News

Attacks on Women and Rape Culture a Problem in Thailand

In Thailand, over 8,500 women are victims of physical or sexual violence each year, most of which occurs in domestic or family settings, according to the Public Health Ministry.

The United Nations has designated November 25 as International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, according to Dr. Tares Krassanairawiwong, director-general of the ministry’s Department of Disease Control (DDC).

According to Dr. Tares, violence against women in Thailand is a major concern because of the negative impact it can have on families.

According to Dr. Tares, most women were attacked at home by male relatives who were frequently influenced by alcohol or stimulants.

Data collected by the DDC’s Injury Prevention Division from 51 hospitals nationwide between 2019 and 2021 revealed that each year, 8,577 women are victims of physical abuse.

Women aged 20 to 24 made up 15% of the total, with 60% being physically abused, usually at home.

Dr. Tares stated that girls aged 10-14 who were victims of sexual assault accounted for 31.4% of the total.

According to the doctor, violence against younger children aged 0-4 years was also prevalent and required much closer monitoring.

Rape Culture in Thailand

Dr. Kajornsak Keawcharat, the DDC’s deputy director-general, suggested that solutions should begin with the individual, the family, and the community. He emphasized the importance of equal rights and suggested encouraging a reduction in alcohol consumption and illicit drug use.

A rape case in Mukdahan province in 2020 shocked the entire nation when it was revealed that five teachers and two school alumni raped two underage female students.

While the case was tragic on its own, it became even more so when some netizens openly supported the perpetrators and shifted blame to the young victims.

A teacher is a well-regarded profession in the country, particularly in rural areas where they are involved in the school and community. Thais are taught to be grateful to teachers for educating them.

The Mukdahan case shone an unwelcome spotlight on the ugly side of this profession, which experts see as an abuse of our institutions and society’s power structure and patriarchy.

According to a recent online panel discussion on the problem of rape and power, approximately 50% of hundreds of rape and sexual violence attacks are on victims aged 11-20 years old, and perpetrators are teachers in about 5-10% of cases.

These figures are based on rape, and sexual violence cases reported in the media between 2013 and 2017.

However, as panelists pointed out, these figures are far lower than what is happening in society.

“This is a structural issue,” Varaporn Chamsanit of the Women Wellbeing program said. “It’s not just about a child being unlucky and encountering bad teachers. These occurrences occur repeatedly.

Perpetrators pay their way out

However, we never know how common it is because some cases have not been publicized. Many cases ended with both parties reaching an agreement. The perpetrators had to pay their way out. Some of the victims were also married.”

According to Jaded Chouwilai, director of the Women and Men Progressive Movement Foundation, the bureaucratic system’s authoritarian nature is held above the power of students who don’t have a say in what they want.

The structure of educational institutions also gives teachers power over students. Teachers are likely to know influential people, particularly in rural communities, such as police officers, leaders, and local politicians, which leads to many cases being settled.

“And if something bad happens, people will automatically assume that teachers, who are assumed to be virtuous by default, would never do such a thing. Then some switch to attacking young victims, “Jaded stated.

Children are obligated to listen to their teachers. And because they spend so much time together, the possibility of teachers abusing their power grows.

“In some ways, it’s a power bestowed by culture, which believes that we owe teachers. We do not respect them based on their specific knowledge, performance, or behaviour.

We do it solely because they are teachers, without regard for anything else. This mindset affects not only children but also their parents and community members, “Varaporn stated.

Jaded and Varaporn believe the patriarchy is to blame for the rape epidemic.

“Thai culture gives men more sexual freedom and encourages and coerces them to experiment.

They cheat, have mistresses, and pay people for sex, and society accepts it as acceptable. Women, on the other hand, are controlled and taught not to be promiscuous, “Varaporn stated.

Finger Pointed at Women

Jaded added that rape incidents occur everywhere due to common factors such as an inability to restrain oneself and a predisposition to exercise and abuse one’s power. Alcohol can also act as a catalyst.

When a rape case is reported, the finger is frequently pointed at female victims. People have concluded that the victims invited trouble by how they dress, the time they choose to commute, and even the location they happen to be in.

With the Mukdahan case, social media erupted when a fellow teacher posted encouraging the perpetrators and expressing concern for their wives and families while accusing the students of being ungrateful for making the rape public.

“If you don’t want your children to be raped by teachers, homeschool them,” the Facebook post advised.

According to Varaporn, showing support for rapists while condemning victims demonstrates that people accept violence and, as a result, support rape.

“It’s as if they’re joining the perpetrators in raping and injuring victims again,” she explained.

Victims attacked by their peers

Thicha Na Nakorn, an adviser to the Foundation for Children, Youth, and Families, stated that she has met with Mukdahan victims. They, too, have been attacked by their peers for humiliating the school by exposing the teachers’ crimes.

Thicha hoped to see the Minister of Education personally visit the victims and express gratitude for their bravery in bringing this story to light. This is to deter supporters of the rapists while assuring society that justice will be served.

She stated that victim blaming was common in previous rape cases, which harmed the victim’s self-esteem. She believes empowering victims is critical because it influences their fight to prosecute the perpetrators.

“Empowering victims can imply shifting their focus so that they are no longer fighting solely for themselves and their families. A victim of a previous rape claimed that a higher power chose her.

She didn’t want this to happen to anyone else, so she pursued the case. This is a powerful mindset, “Thicha stated.

“The process of empowerment can transform a person from surrender to bravery. They have the option of stopping or continuing, “She stated.

Working together to assist victims

Thicha stated that if the victims choose to fight, the social mechanism must not isolate them but rather accommodate and protect them throughout the process.

In her experience, she has witnessed both civil society organizations and state agencies working together to assist these victims.

“If state agencies see civil society organizations as allies, we will be able to recognize our strengths and work together to help people,” Thicha said.

The three panelists demanded that the Ministry of Education take this matter seriously. Some of their recommendations include changing the school evaluation system and allowing students, parents, and the community to evaluate their teaching staff.

Thicha believes that students should be taught and empowered about their rights at school.

“If children know and can think for themselves, no teacher can make ridiculous threats like not giving them points or failing them in class [to force them to do things],” Thicha explained.

In response to the rape case, the former Education Minister Nataphol Teepsuwan established a centre to protect students who have been sexually abused, with the Hotline 1579 available to assist victims.

Jaded questioned the usefulness of this centre and the hotline, arguing that this mechanism should be neutral and include members of civil society organizations and academics to prevent perpetrators from being helped by their people.

Protection and welfare of students

The panelists also agreed that the centre only resolves issues at the end. Over 8,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org requesting that the Ministry of Education join the victims as complainants against the perpetrators to protect the welfare of students.

A network of 92 Thai organizations that protect women and children signed on to the petition.

The campaign also calls for harsh disciplinary actions against those found guilty and for the ministry to develop preventive measures and educate teachers about child protection and gender equality.

On the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, Education Minister Trinuch Thienthong stated that the ministry had reiterated the importance of ensuring the safety of students in schools, which is one of seven “Quick Win” measures to combat all forms of sexual abuse, bullying, and other violence.

Ms. Trinuch stated that the ministry had established a Moe Safety Centre, which allows anyone to report incidents that affect or threaten the safety of students and educational personnel via its Moe Safety Centre app, website “moesafetycenter.com,” Line ID “@MOESafetyCenter,” and phone number 02-126-6565.

News

Trudeau’s Gun Grab Could Cost Taxpayers a Whopping $7 Billion

Trudeau plans to purchase 2,063 firearm from legal gun owners in Canada - Rebel News Image

A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.

The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.

This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.

The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.

In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.

Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened

“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.

Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).

“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.

Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.

In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.

An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.

Enforcement efforts Questioned

By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.

“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).

The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.

The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.

“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.

Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem

Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.

“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.

Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.

Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.

“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.

“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP