lapse statute did not apply retroactively) was foreclosed by the ruling in McHugh v. Protective Life Insurance Co., in which the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of retroactivity. Nonetheless, the insurer prevailed on the second point: that the California law did not apply. Although the policyholder had moved to California after buying the policy, California’s lapse statute applies only to policies “issued or delivered” in California. The insured argued that the relevant provisions of the statute did not expressly include the condition that policies must be “issued or delivered in this state,” suggesting that it should apply to his Illinois-issued policy. The Ninth Circuit, however, construed the statute and concluded that the plain language of the law limits its reach only to policies “issued or delivered” in California, and affirmed the district court’s ruling.

Life insurers should take note of the new Elmore decision, which should limit McHugh’s expansion of the California lapse statute for a subset of policies not originally issued in California.

Source : JD Supra

The post New California Lapse Statute Decision Highlights the Importance of Where Insurance Policies Are “Issued or Delivered” appeared first on Policy Print.

The board of Katy Independent School District voted Monday evening on a proposed policy for how the district will address transgender students.

The Katy ISD Board of Trustees voted to accept a new policy for how the district will address transgender students. In a 4-3 vote the district will now require teachers to notify parents if their student comes out as transgender or asks to use different pronouns.

“I am very disappointed that this board is in a hurry to push through a policy that has been shown that it has significant problems,” Fox said. “That we will have legal issues. We’re taking money that’s meant for children and we’re going to spend it on legal fees. That’s not what we want to do.”

Trustee Mary Ellen Cuzela disagreed.

“I think there’s legal issues if we don’t do anything,” Cuzela said. “We must do due deliberation on this important policy, put our district in a good position with a policy on the books as soon as possible, to avoid legal challenges as well.”

The meeting, at times, was tensions between trustees.

Trustee Morgan Calhoun said Fox ‘did nothing’ for years “being presented with evidence over evidence and you did nothing. So, now it’s our turn.”

Source:  Click 2 Houston

The post Katy ISD Board of Trustees votes to accept new policy for how district will address transgender students appeared first on Policy Print.

In a conversation Tuesday with Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts on “The Kevin Roberts Show” podcast, Kara Frederick discussed what TikTok’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party mean for the everyday American ahead of the TikTok CEO’s appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday.  

“It’s extremely problematic, because that parent company, ByteDance, headquartered in Beijing, is subject to the People’s Republic of China laws and policies,” Frederick said.  

Almost 70% of American teenagers use TikTok. Though the content teenagers scroll through masquerades as harmless short videos, many of the videos contain content fueling self-harm, suicidal ideation, eating disorders, and more, Frederick said.  

“It’d be bad enough if China weren’t involved,” Roberts said. “The fact that China is involved makes it that much worse.”  

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew will be asked to answer some tough questions in the House hearing on Thursday, Frederick said, noting that TikTok’s PR strategies have attempted to downplay the platform’s relationship with China.  

“We can talk all day about the noxious content on these platforms,” Frederick said. “But when China can actually have a mapping of the patterns of life and a network of Americans, especially these young children, then you have a hard security problem, as well as the cognitive ones.” 

Frederick hopes the hearing shows everyday Americans that TikTok is a perfidious enemy.  

“If Americans, in watching this, can emerge with the knowledge that this platform is essentially under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party, ByteDance, I think that’s a win,” she said. “If they can communicate to their children that this is not just harmful to us, this is not just something that you do for fun, this is an adversary competitor, an actual enemy trying to get your information and preventing you from doing what you want to do with a child in the future anyway, because of the blackmail potential, the espionage potential.”  

As a new mother, Frederick said she worries about how TikTok is changing the social fabric of our nation and hurting children, especially young girls. She said parents need to be on board with opposing TikTok.  

“We are going to lose the next generation of citizens if they are captured by these platforms,” she said.  

Source: The Daily Signal

The post TikTok Threatens America’s Social Fabric, Tech Policy Expert Says appeared first on Policy Print.

The French have protested against a planned pension reform. But in fact, the country’s pension system is fairly generous when compared with many others in Europe. In several countries, people work much longer.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants to raise the retirement age in France from 62 to 64. His plans have sparked protests and strikes across France. 

But in a number of other European countries, people are shaking their heads at the vehemence of the French demonstrations. They already work to an older age before being eligible for pensions. In Germany, for example, the pensionable age is to climb gradually to 67, starting from 2024.

“It is always hard to compare pension systems because they are all very complex and very different. But this comparison is skewed,” says Ulrich Becker from the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, which compares pension schemes from around the world with its “Pension Map.”

That is because the rise that has brought so many out to protest in France is actually an increase in the earliest age at which paid workers can retire without deductions from their pensions. Previously they had to work for 41-and-a-half years. After the reforms, it is supposed to rise to 43 years. 

In Germany, one can retire at the age of 63, but only if you have already contributed to the pension funds for 45 years. These conditions are further complicated by other factors, such as the year one was born. 

In France, a full pension that does not depend on time spent working, is paid out only after someone has reached 67, and this will remain the case even after the reform. 

Compared with the rest of the world — not just with Germany — French retirees have had it rather good up until now, at least with regard to the following three aspects: the pension rate, the pensionable age and the duration of pension payments (or the life expectancy, something counted from when people first start receiving a pension until their deaths).

High standard of retirement living

Whether you can maintain your standard of living during retirement depends on what is known as the net pension replacement rate. That is the percentage of money that remains of the after-tax income you earned, on average over your working life. In France, in 2020, this was 74.4%. That means If you received €2,500 ($2,689) a month on average, for example, then you would receive about €1,860 ($2,002) as your pension.

In France, the net pension replacement rate is 14 percentage points above the OECD average. In Germany, pensioners receive just 52.9% of their after-tax earnings, calculated during their working lives. Taking the example above, that is about €540 less than in France.

The net pension replacement rate could now fall for many people in France in the future. This is because it is not only the minimum retirement age being raised, but also the number of paid working years one needs to receive a full pension before the age of 67. This would mainly affect low-income earners, because they mostly start working earlier. Someone who doesn’t start paying pension contributions until the age of 25 because she or he has studied, is going to turn 67 after just 42 years of work.  

To compensate for this, the French pension reform will raise the minimum pension to about €1,200 for single people. At present, the minimum pension is €961.08, putting it mid-table compared with other OECD countries.

Incidentally, Germany is one of the few countries not to have a minimum pension. People with very low pensions can, however, apply to have them topped up.

Long retirement

A lot of wage earners are happy to accept pension cuts in return for being able to stop work earlier. In France, on average, men retire at 60.4 and women at 60.9. That means French males retire almost 3.5 years earlier than their OECD peer group, and French females 1.5 years earlier.

At the same time, life expectancy in France is particularly high. Only in Luxembourg, do men enjoy their retirement for longer (24 years) than in France (23.5 years). And only Greek women (28.4 years) and Spanish women (27.7 years) have it better in this regard than French women (27.1 years).

Securing the pensions system for the future

But this is one of the reasons why the French government finds it necessary to reform the pension system, says Becker from the Max Planck Institute. “France — like all OECD countries, and others as well — must ask itself how it is going to adapt its pension system to the demographic changes,” he says.

For pension funds, it is a problem that people are living longer because it obviously means pensions have to be paid out for a longer period of time, despite the fact that nothing more is being paid into those funds. What is more, birth rates are falling, which means there are fewer wage earners to pay contributions in, and for increasing numbers of pensioners.

No pension system within the OECD can manage with just the contributions from those within it.

In Germany, for example, you can claim pension payments for the time spent at school or university, or raising children, and these are taken from the federal budget and not from pension contributions. But many pension funds still post losses that must be compensated for with tax revenues. The more generous pensions are, and the less favorable the demographic situation is, the bigger those subsidies tend to be.

In France, public pension subsidies are among the highest in the OECD, when measured against the gross domestic product. Only Italy has higher ones. This was what French prime minister, Elisabeth Borne, was talking about when she declared: “With this project, we make a pledge to balance out pension funds financially by 2030.”

France: Seeking a balance

“An obvious and widely discussed remedy is to raise the retirement age,” Becker explained. “This way, people pay in for longer and receive benefits for a shorter time. The idea is to redress the relationship between contributions and benefits.”

This is exactly what a number of OECD countries have already done. In the Netherlands, the retirement age will rise to 67 years and three months by 2028. 

“Based on legislated measures, the normal retirement age will increase by about two years in the OECD on average by the mid‑2060s,” the organization itself reported in 2021. “The future normal retirement age is 69 years or more in Denmark, Estonia, Italy and the Netherlands.”

In Germany, no one has dared to seriously tackle a further increase since the 2006 decision to raise the retirement age to 67, by the year 2031. 

And in France?  “People have lost sight of the fact that the reforms were also supposed to abolish privileges of certain groups, albeit in a rather arbitrary way,” Becker argued. “Obviously the reason for this, is that the defence of social rights is considered more important than their generation-appropriate distribution.” 

Source : DW

The post Too Little, Too Late: Comparing Europe’s Pension Systems appeared first on Policy Print.

There are many changes coming to Washington, D.C., now that Republicans have taken control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Uncertainty surrounds President Biden’s ability to pass his economic agenda through a divided Congress and few can predict the path U.S. tax policy will take at home or abroad.

However, despite a bleak outlook for a domestic bipartisan legislative agenda, it is important for U.S. policymakers to realize that the rest of the world continues to legislate. In particular, the European Union will continue to implement tax and trade policies that affect the American economy. Without a legislative response, American consumers and companies may find themselves on the losing end of EU policies.  

It is equally important for U.S. policymakers to understand why the EU has been pursuing seemingly protectionist policies such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) or Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), and what transatlantic policy outcomes the EU hopes to achieve with their American counterparts. Therefore, to grasp where EU policymakers are coming from, U.S. policymakers should review the theoretical underpinnings of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) before racing to a tit-for-tat protectionist response.  

What Was T-TIP?

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) was a failed free-trade deal negotiated under the Obama administration between the United States and European Union.

According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), T-TIP “would be a cutting-edge agreement aimed at providing greater compatibility and transparency in trade and investment regulation, while maintaining high levels of health, safety, and environmental protection.” It would also “help to promote U.S. international competitiveness, jobs and growth.”

For the European Commission, T-TIP was a tool to boost jobs and investment in the EU by reducing regulatory barriers between allies.

However, for both the U.S. and EU, there was a larger goal for T-TIP. By harmonizing “western” standards across a wide range of industries, the allies would not only ease the compliance burden on companies to boost trade and investment, but also “provide the basis for global standards.”

These standards would then be used to require other geopolitical players, like China or Russia, to abide by western standards or risk losing the ability to trade with economically powerful nations. Especially considering the World Trade Organization’s failures to enforce international trade rules, this strategy was designed to put USTR and the European Commission back in control of rules-based trade enforcement.

Why Did T-TIP Fail?

T-TIP failed for multiple reasons; however, two trends rose to the top during the negotiations and have continued to affect U.S.-EU relations ever since.

For one, the European public became skeptical of the EU’s ability to negotiate a trade deal with the U.S. that maintained what they perceived to be higher EU standards. The public feared a standards “race to the bottom” driven by U.S. companies and lack of government oversight. Therefore, it became difficult for EU policymakers to gather public support for the deal and fueled public mistrust of the American corporate community.

Secondly, President Trump came to power in 2016 and altered the direction of U.S. trade policy. Not only did the U.S. discontinue T-TIP negotiations, but the Trump administration also placed multiple tariffs on the EU. It wasn’t until November of 2021 that steel and aluminum tariffs were rolled back under President Biden.  

EU Trade Strategy Post-T-TIP

Since learning domestic and international lessons from T-TIP’s failure, policymakers in Brussels have adapted their trade (and tax) strategy vis-à-vis the U.S.

The underlying premise remains the same: the EU wants to counter Chinese economic power, and protect European standards, by working with the U.S. to set global standards across industries and relying on access to its powerful economic markets to drive change in other countries.

However, the EU has adapted by realizing that, to gather domestic support for a trade deal with the U.S., the EU needs to enshrine high European standards into EU law first.

Furthermore, it is not obvious that U.S. trade strategy includes working with the EU as it did under the Obama administration. Therefore, the EU has included financial incentives (or penalties) on U.S. companies doing business in the EU with the hope of convincing the U.S. to come back to the trade deal negotiating table.

Until the U.S. returns, the EU will continue to implement European standards across industries into EU law and penalize the U.S. for not conforming. By doing so, the EU thinks it can benefit from the extra revenue from protectionist trade policies while positioning itself as the first mover in global standard-setting. It could also raise the geopolitical profile of the EU through trade and leverage the EU’s Single Market in a way that is familiar to U.S. trade officials of a previous era.

EU Issues for Congress in 2023

There are three main EU tax and trade issues that Congress should keep an eye on in 2023.

One, the EU agreed to implement a CBAM tariff that will apply to U.S. producers importing carbon-intensive goods into the EU. While the tariff won’t begin until 2026, policymakers should continue working on pro-growth solutions for U.S. carbon pricing.

Second, the EU unanimously agreed to implement Pillar Two of the OECD’s global tax deal and set a 15 percent minimum tax in the EU. Most countries expect to have the ability to start taxing companies that are not paying a 15 percent rate by 2024 and this could seriously begin to impact U.S. companies in 2025 when the Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR) kicks in. Therefore, Congress needs to devise a strategy to either adopt Pillar Two or another domestic tax regime that avoids a complicated mess for U.S. companies.

Finally, the EU is expecting to introduce legislation to implement Pillar One sometime this year (assuming a final agreement is reached at the OECD). EU officials have made clear that if Pillar One fails in the EU or U.S., DSTs will be back on the table in the EU. Congress should consider what to do in either scenario.

In all these tax policy areas, it is essential for Congress to build a long-term strategy to support U.S. economic growth. Once Congress has a comprehensive strategy, it will be in a much stronger position to negotiate joint tax and trade ideas with the EU.

Risks to the EU Tax and Trade Strategy

While the EU sees financial penalties on U.S. companies as a way to pressure the U.S. government back to the negotiating table, it is important that the EU doesn’t overplay its hand by driving private investment away from the EU in the meantime.

According to Tax Foundation’s International Tax Competitiveness Index, many European tax codes are presently less competitive than the U.S. tax code. This means that there is already a disadvantage to companies investing in the EU relative to the U.S.

Furthermore, while subsidies for American industry certainly do not qualify as principled, pro-growth tax policy, a tipping point was seemingly exposed by the increased European temptation to move production to the U.S. to benefit from the Inflation Reduction Act tax credits.   

On top of that, most of the EU’s recent tax and trade policies are not designed in a principled, pro-growth manner. CBAM, for example, does not give European producers an export rebate for carbon emissions purchased in the EU on products sold in a third country. This makes European products less competitive in foreign markets and may tempt European producers to move production of carbon-intensive goods to less burdensome jurisdictions.

In addition, depending on how EU countries implement Pillar Two, there may be U.S.-EU disputes about taxing rights on American companies in the EU.

Finally, if Pillar One is not implemented, European DSTs will return to punish mostly U.S. tech companies.

All these policies leave room for the EU to lose important private investment due to an already uncompetitive business environment and the possibility of facing punitive trade measures from the U.S. The EU would be wise to realize that European standards only matter to partners who trade with the EU, and partners will only trade or invest in the EU if economic growth is a priority.    

The Future of U.S.-EU Tax and Trade

The EU’s unilateral approach with carbon taxes, faster track on the global minimum tax, and threat of renewed efforts on DSTs means that U.S. policymakers face some hard choices. Policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic should keep in mind pro-growth tax and trade principles that promote a rules-based international order and increase opportunity.

The U.S. still has the chance to work with the EU and be a global leader on standards and free trade. However, it will require policymakers to decide who the real adversary is—the party on the other side of the aisle, the EU, or bad international actors like China and Russia. Only then will policymakers aim for solutions that put pro-growth tax and trade policy over tit-for-tat protectionism.

Source : Tax Foundation

The post In the Shadow of T-TIP: Why Congress Should Care About EU Tax and Trade Issues in 2023 appeared first on Policy Print.

At 11:38 a.m., an Elizabeth Metis Settlement resident called Cold Lake RCMP to report an unwanted man on an ATV. The caller said that he had told the man he was not welcome, and the man then pointed a gun at him.

Responding officers located the man and the ATV at a residence approximately one hour later. The man drove the ATV into a nearby forested area and became stuck in the snow and trees. Officers approached the man on foot and, amid the resulting interaction, one of the officers discharged his firearm. The ATV was struck, but the man was not. Officers then arrested the man and found a loaded firearm in the ATV.

Firearm located in the ATV

ASIRT’s investigation will examine the use of force. No additional information will be released.

As part of its ongoing investigation, ASIRT is continuing efforts to identify people who may have witnessed aspects of the confrontation between the man and police. ASIRT is asking anyone who may have been in the area and may have witnessed these events and/or may have video to contact investigators at 780-644-1483.

ASIRT’s mandate is to effectively, independently and objectively investigate incidents involving Alberta’s police that have resulted in serious injury or death to any person, as well as serious or sensitive allegations of police misconduct.

Source: Alberta

The post ASIRT investigation continues into RCMP officer-involved shooting in Elizabeth Metis Settlement appeared first on Policy Print.

Lori Pitts ’12 is a perfect example of the ways a liberal arts education can shift perspectives and open minds to new possibilities. What began as a pre-med journey to become a pediatrician grew into a rejuvenated passion for theatre and a realization that it can change lives significantly and forever.

And that’s exactly what she’s doing now in Washington, DC.

As the founder of Voices Unbarred, Pitts uses Theatre of the Oppressed to reimagine the prison system alongside those who are directly impacted and advocate for social and policy change. 

With Theatre of the Oppressed, Pitts applies games and tools that help people analyze the world around them, explore social and political issues, and create solutions. For example, a group might play a common children’s game like Red Rover, but through the game, the participants start talking about who was called over or what it felt like to be called to the other side, and how that might relate to a real life issue, such as who is being incarcerated in America. Based on these discussions, participants of Voices Unbarred use their stories and ideas for change to create performances around real issues surrounding the criminal justice system.

A diverse audience, including local policy makers, is invited to attend performances to learn from people with lived experience and participate in collective problem solving. Some of their performances even result in attendees designing policies to be incorporated into bills proposed in front of the DC Council. 

“The power of theatre is often overlooked, and that’s what drew me to it,” she said. “When you step into other people’s shoes and build empathy, it can show you a different society and what’s really possible. Often, we only look at the entertainment part of traditional theatre, but Theatre of the Oppressed gives more people the tools to shape the world around them.”

When Pitts first visited Davidson all the way from her home in Texas, she wasn’t sure if it would be the right option. Most friends from high school were staying close, going to Texas Tech, the University of Texas or Texas A&M, and Davidson was not well known in her circles. But a Collegeboard recommendation and a piece of Davidson mail piqued her interest enough to check it out.

“Davidson was the very last school I toured, and I texted my mom immediately and told her it was the one,” she said. “I visited the weekend Davidson went to the Elite 8 with Stephen Curry, and seeing the way the community came together really gave me that family feel. Even when we lost, everyone was still so pumped up and supportive. It was an easy choice.”

As she explored pre-med classes, Pitts, who earned the Medlin Family Scholarship, also took “Theatre and Social Justice” with Theatre Professor Sharon Green. This class completely changed how she thought about theatre and how it could and should be about much more than performance. She also interned with the Friends of the Arts team on campus.

Pitts had never worked in a prison before starting her organization, but it didn’t take long for her to see the powerful opportunities theatre can introduce to the incarcerated. Through Theatre of the Oppressed workshops, script writing and interactive performances, participants affected by incarceration are given a platform to share their stories, tackle complex issues and lead the criminal justice reform movement.

“Prisons are all about dehumanizing and taking away people’s stories,” she explained. “Theatre naturally combats that, and it’s a creative outlet that can help people heal from trauma while looking at one’s own story and the stories of others in a different way. You are the expert of your own life, and this reminds people of that fact. And who better to advocate for change than the people experiencing the issue?”

Going into prisons and working with incarcerated individuals is one part of Voices Unbarred. Another part involves hiring people who are formerly incarcerated to perform in the community and become paid Community Advocates. During the pandemic, Pitts also co-launched a “CorrespondARTS” program, which involved mailing multidisciplinary arts packets to people in prisons that were extremely isolated in lockdown so they could participate on paper. She also began a program for youth impacted by incarceration.

“The big dream is to completely reimagine the prison system–move away from punishment, explore the physical setting, dismantle the intersectional systems funneling a disproportionate number of Black and brown people into our facilities,” she said. ”I also want to change who gets to lead the conversation and whose experience is valued. And I want to do all of this through the power of theatre. It would be great to work with everyone in DC Jail and nearby facilities and really go deep into this community and continue to strengthen our advocacy pathway.” 

In early 2022, Voiced Unbarred merged with Ally Theatre Company, which produces theatre designed to engage audiences through acknowledging and confronting systemic oppression in America. Pitts became their Artistic Director, and the two companies became one. Her work has been shared on some of the largest stages in Washington, DC, including the Kennedy Center. 

Through all the success she’s found, Pitts often thinks of Davidson and where it all began. Her appreciation came full circle during the pandemic when she was invited by Green to speak to one of her classes over Zoom.

“I was thrilled to talk with students, and I’d love to do it again,” Pitts said. “It was at that moment that I was like, ok, I’m a guest speaker for my college. I’ve made it.”

Source: Davidson.Edu

The post Lori Pitts ’12: Changing Lives and Policy through Theatre appeared first on Policy Print.