Give the people what they want. Give the people what they want. Give the people what they want. Your weekly movement news roundup. Hello everyone, today is the 12th of May and you're watching Give the People What They Want, your favorite weekly news show where we bring you a roundup of news developments of, you know, incidents from around the world. This is brought to you by People's Dispatch, Zoe and I, and also Globe Trotter where, once again, we're missing Vijay who's out on a series of talks and reporting work as well. So we hopefully have him back next week. It's been a lot, lots been happening this week actually and a lot is said to happen as well. On May 14th, we have the elections in Turkey where the fate of President Rajatay Berdagan is said to be decided. This is actually going to be one of the most important elections in the world. Not saying it lightly because Turkey's positions over the past years have been very crucial. It's played quite a destructive role in a country like Syria. And it's important that that whole region is extremely significant. A lot of internal suppression by Erdogan as well. Opposition leaders, for instance, activists being jailed. At the same time, Turkey has also sort of played a mediator's role in various issues including Ukraine. So very important to see what is going to happen in all the 14th of May and what it will lead to. But while one country goes to elections, a lot of uncertainty there. Equally uncertainty also prevailing in Pakistan where all hell seems to have broken out. Chaos, complete chaos after the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. Now we've talked about Imran Khan and the political crisis in Pakistan quite a few times on these issues on this show. And it escalated over the past one week when Imran Khan came to court. He was suddenly arrested in what is called the Al-Qadir Trust case, accused of graft. And then there was this outbreak of massive protests. People across Pakistan taking the streets in large numbers. And within 24 hours it had been quite chaotic. I think four or five people had been died. Over 1,000 people definitely arrested, buildings set on fire. And there was another case against Imran Khan. But he has sort of, seems to surmounted some of those legal issues after the high court has basically said that he cannot be arrested now until the 17th of May. So it does look like he's sort of gained an advantage over his rivals, which is the current ruling dispensation. Now it's interesting to note that Imran Khan and the current dispensation, they've really been sort of, you know, they've been duking it out so to speak on the streets in terms of protests. But there were also reports of some negotiations going on between them over the question of when elections would be held. And that's really become a central issue in Pakistan. Imran Khan was overthrown last year. He believes that if elections are held, he's going to come back to power very quickly. The government, on the other hand, kind of reluctant, it seems to have these elections and they're trying to basically get Imran Khan somehow trapped in, put him behind bars before the elections actually happened. So it's a bit of a seesaw battle. But what definitely does seems to be clear is there is mass resentment against the current ruling structure in the country. And I think that explains a lot of the protests which are going on as well. Of course, there is support for Imran Khan, but I think there is also people, the kind of campaign he's been doing. The campaign he's built against the current ruling dispensation, the government, which is led by the two old parties of Pakistan. Both of them, which are basically family parties at this point, and are supported strongly by the military, which is also a very important player in Pakistan. So Imran Khan successfully emerging of positioning himself as this kind of one lone wolf fighting against the dynasties and the entrenched powers in Pakistan. And that seems to have really resonated, which explains also, I think to a large extent, the sheer amount of strength and people on the streets he's able to mobilize. So a very sensitive moment for Pakistan also happening in the middle of a very, very deep economic crisis. We know that Pakistan has been struggling with an IMF loan. It has been forced to make major cuts, except those IMF conditionalities. Inflation has been pretty bad. Overall economic scenario has been extremely dire for the people of the country. So at this point, Imran Khan has also been able to tap into that and say that, hey, these people, these people, the government are just making killing by corruption, by entrenched interests. They care only about themselves. There's no one to look after you. And that message seems to be really kind of working. So it's a very, like I said, a very decisive moment, very difficult to say what's going to happen is release might things might quiet down a bit. But I don't think this legal battle is definitely going to end because I think the government also facing a bit of a legal setback right now. But they'll have their own strategies as well. So very interesting time for Pakistan in unfortunately some good and both good and bad ways as well. And it remains to be seen when the crucial issue of elections gets decided. Well, all the way across the world in Colombia, we're seeing interesting dynamics as well with coup attempts, coup threats as announced by Colombian President Gustavo Petro. He's, of course, referring to the decently sized quite large mobilizations of retired military personnel that happened on Wednesday in the central Plaza de Bolívar. Troops who have, of course, in Colombia, there's mandatory military service and a 60 year long armed conflict. So there's no shortage of people who have actually served in the army in a war situation. And they were on the streets in Plaza Bolívar, rejecting the president, calling for him to be ousted amongst other things and criticizing his efforts towards actually creating lasting peace in the country. Interesting. Colombia is a country that has many people who, again, have served in war, have lost limbs, have lost family members, and yet they're protesting this policy of peace. And on Thursday in an interview, a retired colonel who used to be in the leadership of the Association of Retired Military Personnel, John Marulanda, he was in an interview and a debate on the WV radio. And he said some interesting words, and he referred to a situation across the continent. And he said that the mobilization of the retired military members on Wednesday is, quote, a sign that Colombia is following in the steps of Peru, where he said the reserve forces were able to successfully defenestrate a corrupt president. And here in Colombia, we will do our best to defenestrate this guerrilla fighter president. Of course, he's referring to Gustavo Petro, who served in the M-19 movement in the country, and referring to the coup against Pedro Castillo, where of course the retired military members played a very, very important role in this coup and setting the stage. And so these comments, which he immediately tried to rectify saying, no, I'm just referring to Peru and that maybe this could happen. And then he cuts the audio cuts because he's of course repeating the same thing.  It makes sense that he's there as a president. Of course, you know, these comments completely undermining the fact that millions of Colombians have voted for Petro in the elections. He was democratically elected in 2022 and completely undermining the rule of law. This has been met with widespread opposition. Gustavo Petro has been making many statements about what he terms as an impending coup attempt. The actual current leadership of the Association of Retired Military Personnel has made a statement saying that these declarations by the retired colonel do not represent the sentiments of the organization. That being said, they were still on the streets on Wednesday, where many people were calling for Petro to be taken out. The attorney general of the nation in Colombia has also made a statement saying that they're going to investigate these words which do undermine the democratic rule of law. And it's maybe a situation that we could see coming, given the fact that Gustavo Petro is going against what has been the ruling establishment in Colombia for 60 years. A country that has been governed by far right and center right presidents for many, many, many decades, wherein waging war was the status quo, wherein bowing to the U.S. and its desires was the status quo. And you know, Petro has done everything but that. He was in an event yesterday where he was turning over lands to dispossess peasants, which was a key promise of his campaign, making good on agreements that came out of the 2016 Havana agreements. A lot of them having to do with land reform and in this event where he's turning over lands to these peasants, he said that these forces cannot stand that there's a president that gives back lands to the peasantry instead of stealing it for their friends. One former colonel said that this deserves a coup d'etat and that these coups are resisted and overcome with the mobilization of civilians. So I think we're going to see a situation of increased political tension in Colombia. There has also been a far right opposition to the proposed health reforms, labor reforms and other reforms that Petro and his historic pact have presented. It's a moment of really challenging these right wing forces that have really become comfortable with the plundering of the state with a state of constant war and a divided citizenry. I mean, I think one of the what we see in Colombia is again a reiteration of some of those patterns that we see across Latin America historic historical patterns actually time and again the same old violent forces of reaction being summoned to try to crush any kind of progressive political project that emerges the same old mercenaries remnants from armies, you know, and the same old tired cliched slogans that seek to sort of destroy any attempt to actually bring about any sustainable change. And of course, this is a global phenomenon. These are the the the for the way in which these forces have continued to exist. And I think maybe nothing exemplifies that more than what we see today in Palestine. Again, a very unfortunate anniversary. This that's 2023. It marks 75 years since what is known as the knock power the catastrophe, which is when Israel was supposedly founded on basically the ruins of various, you know, hundreds of Palestinian villages after people were thrown large numbers people were killed. The number of people who were thrown out of their homes ranges in between 700 to 800,000 people. And this was how Israel was supposedly found it although they like to claim what what is one of those core ideologies of Zionism is that it was an empty land for people. The fact is that they were actually people living there, and these people lost their, you know, people lost their lives, their livelihoods, their homelands, they were forced to go across, you know, across the region in the other parts of the world, in what is known as the knock power the catastrophe. And this year is the 75th May 15 is usually the day that is, you know, marked as Nagpa day. But, you know, we carried a report on event organized by international people's assembly, people were long worked for the cause of Palestine coming together and talking about how the Nagpa is not a day. It is, in some ways, unfortunately a process and it is a process that continues to this day, the fact that to this day, Israel the Palestinians are being thrown out of their houses in the occupied territories in East Jerusalem in West Bank, the fact that Gaza is continues to be a blockaded to a large extent, the fact that in places like Massafariata you have to continue a threat of evictions of people, people losing their houses, their schools, etc. We have talked about Sheikh Jarrah in the past on this show as well. And all of this, you know, making it very, very clear that the Nagpa continues to this day. It's not some kind of historic event. And like we talked about the same arguments, the same brutal arguments, yanked out again and again by Israel, by its allies talking about terrorism, talking about, you know, their right to, their right to sort of somehow as their right to exist is under threat, all these tired arguments being brought out again and again. And also important, this week has been significant because it was the anniversary of the assassination of the journalist Shireen Abu Akle, who was killed while covering an Israeli raid in Janine. And now, as we again talked about multiple times on this show, Shireen was wearing a jacket which identified her as a journalist. It was clear that this was, you know, definitely an attack, but until now there's been no justice for that. No one has been held to account. Various investigations by both Israel and the US have at the most concluded that there might have been a possibility. And I want you to remember that when she was killed, the first instinct of Israel was to say that it was the Palestinians that killed them until footage proved that, you know, it was definitely not the case. And even then there's been really no justice despite the fact that Shireen worked for a very prominent media organization, that it's Al Jazeera, despite the fact that she was an American citizen, despite all this there's been no justice for the murder of Shireen Abu Akle. And Shireen's case also getting a lot of attention because of the unique circumstances. But like we've said, this is an ongoing process. You had raids in Gaza. Again, I think close to 30 people killed so far. Continuous bombing raids by Israel. This was after they agreed supposedly to ceasefire. So we know what these Israeli words about ceasefire and peace and all mean in this context. So as yet another week passes, yes, we cross yet another Nakba day. I think it's important to sort of, you know, highlight the continuity of this process. Because often we get kind of desensitized some of these reports sometimes, but this is an occasion to kind of remember that we're talking about a long, unbroken chain of atrocities of crime of, you know, human rights violations, which have been which started before 1948 also, but and continue to today. Well, that's exactly right. And one of the other elements used by Israel specifically against the population of Gaza, in addition to the brutal bombing campaign is actually a unilateral course of measures, which is maintaining a virtual complete blockade of Gaza, impeding the importation of necessary goods amongst other items. And so this sanctions measure is very important to keep in mind as it's used against the population of Gaza and over 30% of the world's population. And this week in a very, very important letter, House Democrats actually urged President Biden to lift unilateral course of measures. They spoke specifically about Cuba and Venezuela and they related it to the current migrant crisis, the current current border crisis right now in the United States. That is expected to increase with the expiration of Title 42, which we've covered extensively on this on people's dispatch. It's a very, very interesting letter and as I said, it comes at this time amid the migrant crisis, but it is one of the first significant pushbacks on what has been essentially a consensus and unilateral opinion from US ruling elites and both parties, Democrats and Republicans who for several decades have used the tactic and tool of sanctions to push forward their political goals. And it's interesting right now, because there has been some talk amongst people on both sides of the aisle about actually what is the effectiveness of these unilateral course of measures. Janet Yellen at the Treasury Office said that it has been successful or maybe shouldn't say that they were successful in doing this, but it has caused a severe economic crisis, for example, in Iran where they're extremely restrictive sanctions, but it has not been successful in achieving their political goals. And so we've seen the use of financial and economic sanctions against Venezuela against Cuba, really to squeeze the population to the most intense. We again have been covering this with Cuba with extreme fuel shortage crisis right now. And in the eyes of the US ruling elite, this is in an effort to make people angry, to make them upset with their governments and eventually revolt and overthrow these governments. But as Janet Yellen has pointed out in some statements in Iran, for example, this hasn't been successful. And in this letter, House Democrats point out that this has really created a humanitarian crisis and has been a contributing factor to driving up immigration. Numbers show that in 2018, the number of Venezuelan migrants numbered a couple hundred. And now in 2022, this number was up to almost 200,000. That's a substantial increase. And these are people who are trying to regularly cross at the border. So it's not even counting the number of people who are maybe migrating in other ways. So it is definitely breaking somewhat with this consensus opinion. There are many people who have pointed to the migration of Cuban and Venezuelan people as saying this is because of these governments, because of these dictatorships they like to say. But the fact that these Democrats are coming out and saying that this is actually directly due to US policies, due to these economic and financial sanctions. This is really groundbreaking and I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming days. We know there have also been comments saying that sanctions are undermining the hegemony of the dollar, pushing global south countries towards embracing other modes of trade and other modalities of economic relationships. So on both sides, on both the humanitarian side and both actually maintaining the economic hegemony of the United States in many ways, this policy of sanctions is really being questioned. So it's a very interesting moment. Zoe, of course, the crisis in Venezuela is something we've been looking at for a long time because of the way in which the question of sovereignty is dealt with, the way in which the question of rights is dealt with. And the very clear double standards apply often when it comes to the positions of the United States both for its allies and for those it considers enemies or critics or whatever. But ultimately, a lot boils down to the question of what people, what are the rights people deserve? I mean, by rights, we're also talking about the right to lead a life of dignity, the right to sort of lead a productive life, the right to basically receive resources or we get access to resources which all humans should have and which sanctions as one of the most cruel things about sanctions is that they actually take away so many of these rights. There's a great report by CEPR, which actually talks about the impact of sanctions on Venezuela or Afghanistan or Iran. And each of these countries, the quality of life has declined so much because governments are not able to provide these basic resources because of sanctions. And of course, this is not just an issue relating to sanctions, it's a larger issue as well. And a very interesting verdict that came out recently in South Africa where there's been a case going on for some time about load shedding. Now, in many parts of the global south, people live with load shedding, some of them at least grew up with various small degrees of load shedding, for instance, which is rolling power cuts. But South Africa has been really facing this issue at a massive, massive scale and the sheer increase in power cuts has led to staggering economic losses. Of course, inconvenience in day-to-day life, a massive decline in the quality of life. All of this has been happening at a very regular basis. The government, of course, saying that the power entity, ESCOM, does not have the capacity to keep power going. So it is very interesting that a series of organizations, including the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa, basically filed a petition saying that they want talking about demanding that essential services at least not face this level of power cuts. And at one level, it is the most legitimate demand you can think of with schools and health institutions and, say, other critical facilities not face power cuts of this sort. But on the other hand, the response of the government was quite surprising. I think I think Presidents in Ramaphosa in an affidavit said that various government respondents that have been mentioned in the petition that none of them have a constitutional responsibility to supply electricity to the people of the public. So that was clearly the government's stand when it came to this basic question. But the code word being quite surprising actually and interesting because it actually lays its interim relief, of course, but it lays forward a question for governments across the world that isn't it their responsibility to actually ensure that these basic services are provided. Now, this is part of a much longer and larger case. I think a more substantive issues will be taken up later this month, maybe. And this was more of interim relief, but this is part of, I think, a larger campaign. Noomsa has been running other allied organizations have been running, which has questioned really the model by which power utilities have been the main power utility SCOM has been managed in South Africa. And these organizations including Noomsa have time and again said that a key issue is that the amount of privatization in the sector is what has led to the deterioration of these kinds of supplies. And we have some extensive coverage. I would urge you to go to People's Dispatch and see our archives on SCOM and Noomsa both have extensive coverage on the various factors that are involved. And this quote verdict is one arm of the strategy that a protest taking place on the ground as well. And this is also, I think, especially concerning at a time when South Africa is thinking of moving, shifting to more renewable source of energy. There is a very strong critique that the shift to renewable energy is going to benefit the private sector more workers are going to suffer that issues also very much in play. So I think this is this this word it gives is an occasion to sort of pause and think for the government as well how you know it wants to whether it even does so is a different question it does it provides an occasion. And you know how it really wants to sort of configure this question of power, which is not something that should be definitely taken for granted I think in the in 2023 this is one of the things you can at least ask from our governments. Well, that's exactly right and over in Chile. Again, another slightly upsetting setback for left forces over there on Sunday they voted to elect the members of what would be the constitutional council. And as we remember this is the body that will write another draft of the Constitution, just to give people a little brief briefer in 2019 during the massive protests against neoliberal policies against the economic crisis facing Chile and the inaccessibility of basic healthcare education and pensions. Many people demanded that the Pinochet era constitution be rewritten in order to ensure ensure these basic rights. Following that there was a referendum to see if a constitution should be written a new constitution should be drafted. People said yes overwhelmingly and that it should be done through a constitutional convention. Following that there were elections to elect the members of this constitutional convention. These were carried out in the constitutional convention was largely composed of progressive and left wing forces independent ones that were also linked to the current government of Gabriels boardage. This constitutional draft was made it was one of the most progressive constitutions in the world guaranteeing the rights of nature rights of indigenous people women LGBTQ communities, as well as guaranteeing this fundamental social and economic rights of healthcare education pension with the Chilean people have been fighting for for so many years having been the birthplace of neoliberalism. Gabriels boardage said that Chile would also and was a sentiment echoed by the protest that Chile would now be the tomb of neoliberalism. However, when this draft constitution was up for referendum. It was defeated. And following this essentially the government of Gabriel boardage has been scrambling to try to come up with another way for the constitution to be rewritten. They finally decided on a constitutional council which had its elections this past Sunday, and in an upsetting defeat for the left understanding that this whole trajectory was really pushed forward by progressive forces all of the demands to rewrite this constitution was because of demands on the streets. Right wing forces the Republican Party, people allied to Jose Antonio cast who was the extreme far right contender in these last elections actually won the majority of this constitutional council and this has been sort of an upset for progressive forces within Chile and across the continent that really had been looking at this Chilean process as such an important example of what can happen how you translate street power to actually creating lasting change. And this is seen as a serious upset, both in the sense that it's going to be the same forces that were against writing the Constitution that wanted to stick with the Pinochet era Constitution that are now basically tasked with doing it. And because they have the majority in this council they're able to veto their veto power. And they're also going to be able to pass kind of any sort of aggressive elements that they that they want to so this is extremely challenging scenario, how much of these promises for change of guaranteeing rights will actually be able to move forward with this Constitution. There have been many different analyses of how this happens how that the how the right wing in Chile was able to really regain its footing and actually win in a space that was essentially created by the left which is these constitutional spaces. And many are pointing to the fact that, for example, these this uprising on the streets was asked to also be interpreted as a rejection of the political systems failings itself. And in this context we look at the, the actions of the board of just government. And for many Chileans he just hasn't gone far enough to really address the root causes of people's misery of people's discontent. He's been a government of really conciliation, and the numerous kind of electoral defeats since he's been elected with these referendums has put him in an even more weaker position and instead of really going on the offensive and pushing for the most radical transformations of society has been extremely conciliatory. He's really joined the US and their foreign policy attacks on Nicaragua and Venezuela and Cuba. He's also been a stalwart ally of the US in the Ukraine war, criticizing Russia openly being one of the only Latin American presidents to really go so hard against Russia. So these, all of these elements have to be taken into account when you think that people are rejecting the establishment as such. And this, you know, they saw that the Republicans, they saw this right wing as, as what would be an opposition to this system. So what people are saying, the left is saying this isn't time for demoralizing. This is a time to reorganize to reassess to re strategize and figure out how these fundamental changes, which is, which still are needed, right to pension, right to healthcare, right to education. These must be won by mobilization by organization on the street will of course be following this and all the other stories. Make sure to stay tuned to people's dispatch dot org on all of our social media platforms. Make sure to share and like it. Tell the show. Tell your friends about the show and we'll be with you next week. Hopefully joined by DJ.


My name is Tanya Rosicone and I'm a sociology major. I studied abroad in Brisbane, Australia through Fairfield University's Study Abroad program. While in Brisbane, I was completely independent for four months. This independence and freedom pushed me to explore and learn. I interned with three other Fairfield students at Eidos Institute, which is a nonprofit public policy think tank. Taking part in an internship and representing an Australian company was a great chance to be a part of a professional atmosphere. It also gave me the confidence to know that I can live and work in a different country outside the US. Brisbane is the capital of the Sunshine State of Queensland and with 1.1 million people is Australia's third largest city. Lying at the heart of the most diverse and popular vacation region in Australia, it has a subtropical climate with average highs of 70 degrees in winter and 85 in summer. The city's imposing skyline rises above the Brisbane River and its streets offer all the excitement of a modern cosmopolitan center, museums, cafes, shopping, and nightlife. We lived in shared apartments in Brisbane's lively city center at Cathedral Place. Apartments are fully furnished and equipped with bedding, towels, cooking utensils, dishes, and everything you need to get started. While the city boasts ultra-modern high-rises, it has also preserved the charm of its 19th century architectural legacy. Brisbane is not only a vacation destination, it is a thriving commercial and cultural center. The city has so much to offer, beaches, river walks, gardens, and wildlife parks with the country's largest population of koalas. Excellent public transportation makes popular recreational destinations easily accessible. Morton Bay, nearby islands, and surf beaches are all within a few minutes. The Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast are easily reached too. West of the city you can explore rain forests, national parks, bushlands, and vast lakes. Brisbane is a lively city with lots to do. Since you'll be living right in the downtown area, everything you need will be nearby, and a commuter bus or train will bring you to your classes at Australian Catholic University in under an hour, which gives you plenty of time to read your assignments. The university offers a variety of clubs, sports, and activities in which you can take part. This is a great way to meet Australians and expand your circle of friends in Brisbane. I had an unforgettable experience in Brisbane and recommend that you try a semester, summer, or a full year abroad through Fairfield University.


y're hacked, it could be for sexual gratification, it could be for a laugh. Often the images are distributed without the victim even knowing they've been taken or distributed. So that's why I think this restriction to intention to cause alarm and distress limits the scope of the law, doesn't take account of the victim's experiences. I also find it a problem as well because I think it means that we are just focusing on that revenge type situation and we are expecting victims to only feel distress or alarm.   And I think we have to therefore recognise that as well as just this distress. If I could perhaps add there that there's a connection which I think is important here between the fault requirement for the offence, intention or recklessness and the type of images that are covered. Now the committee heard evidence earlier from I think particularly Mr Meehan about the breadth of the images that were covered. So under section 3 for example, an image can be covered if it's one where the person's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear. So the example was given of a picture of somebody asleep in a box of shorts and a flat, but somebody wearing underwear could be somebody at the beach, it could be somebody in a Halloween costume, it could be entirely innocent and non-sexual. The bill does not require that the image be sexual. If you create an offence that simply disclosing that image without consent is a criminal offence, regardless of any issue of intention or recklessness as to distress, you have an extremely broad offence that carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. If you were therefore minded to widen the fault requirement and remove the requirement for intention or recklessness as to fear of distress, I think that you would correspondingly have to have a rather narrow definition of the kind of images which the offence covered. That within the provision in your draft bill is the defence of a reasonable belief in the consent around the sharing of the image. So when you have a situation of a fault requirement of intention to disclose without consent, there is a defence where there is a reasonable belief in the consent of the image and that can then restrict the activity. But I think what I'd also say about the boxer's short issue is I think it's very easy in lots of these contexts to get distracted by one sort of example that might seem ridiculous. And the analogy with that is again the concern in some of the papers about images of streakers and naked ramblers. And we could spend a lot of time discussing those examples. And I think what we need to do is discuss the examples of where there's real harm caused to many victims and the upskirting is an example of that. So we might be worried about the male student in his boxer's shorts but I think we should be more worried about the prevalence of images being taken surreptitiously up women's skirts and then distributed without their consent. And at the moment that's not going to be covered by these provisions. I have to say upskirting is a term I had never heard before and rather wish I never had heard There's full websites dedicated to it and down-blowsing as well. On this point because I think I understand the strength of the argument saying focus on consent and the lack of it. What I'm not sure in the bill is that consent does not seem to be defined. Is it meant to be the same group of definitions of consent contained in the 2009 act or is consent in some other sense for example in the law of assault. I think if consent is to play an important part it should be absolutely clear what the definition of consent is for the purposes of this provision. It's a difficult one really isn't it because there was a somewhat unflattering photograph of the current Prime Minister at his beach wear which was published all over the paper and I shouldn't imagine he consented to it particularly but would images like that then fall within the scope of this law? That's where you say I think we could at the moment the defences where the image if you like was taken in a public setting where there were members of the public presence so that image wouldn't be covered and that my understanding is that's in there because of this concern about the naked ramblers and such like but what that precludes then is the upskirting images. There are other ways of doing that so for example one could just exclude voluntary exposure in public so the person on the beach would not be covered by this provision because they were voluntarily exposing themselves or in their underwear on the beach. So there's a more straightforward way of covering and excluding that sort of situation but that's why we need to be mindful I think of what the harms are and not get distracted therefore by those sorts of examples. I don't think it would be helpful any potential liability in that situation depending on whether the the Prime Minister was on a private beach or a public beach and I accept the difficulty of concentrating on the examples which are removed from the harm that this offence is designed to cover but we need to ensure that those examples do not fall from the scope of the offence and the offence only covers that which is meant to tackle. So that would be an argument for drawing it more tightly. Yes. Yes. I mean by tightly by changing the language such that voluntary exposure in public wouldn't be covered but that's not what it covers at the moment it's just simply if you're in public and members of the public are present it wouldn't be covered so it wouldn't cover the upskirting distribution. Christian, would you finish? Yes, I'll finish. I've got Christian, then I've got you know he's a supplementary as well first before just before you it is a supplementary in this isn't it? Then it's you Margaret you're on this list. Yes, Professor McLean I was very interesting about your submission and I did ask the question to the first panel and I thought it was interesting in talking about upskirting I absolutely agree with you there's even a case of upkirting in Scotland which is you know we might find it it's funny but we had experiences where it was not funny at all but you know you are the same kind of abuse so the only problem on that is the first panel were very clear they were very much concerned about teenagers about people young people and people maybe who don't have the same ability to understand the difference so how would you respond to this? Okay so I absolutely accept this is something we have to think about in terms of young people's common practices as the provision is currently drafted it could be that the young person has a reasonable understanding a reasonable belief in that there was consent to the disclosure of that image it may be that the young person doesn't understand that actually that the harm that could result from disclosing these images so I think there is a way that the current bill could cover the concerns about say teenage boys distributing these images but what I would also say is we need to remind ourselves about the teenage girls whose images are being distributed and there is some research that's been done with young people of the coercion felt by many young girls to share these images so it's yes we don't want to criminalise large numbers of young men I've got a 14 year old boy myself so I'm very aware of this but I've also got a 12 year old daughter as well and so we need to be thinking about their experiences and the harms that they may suffer and just one further point about that is so when we talk about inadvertent sharing and when we talk about the common practice of sharing these images my argument would be it's that common practice that we're actually trying to challenge so rather than accepting that this is a common place in our society now we actually this is what we need to be trying to counteract and this legislation could be one way so long as there's an education campaign with it of trying to counteract it How much of a review I typically was the first panel that had a reasonable thing that the last thing we'd want is this bill to criminalise a lot of young people so maybe we're not there yet maybe we can use that bill maybe to have that educational practice and making sure that there are changes out there especially for young people of either gender I might say but I do think that maybe of a member who's panel wants to say that there is an argument in the first panel that it would be a step too far for young people Can I go back to and thank you for the educational point was very very important but can we go back to you I think you said in passing I may have misheard it that you said there's a way to deal with in this bill which would as it were I don't mean that it protects probably the wrong word but you know what it's just silly daff behaviour of some youngsters so what were you meaning by that so for example there's a defence A has a defence where A the perpetrator reasonably believed that B consented to the photograph or film being dispload dispload part consent they didn't consent but they just did it as a jake thought it was fun had no idea so consent is one issue but let's well the argument here would be that A the 15-year-old boy who distributed the image has a reasonable belief that the person in that image consented to it being disclosed and I guess what I was saying was well what if they didn't what if it was but what if they didn't have a reasonable belief yes just just because they just thought it was a funny picture a harm that's causing significant harm to to individuals what I'm getting at is and I you know I absolutely know where we want to get with this but you know they just thought this will be a laugh and I had no idea perhaps of the impact it would have so it wasn't it's some of the misdemeanors of youth in a sense to do something like that there wouldn't be a protection here under reasonable belief the consent to the photograph because they did it maybe they were sleeping or they were lying in the beach or something you know but it's turned out wrong for them let's put it like that how you know would that fit in with reckless you know you and I might say or it's a stupid thing to do how could you be so reckless but for the 14-50-year-old brain it was just a laugh and it wasn't that they didn't think of it as that and rather than criminalise them we're not going to be educating them in advance of this bill going out becoming an act it might be together but you know perhaps education will change things so they'll have a different perspective of even what the thing's a lark but prior to that if we brought this in like this we might be criminalising people that we weren't wishing to criminalise or even have them charged by the police I mean others will be able to come out more on on the scots law and recklessness but in terms of the recklessness I think anyway some of those individuals wouldn't actually be covered because they wouldn't necessarily have been giving thought to the to the harm and distress that would be caused in any event because you've got the harm and distress requirement I think this is an issue where it's actually difficult to give a definitive answer because the scots law of recklessness is itself slightly unclear it would certainly I think be the case in English law that that one could say A in that situation would not be reckless as the possibility fear distress because they concluded this was simply a joke this was funny there was no question of him being distressed it is arguable that in scots law recklessness may only require that a reasonable person would have been being aware of the risk it's slightly embarrassing that even at this stage we have to say the law not quite clear on that point the courts have moved in recent years I think towards an approach similar to English law and it certainly would be open to them to hold that a person in that situation was not legally reckless and therefore not guilty It's a point I mentioned earlier the lack of definition of consent if consent is using the model of the 2009 act then of course there's a specific provision about what constitutes reasonable belief in consent therefore recklessness and I'm not sure whether this act is meant to be divorced from the consent model of the 2009 act and it would give rise to the problems that James Chalmers has mentioned that recklessness is not well defined in scots law Right, I'll just leave that with them I've got now is this a supplement on the same line? Yeah Thank you very much Margaret Images Do Professor MacLennan I mean you mention about you have concerns about the scope on drafting of the specific offences in particular do you think that they should be extended to include text messages and letters? If I was drafting the bill I wouldn't include them myself and I think that's because I see this phenomenon if you like in the context of sexual abuse and sexual violence and it is the images that are the ones that are shared widely that go on to the porn sites that go on to the upskirting sites that go viral and it's also those images that are used to for the distress and alarm because they're used to shame women so I think that's why I'd limit the criminal law because I recognise that it is a very coercive tool to these particular images of a sexual nature that are disclosed without consent I think when you get into text messages and such like the definitions around what would come within that sort of criminal law get very much more difficult to define and I think we'd then lose a clear message that this bill could send to individuals about a particular area of behaviour so I wouldn't extend it to text messages myself Right and does that include sexting then? Well sexting if it's just text so i.e. the written word I wouldn't recommend the law covers in that sense if you mean just sexting in terms of sharing an intimate image with someone this provision only covers where that image is then passed on without consent and that's what's problematic my own view is that what we must make sure we're not doing here is criminalising one form of sexual expression which is taking and sharing intimate images which is very common so that in and of itself I don't think is problematic and I'd also be concerned at a message being sent that actually the way to stop this practice is just don't get the just don't take the images or just don't share the images because I think that gets into a bit of a a kind of victim blaming situation as well So what we're talking about is Facebook and Twitter use of images Of images Yeah I think that that keeps the role of the criminal law clearer and more distinct and focused on where the real harm is I didn't know you could use images in Twitter and I'm Twitterless so I didn't know that So can I just continue then because you mentioned criminal law there and in your submission you mentioned that civil law should be considered would you like to So in the example a good example is the protection of harassment act which I'm covered generally known to cover stalking and that provision also introduced a statutory civil offence or civil claim in relation to stalking that could be brought Now I'm not the expert in Scots Scots delict but broadly speaking there are civil offences that can cover some of this conduct but I think just in the same way as a new criminal offence can add clarity to victims, police and perpetrators a statutory civil offence relating to this conduct could also help and it gives victims another option if they want to take a claim or if the police don't say pursue a claim they would then have a civil option quite clearly set out that they could follow Perhaps Can I By waiting to see nobody else to say that they want to comment I don't think I can add anything to what professional glass Right, could you just ask one final question then do you think that the offence of threatening to disclose an intimate photographer film is already covered by the section 38 So, I had a quick look when you were talking about this in the last session about that section but I don't know about the practice in Scots law under how that particular provision is being interpreted I guess all that from my own perspective the addition of adding in threatening is a really important a significant advance on the English law particularly in the domestic abuse context when these threats are used quite extensively Yes, if I could add there one difference is that the section 38 offence is defined only by reference to fear and alarm this offence is also defined by reference to distress so there would be considerable overlap but there would be something slightly broader about the offence under the bill Thank you Thank you Alison, is this in Just a quick follow-up to what Margaret Riddle was pursuing there if that's possible Photoshopped images so sometimes things are circulated that have been photoshopped to make them appear intimate Are you of the view that the bill should cover that? And are you comfortable that the bill does in fact allow us to pursue those images? I think measures in this field should cover those sorts of photoshopped images again because those are the images that can go viral and cause the real harm My reading of this provision is that it does cover photoshopped images unlike the English law and so I very much welcome that that would be my understanding of it Thank you Yes, I have of course Can I ask one question on this upskirting and down-blowsing? Is not an offence at the moment? My understanding is that it is a criminal offence in Scots law to take the upskirted images but what's not being covered is the distribution now of those images And I think this is an interesting example of where we get the kind of legislative response to one or two examples here and there because the upskirting was another amendment to a previous act I think it is helpful for us to step back and think what's the real harms going on here and this is image-based sexual abuse and there's a whole variety of ways in which that's perpetrated so let's make sure we're covering each of them So it is an actual offence but the distribution of it is what's not yet being covered I want to turn to my little pet problem which is section 26 on the sexual risk orders It appears apart from I don't like the word done I don't like sexual nature in subsection 26 subsection 2 as opposed to sexual harm I have concerns that this is quite draconian in the orders which can be imposed which are civil orders and which is not when somebody has been committed or even charged with anything but just apparently done something of a sexual nature Now could I have your comments on whether you think my concerns are misplaced I'm looking at Professor my name is Professor Charles I know you'll tell me the truth and nothing truth and the whole truth So do you share any of my concerns with that? Up to a point at least I might say about the use of the word done I suspect what the drafter has done here that was not deliberate or rehearsed is similar language is found for example in section 55 of the 1995 act which deals with people who are unfit to plead whether there's an examination of facts and the court makes a finding as to whether they did something so it's a useful formulation which is used where the drafter wishes to indicate the commission of something which might be a crime law that's not a requirement here but where criminal liability has not been proved and that's important because this is a civil process actually the court shouldn't be declaring somebody guilty of a criminal offence there are different reasons why one might want this provision to be of this breadth for example it might be desirable to apply for an order such as this where it's not possible to convict somebody because the act that they have done was outside the jurisdiction and can't be prosecuted but is a reasonable basis for concluding that that person poses a risk of harm that I think is legitimate what is not legitimate is I think that the point you were perhaps intending at earlier where the chief constable was saying what you did was not a crime at all but we would still like to take coercive measures against you because of something which was entirely lawful that you did and that I think is more problematic and that is permitted under this section as it stands Can it be remedied? It could be drafted in such a way as to indicate that the act of sexual nature would have to be one which amwys to a criminal offence you then run into the other problem that I highlighted which is that it starts to look as if you're declaring somebody guilty of a crime so actually there's an advantage in having it drafted in this way so you're not having a civil court declaring what looks like a criminal conviction I'm not sure that is a perfect solution to that problem Yes and again as I think I raised my question previously if a civil order would be made public the term would be a sexual risk order which to everybody all in sundry would sound like a criminal offence other issues with even calling them that or calling them something else that could be done that would hit the mark as it were and protect in the way I think it's intended but without losing balance for the rights of that individual perhaps If I can go back slightly one safeguard there of course is that the sheriff if the act which is done of a sexual nature is not one which is criminal it's unlikely I suppose that a sheriff could conclude that it would be necessary to make an order under this section I'm not sure much could be done in terms of the meaning of the order because in a situation where as one was mentioned earlier the order has to be communicated to the public for the purpose of the public with the protection of the public and aware of it the public will have to be made aware of the nature of the order and anything that obscures what the order is about is unlikely to be helpful there Any other comments? Yes, Professor I had a general comment about this balance between the civil and the criminal law because of course we are familiar with civil cases that deal with rape and other forms of sexual assault so someone can have a civil case brought against them and CB found have to pay damages to an individual for what is purportedly a rape but it's in the civil court so my own view is that it's not so unusual for us to have a civil order if you like that in practice is saying that on the balance of probabilities this form of sexual harm took place but then it would be a civil order for some order for compensation Yeah but it would still be a public I understand that but there's a big difference from saying in order to pay such and such and so and so has now got a sexual risk order against them there's a big difference between the language as I'm making perhaps I should leave this alone now I've just I've worked it to death probably Roddy, do you want to come in in that unique and something different? Yes I'm going to stick to my guns I think about a little John I'm with you in that convener and I just would like the panels for you and whether what's that so happy position to be with or me John I joke Well there you go Well I'm happy to be in that For you I meant On the question of the appeals process for that at section 31 is that robust enough should there be some provision of anonymity pending appeal or because I did ask the Police Scotland witness in the previous session about the protection of the individual which is a requirement for the police too and the panel will be aware of propensity for vigilante groups for instance to act as judge and jury So primarily are the appeals provisions at 31 robust enough? Whether it is robust enough or whether there should be anonymity should somebody which sort of defeats the order in a sense but there we are I mean on the first question these are the normal rules governing appeal and civil proceedings so I think they are robust enough On the question of anonymity I do not know what provision if any of it is at the moment for allowing anonymity in such cases in a civil process being appealed so I'm not sure I can answer the question I'm sorry I think the difficulty arises with the term sexual risk order if it looks like a criminal order or criminal order of the court rather than a civil order I think that would be perhaps in the wording I don't know how it would go about it but Margaret, do you want to ask something? Yeah, it was in section 5 and the bill extending the law to allowing on harassment order to be imposed in an individual found unfit to plead I think the law society and the mental welfare commission have had some difficulty in understanding how this wouldn't negate their ability to understand the terms of the sexual harassment order I think that provision is like to extremely rarely be of use but I can see how it could be appropriate for example in the case which gave rise to this provision may be an example of this where somebody is unfit to stand trial because they cannot cope with the trial process itself and that over time leads to them being unfit to plead and the trial have to be halted it may be possible for the sheriff to conclude in that situation that although the trial could not take place that person is nevertheless capable of understanding and complying with an order if they would not be capable of understanding and complying with an order there's no point in the order being made so this possible there's a very very narrow exceptional category of case where this could be used but I would imagine that we would see very few orders ever being made on this basis to share your concern it seems to me that most of the criminal law dealing with persons with mental disorder either at the time of trial or at the time of committing the offence are concerned with the welfare of that person and this seems to be a cut against that grain but at the same time the existing sexual offensive prevention orders would apply to a person who has a mental disorder so to some extent the precedent is already set there is some difficulty here but we have to remember that as well as having a vulnerable person who cannot be betrayed if a finding is made that the person did the act concerned we also have a victim and that actually it may be more appropriate to protect that victim through an order being made there than requiring that person to go through a civil process which actually is likely also to be equally distressing for the person who has already gone through the examination of facts so this in fact may be a neater solution than requiring the civil process to kick in separately afterwards which many people are not going to have the resources to implement in any case I was going to refer to the matter that Margaret has just raised but just going to enter a different subject which is extraterritorial jurisdiction being limited to sexual offences cases perhaps I could ask Professor Chalmers just to give a few general comments on that The only point I think I would like to make in addition to what was mentioned earlier is that the constitution paper that gave rise to this bill identified really two separate problems one is where the prosecution wished to prosecute for a chain of offences particularly where they wished to allegedly amutally corroborative some which took place in Scotland some which took place in England and the bill subject to the technical point of retrospectivity that I made earlier I think deals very well with that The consultation also mentioned the less likely but certainly possible situation where a victim of a sexual offence cannot identify exactly where that offence took place where it may have taken place for example in a vehicle that was travelling between Scotland and England and they don't know the exact location so there's uncertainty as to locus Now if there was uncertainty as to the location of an offence anywhere outside the United Kingdom there would be no problem because we take extraterritorial jurisdiction over sexual offences so it wouldn't actually matter whether the offence took place in France or Germany for example but it would matter whether the offence took place in Scotland in England and as it stands the bill I think does not give prosecutors a route adequately to deal with the situation where the locus of the offence is uncertain and that would require it to be drafted in a rather different way In a matter of a draw something I think I've got everybody Can I just before you go because just very briefly is there something we haven't asked that we ought to have asked you and you're sitting going why in earth didn't they ask me this this is the thing I'm etching to tell you You haven't asked us about it I would probably prefer it if you didn't section 4 and the position of websites which hosts the images covered by the section 2 offence I would only want to draw the committee's attention to the fact that you will have received or will shortly receive the recent evidence from Professor Lillian Edwards which deals with that point that Lillian Edwards is a professor at InternetLots, Traff Clyde and I would simply draw that to the committee's attention because it's an important point which I suspect we would not feel qualified to comment on but she will do It just reminded me the comment about anonymity I mean I think I understand that anonymity for complainers of sexual offences in Scotland is a matter of convention rather than legislation and I guess I just wanted to share the experience in England is that we don't have anonymity for those reporting image based sexual abuse and it's very problematic so I'd certainly be urging you to make sure that any new offence ensures that there's anonymity for those who wish to report this offence Can I perhaps add to that that there might be some benefit in reviewing the position relating to anonymity in Scotland more generally and I say that because as Professor McGill has mentioned it's a matter of convention Now of course it's a matter of convention media organisations do behave responsibly if there may be questions about the boundaries of where they feel anonymity is justified The practical use of the the criminal law relating to anonymity south of the border has been not in relation to news organisations but cases which are high profile where friends or supporters of a victim make their name widely known in social media they are prosecuted for that I suspect it is only a matter of time before a similar case arises in Scotland we may find that there's not an offence for which the persons reaching anonymity can be prosecuted legislation will promptly be brought before this Parliament and there will be something of a scandal about dealing with that promptly there might be some advantage to the Government in pre-empting that happening because I think it is only a matter of time before we have a case of that nature Thank you and that's not that I'm not looking for any more Thank you very much and that concludes this evidence session Thank you for attending it was very interesting Committee the next meetings on 24 November will continue taking evidence on this bill and I formally closed the meeting


In this discussion, we will discuss the discussion question of Explain how the cash flows from operating activities section is created using the indirect method If we see a discussion question or essay question like this and we don't know exactly where to start Support accounting instruction by clicking the link below giving you a free month membership to all of the content on our website Broken out by category further broken out by course each course then organized in a logical reasonable fashion Making it much more easy to find what you need than can be done on a YouTube page We also include added resources such as Excel practice problems PDF files and more like QuickBooks backup files when applicable So once again click the link below for a free month membership to our website and all the content on it We might first think well I'm on a section here that's focusing in on the statement of cash flows So even if we don't know what the indirect method is We could probably say hmm it probably has something to do with the statement of cash flows And start discussing well what is the statement of cash flows and how do we put the statement of cash flows together And then of course try to get into this indirect method we should have an idea of what the indirect method is So the statement of cash flows is going to be one of our major financial statements We have the balance sheet income statements statement of equities statement of cash flows And the statement of cash flows is going to be reporting the cash flows that happened over time So the change in cash we're going to be reporting those in the statement of cash flows breaking them out into three major categories Operating investing financing So the operating activities even if we don't know what the indirect method is We might have probably have an idea of what operating activities are The cash flows from operations are going to be the major cash flows that happened They're going to be the detail that happened and they're similar to like the income statement So the income statement represents activity over time whereas the balance sheet represents something as of a point in time The cash flow statement is an activity statement So it's trying to represent things that are happening over time telling a story So it's similar to the income statement in that format However the income statement is on a cruel basis And we're working with a cash basis cash flow type statement So the cash flows from operations then is similar to the income statement It's going to show those activities and get to the bottom line Which on net income is on the income statement is net income On the statement of cash flows we're going to get cash provided by operations And that's going to be kind of like net income on a cash basis Now there's two methods to do that And notice again this operating activities is going to be the major of the three It's probably where the most detail is then Most line items, most activity happening on the operating as opposed to investing and financing When we think about the indirect versus direct method we're only focusing on the operating activity The financing and investing activities will remain the same whether using the indirect Or the other method that we can compare and contrast to the only other really acceptable method would be the direct method So those two methods only change the operating activities They have no effect on financing or investing activities So therefore if we look at the indirect method we can kind of compare and contrast it to the direct method The indirect method is going to get to basically net income on a cash basis Which is cash flows from operations but it's not going to kind of try to reconstruct the income statement Which would make sense that makes intuitive sense to most people Makes intuitive sense to me to say well what are we going to do if we're going to make this on a cash basis Let's just take revenue and expenses and convert all those to a cash basis for cash revenue and cash expenses And then we get basically to net income if we subtract the two out on a cash basis That would be more of a direct method The indirect method doesn't do that and it's actually preferred in some way or required oftentimes even if we use the direct method And the reason is not because it's more intuitive People can explain the direct method probably easier to investors than the indirect method But it's also kind of a reconciliation meaning it's reconciling net income on an accrual basis to a cash basis And the way it does that is it's going to start the thing, we're going to start where we ended We're start with what we did, we got net income That's going to be the first line item on the operating activities And then what we're going to do is we're going to kind of back out all activities that were accrual accounts Accrual activity, non-cash items So that we get to net income that's going to be more on a cash basis which is going to be operating cash flows from operations So in this way we're reconciling then, we're looking at the difference, we're looking at all the changes The things that are different between cash flows on a net income on an accrual basis Versus cash flows on a cash flow basis Sorry, net income We're looking at net income, the difference between net income basically on an accrual versus net income on a cash flow basis We're looking at those changes, how do we reconcile the two And that's one reason that the indirect method is often required even if we use the direct method We still have to do this reconciliation often times So the way we're going to do that then is we're going to start with net income And we're going to try to reverse out everything that's an accrual thing so that we can get to basically cash on a cash flow basis Net income on a cash flow basis, cash flows from operations The way we do that is we look at the change in all balance sheet accounts typically And so the change in current assets, the change in current liabilities for example And we know that the change has something to do with cash And the reason we know that is if you look at the journal entry for any type of current asset or current liabilities Typically it'll involve an income statement account, that's how we know it's going to be dealing with operations from operating activities So for example, a accounts receivable, the major journal entry is to debit accounts receivable and credit revenue And that deals with revenue, revenue is going to be an income statement account In other words, revenue is included in net income And if we have an increase in accounts receivable, we can see that we recorded something in net income for which we did not get cash And therefore an increase in the accounts receivable account would mean that we would have to decrease net income in order to get to a cash basis net income So anything that deals with the income statement then we can take a look at and try to use that same logic to reverse out anything that's an accrual type of activity to get to net income basically on a cash basis That'll be the approach we're using We can see some things that'll be directly on the income statement like if we think of depreciation expense That's going to be something that we know got on the income statement but has no cash involved, we debit depreciation expense and we credit accumulated depreciation No cash is involved there, and therefore we've got to take it out of net income So that's going to be something that will reverse out of net income Now again, we can see that on our worksheet, that should be equivalent to the change in accumulated depreciation Because that change is recorded as a debit to depreciation expense, a credit to accumulated depreciation However, there may be other things involved as well because we may have sold equipment or we may have sold or disposed of equipment So in any case, our goal there is to go to net income and go through and look at the changes typically in the balance sheet accounts With the help of using income statement to look at things like depreciation and some other resources that we have to along the way To reverse out anything that's on a cruel basis to get to a cash basis net income which would be cash flows from operating activities