Kategori: News in English

Cash usage has fallen off a cliff in Australia, but the federal government says it must have a future. So, it’s going to mandate one.

The Australian government will require businesses to accept cash for essentials such as groceries and fuel. Some (yet to be determined) small businesses will be exempt.

According to Treasury, losing cash as a means of payment would leave too many people behind:

Around 1.5 million Australians use cash to make more than 80% of their in‑person payments. Cash also provides an easily accessible back‑up to digital payments in times of natural disaster or digital outage.

In its announcement on Monday, Treasury pointed to what had already been achieved with similar schemes in other countries such as Spain and Norway, and a range of US states.

It’s an honourable cause. There are, however, some aspects of life in Australia that will present unique challenges for achieving it.

Read more:
Surcharges are added to most purchases, but what are the rules behind these extra fees?

Why does using cash cost so much?

Some merchants in Australia already refuse to accept cash as a means of payment. That means relying entirely on digital payment methods such as bank cards and mobile wallets.

It mightn’t be immediately obvious why some businesses don’t like cash. But for many, it’s the most costly payment method to accept. While cash transactions don’t come with a surcharge fee like bank cards, they do carry a wide range of other hidden costs.

Businesses typically need to keep a “float” of cash in their tills overnight, so that next day’s early customers can be given change if needed. This float needs to be regularly updated and rebalanced with appropriate currency so the correct change can always be given.

Maintaining a cash ‘float’ can be time consuming and tedious work.
simez78/Shutterstock

Businesses also have to make sure no cash goes missing during their opening hours, count their cash take at the end of each day, make sure it is secure on their premises, and make periodic physical deposits into their bank account.

Both maintaining a float and making deposits can involve unpredictable trips to a bank branch or post office throughout the week.

Things are getting harder

For individuals and businesses, getting cash into and out of a bank account is becoming more of a challenge. And if you’re in regional or remote Australia, the nearest location where you can do so may be an hours-long drive away.

The most recent figures from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) show that across Australia since 2017, the number of ATMs has fallen by about 60% and the number of bank branches by 41%.

ATMs are becoming scarcer, particularly in regional and rural areas.
Dan Peled/AAP

Many remaining bank branches have reduced their hours, and some have even stopped dealing in cash entirely, especially in rural and regional areas.

Moving cash around the country isn’t getting any easier or cheaper.

The dominant provider of cash-in-transit services, Armaguard, has been under sustained financial pressure in recent years.

Earlier this year, it secured a deal with Australia’s big four banks and some of its other major customers to receive a $50 million bailout.

Read more:
Future of cash secured for now as banks and retailers bail out Armaguard

Some countries facing similar situations – including the UK – have persuaded their banks to fund the idea of “banking hubs”.

Typically under this model, a location is identified in a regional community and banks collectively share the space, with each bank having one day a week in residence so that nobody is excluded from these services.

Could a regional branch levy help?

Also this month, Treasury proposed a new regional services levy, to support what should be the minimum level of banking services in regional areas.

Banks with a relatively large regional presence would be cross subsidised by a proportional levy on banks with relatively fewer services in these areas or none at all.

This funding would help banks sustain the number of branches, their opening hours and their ATMs. Under the proposal, banks that fell short of baseline requirements could purchase credits from others that did.

The reasoning behind these measures is that like Australia Post, banks should have a formal community service obligation. That is, a baseline of minimum services that must be provided.

The proposed levy would reward banks for maintaining a regional presence.
Joel Carrett/AAP

Questions still to answer

In its media release, Treasury only gave a big picture view of what they wanted to achieve. There are still many questions that need to be resolved before any of its plans can become legislation.

Some concern where and how to target support. If regionally focused, how should regional be defined? Which areas and towns prioritised?

How should the banks and other financial services providers be required to help support cash use?

Exactly which businesses will be affected – and which exempt – must also be clearly defined, along with any enforcement measures.

And there is likely to be robust debate over what exactly constitutes the “essentials” for which merchants will be mandated to accept cash payment. Läs mer…

For decades it seemed Alan Jones was unassailable.

A finding against him of professional misconduct by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (2000); a finding that he incited hatred, serious contempt and severe ridicule of Lebanese Muslims (2009); propositions of violence against two women prime ministers (2011 and 2019); verdicts against him and his employer amounting to millions of dollars in defamation actions (most notably one for $3.75 million in 2018): none of these ended his career.

Quite the reverse. Only weeks after the Australian Broadcasting Authority found in its “cash for comments” inquiry that Jones and others had misled their listeners by presenting paid endorsements as editorial opinion, he was hosting an event for then prime minister John Howard.

Howard was to become a fixture on the Jones program throughout the 11 years of his prime ministership.

The day after the Australian Communications and Media Authority found Jones was likely to have encouraged violence and vilification of Australians of Lebanese and Middle Eastern background, Howard described him as “an outstanding broadcaster”. “I don’t think he’s a person who encourages prejudice in the Australian community, not for one moment, but he is a person who articulates what a lot of people think.”

By 2001, Jones had become a kind of on-air policy-maker for the New South Wales government. In November that year, he dined with the then Labor premier, Bob Carr. They discussed a range of government policies, particularly policing. At that time, Jones was a relentless critic of the NSW police.

The following week, Carr dispatched his police minister-designate, Michael Costa, to Jones’s home to discuss policing policy.

In 2011 he said Julia Gillard, then Australia’s prime minister, should be taken out to sea and dumped in a chaff bag. In August 2019 he said Scott Morrison, who was then Australia’s prime minister, should “shove a sock” down the throat of his New Zealand counterpart Jacinda Ardern.

He was an outspoken climate-change denier, and these grotesqueries were part of his campaign against political recognition of this reality.

Jones’s power, which made him so apparently untouchable, came from his weaponising of the microphone for conservative political ends in ways that resonated with his vast and rusted-on audience of largely working-class older people across Sydney’s sprawling western suburbs.

These suburbs contain many marginal state and federal electorates where the fates of governments can be decided. Their populations provide fertile ground for seeding by right-wing radio shock jocks, of whom Jones and his rival John Laws were pre-eminent examples.

In Australia, this is a peculiarly Sydney phenomenon. It is not seen to the same degree in any other capital city, even though they too have large areas of socioeconomic disadvantage like western Sydney.

Why that should be so is a complex question, but there are aspects of Sydney life that mark it out as different. It is really two cities. One is the largely prosperous and scenically dazzling east and north. The other, much larger, consists of dreary tracts of increasingly crowded housing stretching for many kilometres to the west and southwest.

In Sydney argot, the inhabitants of these respective worlds are called “silvertails” and “fibros”, the latter referring to the cladding of the homes that proliferated in western Sydney between and after the two world wars.

This two-cities effect makes the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” highly visible in a way that has no parallel in other Australian capitals. It engenders deep-seated grievance and cynicism, which the likes of Jones, who lives in a multimillion-dollar apartment on Circular Quay, have relentlessly exploited.

Jones coined the term “Struggle Street” to encapsulate the hardships of his listeners’ lives.

To these powerless people, Jones and Laws gave a voice, and as their audiences grew, prime ministers and premiers courted and feared them.

In the end, Jones’s impregnability was breached by not the power elite turning on one of their own, but by the journalism of a redoubtably tenacious Sydney Morning Herald investigative reporter, Kate McClymont.

In December 2023, she claimed Jones had used his position of power, first as a teacher and later as the country’s top-rating radio broadcaster, to allegedly prey on a number of young men.

In response to McClymont’s work, the NSW police set up Strike Force Bonnefin, run by the State Crime Command’s Child Abuse Squad, to conduct an investigation into Jones.

On November 18 2024, Jones was arrested at his Circular Quay home and charged initially with 24 sexual offences against eight males. The following day, two additional charges were laid involving a ninth male.

Through his lawyers, Jones has denied the charges and was bailed to appear in Sydney’s Downing Centre Local Court on December 18. He was ordered to surrender his passport and not to contact or harass the alleged victims.

The charges relate to offences alleged to have been committed by Jones between 2001 and 2019, the youngest alleged victim being 17 at the time.

Those dates coincide almost exactly with Jones’s most influential years, from 2002 to 2020.

McClymont has spoken about the reluctance of some of her interviewees to speak, for fear of what Jones might do:

People were too afraid to take on Alan Jones. Once a couple of people came forward, and some people were happy to be publicly named, that gave confidence for other people to come forward. Läs mer…

I have been an editor and author of children’s and young adult books for over 20 years. I’ve taught writing for children and young adult fiction to hardworking and serious emerging writers since 2010.

So yes, it yanks my chain when I read that Keira Knightley has written and illustrated a “modern classic”: a children’s picture book called I Love You Just the Same, scheduled for publication next year. And of course, that Jamie Oliver pulled his children’s book last week, apologising (along with his publisher, Penguin Random House UK), for falling short when it comes to Indigenous representation. They join the likes of Madonna, Meghan Markle, Jimmy Barnes, Keith Richards and more.

Children’s authors and illustrators occupy a highly specialised niche of publishing. Picture book writer Mem Fox, who has written 49 picture books for children, took three years to write her most recent book, Meerkat Mayhem, illustrated by Judy Horacek.

Picture books are written to be read aloud, and every word needs to be carefully chosen for meaning, rhythm, readability and musicality.

My middle-grade novel, The Endsister, was written for the same age group as Jamie Oliver’s book. It tells the story of a family who inherit a house and move to London. It took several drafts to find the right balance between the child protagonists and the adult characters.

In children’s literature, kids need to make mistakes and solve their own problems. Moving to London is adult business, but how the young characters in my book respond and what they do next is the beating heart of the story.

Being a children’s writer, and learning how to make these kinds of storytelling decisions (in a way that should feel easy to readers), is a careful craft.

Tired tropes and nothing new

The problem with most celebrity children’s books is not that they are bad, but that they are derivative. They don’t contribute anything new. They reproduce old ideas about what stories for children should be like, usually reflecting tired tropes from the books they read when they were kids.

Celebrity writers who are signed for their name-brand sales appeal aren’t gently pushing aesthetic boundaries, like the picture books of Margaret Wild, Shaun Tan or Heidi McKinnon.

They don’t draw their readers into immersive visual worlds, like Lisa Kennedy, Bob Graham, Remy Lai, or Jeannie Baker. They don’t look into the hearts of ordinary contemporary kids with empathy and wisdom, like Nova Weetman or Rebecca Lim.

I have gone to countless high schools and primary schools to talk about writing. Many children didn’t know they had read one of my books until I showed them the covers. That’s because most kids don’t really care who wrote the book: what sticks is a character’s odd name, an image, or a general vibe. (Just look at reddit’s r/whatsthatbook thread.)

Why, then, do publishers love a celebrity children’s author? The entire publishing industry is based on hunches – calculated ones, but still essentially hunches. At least a celebrity name is a measurable data point –  if not for the children, then for the algorithm, and the parents and grandparents buying the books.

Who actually writes celebrity children’s books?

According to Jamie Oliver, his middle-grade adventure series began as bedtime stories he told to his kids. In order to keep track of the narrative, he recorded himself. One imagines (but can’t know) that these recordings have been transcribed and edited or rewritten.

Very rarely, a coauthor will be listed. Bill Shapiro, a journalist and former editor of LIFE magazine, helped author Keith Richards’ biographical picture book, Gus and Me, though weirdly, Bill Shapiro is not a children’s author either.

If celebrity children’s books are being marketed on their names, then shouldn’t publishers be more transparent about who is writing and editing these books? This seems especially important in light of generative AI, where trust can be easily eroded.

Australian comedians and children’s publishing

It’s worth pointing out that most celebrity children’s authors in Australia are comedians. They have been writing for their whole careers. They know how to engage an audience or create a compelling character.

A picture book, as my colleague Denise Chapman, a poet and children’s literature expert, said to me last week, is both page and stage. Children’s books are often also a performance, an event, a reading experience.

Tristan Bancks.
Penguin Random House Australia

There can be a blurry line between celebrity author and multi-talented artist. Tristan Bancks, for example, is a collegial and hardworking author who some of us might remember as Tug from Home and Away. He makes energetic book trailers, while also channelling Tug’s brooding energy into books like the award-winning Scar Town.

Pig the Pug and The Bad Guys author Aaron Blabey was an actor too – he was the titular character in one of my favourite television shows ever, The Damnation of Harvey McHugh.

Who pays?

When you publish a book in Australia, you fill out an author questionnaire for your publisher. It asks for a list of your contacts and networks. Who will write an endorsement? Who will feature your book in the media? Many debut authors feel they’ve failed before they’ve even begun, as they leave these sections blank.

The marketing budget of a book is a percentage of the expected revenue. Higher advances are based on projected sales. While celebrities might bring higher sales because of their cultural capital, publishers still redirect resources to support these celebrities and promote their books.

The average advance in children’s books is A$4,300, with many picture book authors receiving a lot less.

If your picture book advance is $1,000, publicity and marketing might be limited to listing your book in the publisher’s catalogue and sending out a few review copies. The authors who need the most support when it comes to marketing are probably going to get the least.

Every celebrity children’s book under the Christmas tree is a missed opportunity to connect readers with writers. And I think this doesn’t just sell children’s writers and illustrators short. It undervalues children as readers as well. Läs mer…

Imagine being questioned about complex technical knowledge in front of your peers, supervisors, and members of the public – knowing that a wrong answer could lead to public ridicule.

This is the reality for many medical students, with up to 90% of medical students experiencing public humiliation during their training.

Our research looked at teaching by humiliation. This is when medical trainees are intentionally shamed or humiliated in front of peers, other health-care staff, and sometimes even patients.

This can create doctors who are anxious, less confident and may be more likely to make errors. Despite that, we found teaching by humiliation remains common in medical training.

What we did and what we found

First, we (Wendy Li and Carolyn Heward) conducted a systematic review looking at what the research says on public humiliation in different settings such as schools, the police force, social media, medical training and so on.

We analysed 33 studies involving more than 40,000 people. We found that, on average, 34.9% of people experience public humiliation. However, we found teaching by public humiliation was astonishingly common in medical education settings.

These concerning findings led to a focused follow-up study, published recently in the journal Medical Science Educator and led by one of us (Luisa Wigg). This study looked specifically at teaching by humiliation in medical education.

This follow-up research analysed 28 published studies involving nearly 35,000 medical trainees across multiple countries.

The results showed that, on average, 57% of medical students and junior doctors reported that they experienced teaching by humiliation, although there were large differences between various medical schools and health-care settings.

Astonishingly, one US study revealed that 90.8% of graduating medical students experienced teaching by humiliation at some point during their training.

Surveys from the Association of American Medical Colleges have also shown public humiliation is consistently reported as the most common form of mistreatment experienced by medical students.

What teaching by humiliation looks like

Teaching by humiliation typically happens when an educator embarrasses a trainee in public teaching spaces such as hospital wards, operating rooms, or medical conferences.

Some common examples are:

when students are aggressively questioned about medical knowledge
when wrong answers are mocked
when people make derogatory comments about a student’s capabilities in front of others.

These incidents most commonly occur in operating theatres and during hospital rounds (when doctors visit patients, often in the mornings).

Senior doctors are often the ones who teach by humiliation. However, the research showed a concerning pattern where nurses, fellow students and even junior doctors also do it.

This suggests people who experience humiliation might later perpetrate it themselves, because they view it as a normal part of medical culture.

Teaching by humiliation may drive some trainee doctors to leave the workforce altogether.
Halfpoint/Shutterstock

How does this affect patient care?

For patients, the implications of this practice are concerning.

Most people want any doctor treating them to be knowledgeable but also confident and emotionally stable.

The research has shown doctors who have experienced teaching by humiliation often develop mental health problems. One study showed they were almost eight times more likely to report burnout and almost four times more likely to report symptoms of anxiety and depression.

Many doctors become reluctant to ask questions or seek help when they are uncertain about something.

This is exactly the opposite of what most patients want in a medical professional making crucial decisions about their care.

The research also showed medical trainees who experience humiliation often become isolated from their peers and disengaged from learning.

Some end up leaving medicine altogether, which contributes to shortages in the health-care workforce.

Those who remain in medicine might perpetuate the cycle, because they have internalised the belief humiliation is a normal part of medical education.

Teaching by humiliation can affect patient care; nobody wants a doctor reluctant to seek help when unsure.
namtipStudio/Shutterstock

A deeply hierarchical culture

The medical profession has a deeply hierarchical structure. Senior doctors hold significant power over the education and future careers of their trainees. This hierarchical culture may contribute to the problem of teaching by humiliation.

Many educators simply want to maintain high standards through rigorous questioning. The research shows, however, that this can all-too-easily cross the line into harmful humiliation.

Some argue teaching by humiliation prepares doctors for high-pressure situations or helps maintain professional standards.

The evidence, however, shows it achieves the opposite effect. It creates doctors who are anxious and less confident, who might be more likely to make errors and less likely to work effectively with their colleagues.

For change to occur, medical schools and hospitals need to acknowledge this problem exists and implement clear policies to prevent teaching by humiliation.

This doesn’t mean lowering standards. Instead, it means finding better ways to maintain excellence while supporting the wellbeing of trainees.

Alternative teaching methods – such as structured feedback sessions, simulation-based training, and constructive mentorship programs – can help maintain high standards.

The way doctors are trained affects how they will treat their patients.

With the health-care system under pressure and workforce shortages common, we cannot afford to damage medical staff through outdated and harmful teaching practices.

Patients have the right to be treated by health-care professionals who have received their training in supportive, psychologically safe environments. Läs mer…

From revolutionary Geelong ruckman Graham “Polly” Farmer, to the electrifying Krakouer brothers (Phil and Jim) at North Melbourne, through to modern stars such as Charlie Cameron, Adam Goodes, Lance Franklin and Eddie Betts, Indigenous athletes have long shone brightly on Australian Football League (AFL) fields.

However, there has recently been a worrying drop in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander players and draft picks.

It’s an issue the AFL is concerned about, with a steady decline of Indigenous players over the past four years in the men’s and women’s leagues.

In 2024, 70 men and 21 women players identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander.

This is a decrease of 17% since a high of 109 in 2020. The number of draftees also declined to just four in last year’s men’s draft.

The AFL has actively called for new ideas to improve Indigenous engagement given this decline.

Ahead of this week’s AFL draft, it is not just the number of draftees in isolation that’s worrying, rather the environments into which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander players enter the AFL system.

A distinct lack of consistency, support and genuine cultural understanding remains part of an ecosystem that doesn’t fully understand the value of including cultural knowledges in sport.

The AFL admits it is concerned by the decline of Indigenous player numbers in the league.

Culture is crucial

Culture is a vital, inherent aspect of life for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

It takes many forms, from learning language and performing activities, to understanding familial connections and learning about histories.

It is an individual right that is vitally important on a personal level.

Understanding this connection and the role of culture in daily life is a crucial step in reconciliation in Australia. It has also proven to be a critical element of recruiting, retaining and developing Indigenous players.

Club sources have identified this as a key to success but often, clubs don’t or can’t find ways to support Indigenous players.

One club source told us, anonymously:

There’s a gap between our expectations of young Indigenous players and the realities of their lives.

Funding queries

The AFL developed the Next Generation Academy program in 2017 for young Indigenous and multicultural people aged 11–18 to encourage participation and provide access to expert coaching and elite pathways into AFL.

These academies are zone-based, and while they provide an opportunity for clubs to engage and connect with local communities, they are not without criticism.

Some critics believe a lack of adequate resources results in ad-hoc and sporadic engagement. This, in turn, limits effective engagement with Indigenous families and communities.

The impact of COVID resulted in cuts to resources across the AFL landscape and development programs felt these immensely, particularly the Indigenous pathways.

Club sources also told us the success of Indigenous-specific talent pipelines – such as the Flying Boomerangs and Woomeras, which historically have developed many current AFL players – are at risk in the current climate.

Recruiting isn’t one-size-fits-all

Pathway programs into the AFL have a strong focus on getting athletes “AFL ready”. This means getting 15- to 18-year-olds performing in ways that satisfy recruiters.

The nuanced challenges of life, particularly for young Indigenous people, do not always align with performing in such ways and to such expectations.

Development occurs at varying levels and times, but potential draftees are expected to reach standardised markers to prove their talent and abilities.

This narrow view of talent development, combined with the rigid mainstream talent pathways, have a way to go to be culturally safe and accessible.

Some potential solutions

So, what might be done to help reverse the decline of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander players?

The AFL should consider new and innovative ways to work with state and regional associations that actively engage remote communities with football activity.

It may also be beneficial to engage talent scouts from a range of backgrounds and to rethink the talent pathways.

Proud Wiradjuri man, Professor John Evans, the pro vice-chancellor of Indigenous engagement for Swinburne University of Technology, rightly points out concerns about “colonialised” club cultures and the resulting systemic racism. Recent alleged cases include Hawthorn and Collingwood.

While efforts are being made to address aspects of systemic racism, issues continue to arise. This indicates more needs to be done.

Also, recent research demonstrates the need for greater authenticity in leadership pathways for Indigenous players. There are currently only three coaches working across the AFL men’s competition and two development coaches in the women’s competition who are Indigenous.

There are no Indigenous head coaches or CEOs. As of 2023, only eight clubs have Indigenous representation on the board.

Clubs that demonstrate ongoing commitment and connections with community tend to also have higher retention of Indigenous players and staff.

It isn’t enough to simply draft an Indigenous player and hope they thrive on the field.

Increased cultural education at all levels can help shift current thinking.

Placing culture at the forefront of club activity can help provide appropriate, engaged and informed support to young Indigenous players who exemplify everything we love about football, and provide club-wide benefits both on and off the field. Läs mer…

Childhood obesity is a growing concern worldwide. But in New Zealand it’s a particularly pressing issue.

With one of the highest rates in the OECD, about one in three New Zealand children are overweight or obese. Obesity in children can lead to severe health issues that persist into adulthood.

While many factors contribute to childhood obesity – such as diet, physical activity and genetics – one often-overlooked factor is screen time.

Children are constantly surrounded by devices such as TVs, tablets and smartphones, and screen time has become a normal part of daily life.

The World Health Organization and the American Academy of Paediatrics both suggest preschool-aged children should have no more than one hour of screen time daily.

But many young children in New Zealand and overseas are spending significantly more time on screens, with many regularly surpassing these guidelines.

Our new study explored how simple family screen time rules could reduce childhood obesity risk. Our work revealed ways parents and policymakers can tackle this growing challenge.

Screens and the risk of obesity

Excessive screen time has been linked to various health issues in children, ranging from mental and emotional problems to physical health concerns like obesity.

Spending too much time with screens often means more sitting and less physical activity, both of which can lead to excess weight gain.

Additionally, screen time is associated with snacking, as children often eat while watching shows or playing games. These snacks are typically high in sugar and fat, contributing to weight gain over time.

Advertisements for high-calorie foods are also common in children’s media, increasing cravings for unhealthy snacks.

Moreover, screens emit blue light, which can disrupt sleep cycles if used close to bedtime. Poor sleep has been shown to increase hunger and cravings for high-calorie foods, making children more susceptible to weight gain.

The World Health Organisation recommends no more than one hour of screen time for toddlers but many New Zealand children are spending much longer with devices than that.
Marc Romanelli/Getty Images

Noticeable benefits from limits

Our research used data from the Growing Up in New Zealand study, which followed over 5,700 children and their families. We examined how family screen time rules established at the age of two influenced obesity risk by the time the children were four-and-a-half.

The results were eye-opening. We found families who set and implemented clear rules about screen use saw noticeable benefits.

These rules indirectly helped reduce obesity risk by supporting better sleep habits and limiting excessive screen use – two factors strongly linked to healthier weight.

While the study didn’t find a direct link between screen time rules and a reduced obesity rate, it did show how these rules can prevent behaviours associated with weight gain.

For example, children in families with screen time rules slept longer and spent less time on screens, both of which are critical for maintaining a healthy weight.

The most effective screen time strategies covered three main areas:

Quality: deciding what type of shows or apps children can use. Previous research recommend prioritising educational or calming media over fast-paced or violent shows, as intense content can overstimulate children, making it harder for them to relax and sleep well.

Quantity: setting a limit on how much time children spend on screens each day.

Timing: establishing rules on when screens are allowed. For instance, avoiding screen time right before bed can help prevent sleep disruption from blue light exposure.

The findings suggest setting all three types of screen rules can make a big difference in helping children form healthier habits. When families combine these rules, it doesn’t just reduce screen time; it also supports better sleep, which is vital for children’s overall health.

Over time, these small but consistent rules can have a lasting, positive impact on children’s physical and mental wellbeing, reducing the risk of developing unhealthy weight.

Other factors

It’s worth noting that screen time habits don’t exist in a vacuum. The study also highlighted how socioeconomic factors can affect screen time and, subsequently, childhood obesity.

Families in financially disadvantaged situations often have fewer resources to manage screen time effectively. These families might rely more on screens to entertain or occupy children due to limited access to alternative activities or safe outdoor spaces.

Additionally, food insecurity – a lack of access to affordable, nutritious food – can increase reliance on inexpensive, unhealthy food options, further contributing to childhood obesity.

When we accounted for factors such as poverty and food insecurity, the link between screen time and obesity became less direct. This suggests that tackling childhood obesity effectively requires addressing these underlying socioeconomic factors alongside screen time habits.

Guiding parents

For families, the key advice is to implement and maintain rules that address the quality, quantity and timing of screen use.

These rules encourage children to balance their screen time with other activities, like physical play and adequate sleep, which are essential for healthy growth and development and reduce obesity risk.

Policymakers can also play a role by supporting initiatives that assist families in lower-income brackets.

Policies which reduce poverty, make healthy food more affordable and accessible, and create safe and attractive neighbourhood spaces would all make it easier for parents to establish and follow screen time rules.

With rates of childhood obesity rising and long-term health consequences becoming more apparent, tackling this issue requires coordinated action from families, communities and policymakers alike.

This research was completed with Maryam Ghasemi, Deborah Schlichting, Maryam Pirouzi and Cameron Grant. Läs mer…

“Resistance is justified when people are occupied.”

If you’ve passed or joined any pro-Palestine protest over the last 400 days, you’ve likely heard this chant. It has been held up as an anti-Israel call for not just resistance, but violent resistance, particularly in light of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks.

While taking up arms again an oppressor is certainly one form of resistance, the term encompasses a great deal more.

As Donald Trump prepares to take office for a second time in the United States, some are also calling for resistance against him and his inner circle.

So, what exactly is resistance? And what are resistance advocates actually calling for?

Active vs. passive resistance

Resistance can be thought of as a movement that prevents one force from completely overwhelming another.

It doesn’t exist on its own, but rather in opposition to a larger force. Often these bigger forces — like capitalism, white supremacy, the patriarchy — shape the power structures that rule society. Despite these structures, marginalized people employ a variety of strategies and techniques to combat these structures, namely resistance strategies and resistance identities.

Resistance is inextricably linked to ideas of power and oppression. But not all resistance is the same or takes the same form.

Resistance can be categorized as either passive or active.

Abortion-rights supporters protest the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturning Roe v. Wade in Jackson, Miss.
(AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)

Active resistance involves direct action against a clearly articulated power, such as Israel or Trump. Mass protests are a key example of direct action, where people gather together to march and bring attention to a clearly identified injustice.

Statue of Jean Jacques Dessalines, the leader of the Haitian Revolution, in Port au Prince.
(WikiMedia), CC BY

Instances of insurrection are also a well-known form of active resistance. Examples are the Haitian Revolution, a successful insurrection by self-liberated slaves against French colonial rule from 1791 to 1804; Nat Turner’s Rebellion, when dozens of white Americans were killed by enslaved Black Americans in 1831; and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, an act of Jewish resistance in German-occupied Poland during the Second World War.

In all these cases, a group of people united by a cause came together to undertake actions they believed would undermine the institutions or people in power and uphold justice.

Passive resistance is less direct.

With passive resistance, there is a consciousness of power inequality, but the resistance is less directed toward tangible social change. For example, when Palestinians living in Canada choose to introduce themselves as Palestinian, rather than Arab Canadian — or by mentioning their Lebanese, Syrian or Jordanian heritage — they are directly challenging colonial narratives of erasure and enacting resistance simply by claiming their identity.

Passive resistance can also involve choosing to pursue education despite systemic barriers. While passive resistance efforts rarely make headlines, they often consist of the everyday acts of resistance that allow for hope and perseverance in the face of adversity.

Read more:
For Palestinian children living in Masafer Yatta, going to school is an act of resistance

Collective vs. heroic resistance

Resistance can be further categorized as collective/organized resistance or heroic resistance. These are differentiated by whether the resistance takes a group or individual form.

In 2019, when Gazans organized the Great March of Return, it was a direct and collective form of resistance that sought to challenge Israeli suppression of their movement and reclaim their ancestral homeland.

Examples of heroic resistance, or one person resisting on their own, are the historic and courageous acts of Rosa Parks, Ahed Tamimi and other figures who took it upon themselves to challenge their personal injustices.

Heroic resistance can also be passive.

Rappers like MC Abdul and Shadia Mansour use their lyrics and platform to actively but indirectly call out injustices against the Palestinian people. While they sometimes collaborate with other rappers, they are solo artists who don’t appear to be part of a larger group or collective working together to challenge injustice.

Resistance doesn’t need to be active or external for it to be powerful. Racialized people are often portrayed as a spectacle by popular media when publicly resisting racism. An example is the mass media coverage of high-pressure fire hoses used during the Civil Rights Movement against protesters in the United States in the 1960s.

These acts of resistance and the subsequent media coverage, though important and necessary, are often dehumanizing to those involved. Therefore, many young people may choose the path of “quiet resistance.”

Existing as resistance

Quiet resistance is a form of internal personal defiance rather than external actions.

It can take the form of mere existence. For Indigenous people in North America, choosing to have loving families and share cultural bonds with others is a quiet form of resistance in the face of colonialism.

For Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, quiet resistance is choosing to remain on their land and continuing to do everyday activities like drink coffee and tend to their gardens.

Palestinians displaced by the Israeli bombardment of Gaza buy vegetables at the makeshift tent camp in the Muwasi area in December 2023.
(AP Photo/Fatima Shbair)

Under the United Nations Resolution on the Rights of Peoples to Self-Determination/Struggle by All Available Means, armed resistance that does not target civilians is also an acceptable method of resistance.

We are seeing this form of violent resistance used throughout Ukraine.

Yet armed struggle is only one small aspect of resistance. Many of us resist every day, whether through sneaking a few extra minutes on our lunch break when working for a demanding employer or proudly claiming a marginalized identity. These acts of resistance are often justified and an important means of challenging the status quo in the quest for a more equitable world. Läs mer…

Former President Donald Trump is the president-elect. He is also a convicted felon, thanks to a jury verdict after a trial in New York state court for a hush money conspiracy before he became president the first time.

Normally, a president-elect gets access to highly classified information, including a version of the President’s Daily Brief on intelligence. And the sitting president has more access and authority over the nation’s secrets than anyone else.

A criminal conviction, however, is a long-standing disqualifier for holding a security clearance – a license to access national security secrets, including documents marked Top Secret. Just being charged criminally can mean denial or loss of clearance too.

Trump also was criminally charged in Georgia state court and the Washington, D.C., federal court in relation to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and he was criminally charged in federal court in Florida for obstruction of justice and wrongful retention of a trove of highly sensitive documents after his first term ended.

This dilemma is one that I, as a law professor who teaches and writes about secrecy and who earlier in my career handled classified information while working for the U.S. intelligence community and a U.S. Senate committee, would never have expected.

The good news is that the law has clear answers.

Access because of his elected position

Those answers start with this legal certainty: Presidents get access to classified information because of the office they hold, not because they meet criteria in executive orders and administrative rules. The president technically does not even have a clearance. Practically and legally speaking, the president also sits at the apex of the executive branch’s massive secrecy apparatus.

Therefore, because Trump was elected to a second term, he will again have expansive access to classified information and control over it as of noon on Jan. 20, 2025, when his term begins. He will also have control over secrets and clearances available to others. The American electorate made that decision.

Before Trump again takes office, his access to classified information is in the hands of the current and outgoing president, Joe Biden. Typically, a sitting president authorizes the major party nominees, including their opponent if the incumbent is running, to have access to classified briefings during the campaign. Although U.S. intelligence officials had planned to do the usual briefings this year despite Trump’s criminal record, Trump refused them. He said he worried that the briefers would leak them and blame him.

Now that the election has been decided, reports indicate that Trump will begin receiving intelligence briefings.

It is not yet completely clear, but Trump’s election does appear to be pushing aside his numerous criminal cases. In New York state court, the judge is considering whether to dismiss the case in which he has already been convicted. And the Georgia state case may face years of delay. Because of the Justice Department’s long-standing policy against prosecuting a sitting president, special prosecutor Jack Smith is moving to abandon both federal cases and resign in advance of Trump’s threat to fire him.

The US secrecy system

Most U.S. government employees and contractors do not have or need a security clearance. But those whose jobs involve handling sensitive information must apply for clearance. If their record suggests trustworthiness, they can receive permission to access one or more of the several levels of classified information, including Confidential, Secret and Top Secret.

Federal investigators carefully screen applicants for national security positions and security clearances. To assess a candidate’s trustworthiness, investigators interview the candidate, review their application and search databases. Some investigations involve a polygraph of the candidate and interviews of people they know. Once a clearance is granted, investigators continue to monitor clearance holders.

Key factors the investigators consider include loyalty to the United States, respect for rules and the rule of law, psychological stability, good judgment and good character in terms of trustworthiness and integrity. Substance abuse, marital infidelity or financial problems can suggest poor judgment and vulnerability to blackmail or other kinds of coercion.

The president’s broad power

The president oversees the country’s entire national security secrecy system. The president has the authority to read all classified documents, to classify and declassify almost any piece of information and to oversee the security clearance system. There is no other government official who decides whether the president should have access to the nation’s secrets.

The Supreme Court has held that authority over classification and clearances flows in part from the power the Constitution gives the president. In a dangerous international security environment, the president needs to be able to know secret information about foreign threats, communicate confidentially with foreign colleagues and subordinates, and act with what Alexander Hamilton called in the Federalist Papers “secrecy, and dispatch.”

Like the president, members of Congress get access to classified information by virtue of election, not by going through the regular security clearance process.

Stacks of boxes containing government documents sit in the ballroom of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.
U.S. Department of Justice via Getty Images

Normally, Trump wouldn’t get clearance

The dilemma is obvious: Trump will lead a national security enterprise that surely would have denied him a security clearance if he had to follow the rules that apply to his former and future subordinates.

If someone has a criminal indictment or conviction, or a civil judgment involving fraud, they generally cannot get clearance. Such a court record suggests disrespect for the law, dishonesty and problems following rules, which are integral to protecting classified information.

No reasonable background investigator would ignore the staggering evidence against Trump if he were to apply in the normal way.

Under the commonly used SMICE rubric, for example, Trump is all red flags. SMICE stands for categories of temptations to put personal interests over one’s obligations to the nation and to protect classified information: sex, money, ideology, crime and contraband, and ego.

First, sex: There is extensive evidence that Trump committed sexual misconduct. Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts resulted from prosecutors at trial convincing the jury of what Trump continues to deny: his participation in a conspiracy to falsify business records to facilitate hush money payments to a porn star with whom Trump had sex in 2008 while he was married and his wife was pregnant.

Even marital infidelity on its own can endanger a clearance, because it suggests disloyalty and deception. It creates a dirty secret, creating a risk of blackmail. The public record contains considerable evidence of Trump’s misconduct and infidelity. In recent civil cases, the writer E. Jean Carroll won judgments against Trump for sexually assaulting her in the 1980s and making knowing harmful false statements about it. There are other credible allegations, as well. In 2005, Trump bragged on tape about his sexual assaults, saying that he will “just start kissing” women without consent, and that “when you are famous they let you do anything.”

Second, one of the most common reasons for clearance denial or suspension is credit card debt or other financial problems. They create a motive for taking bribes or doing business deals in exchange for leaking secrets or other disloyalty.

Trump’s businesses have recorded six bankruptcies. A US$450 million fraud judgment from February 2024 has put Trump’s finances in jeopardy. There is credible evidence that his business finances have been linked with foreign governments, particularly Russia.

Third, there is abundant evidence that Trump is a political extremist. Trump told a violent militia before the 2020 election to “stand back and stand by.” The U.S. House Jan. 6 committee found in 2022 that Trump was part of a “multi-part conspiracy” to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election, an effort that included the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol spearheaded by that same militia, the Proud Boys. Even Trump’s own White House chief of staff, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and secretary of defense have warned that Trump fits the definition of a fascist, meaning he is a violent authoritarian and a threat to democracy.

On contraband, the Justice Department presented overwhelming evidence that Trump knowingly retained thousands of pages of classified documents after the end of his term in office – at which point his authority to have them expired – and opposed lawful government efforts to retrieve them. That case was later dismissed for other reasons.

A White House staffer holds a folder with secret documents for President Barack Obama at the White House in 2009.
Brooks Kraft LLC/Corbis via Getty Images

Finally, ego: The public record is awash with testimonials from people who have worked closely with Trump that he is a narcissist. Although that kind of mental health assessment can be problematic for nonprofessionals to make without a formal assessment, the common claim here is that Trump has a grandiose sense of self-importance. Critics, including former colleagues, say he expects special treatment, avoids accountability and is so self-absorbed that he cannot act responsibly or with appropriate empathy.

For all of these reasons, there is no question: If he were treated like anyone else, Trump would never get clearance.

But the voters have decided to restore Trump to the White House and in the process again invest him with the central role in the government’s massive secrecy apparatus. That was their choice. It was an unusually informed one, too, thanks to the various court cases and other evidence in the public record. Appropriately, the Biden administration has respected the electorate’s judgment by moving to provide classified briefings during this presidential transition period.

This is a revised and updated version of an article originally published July 9, 2024. Läs mer…

In recent months, Brazilians have closely followed the US presidential campaign. Since 2016, whatever happens in American politics seems likely to unfold in Brazil. In many ways, the American political chasm reflects Brazil’s own political polarisation.

Trump’s latest win provoked immediate reactions in Brazilian politics. Former President Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters are ecstatic because they believe that the political tide will once again turn in their favour – with a little help from the White House.

The Brazilian left, for its part, is doing an examination of conscience. After suffering a major blow in the municipal elections of October 2024, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) and his allies can no longer count on the US to promote their agendas at home and abroad.

The new US government will present Brazil with several challenges. It’s not just a question of recognising the vitality of the global conservative wave. We now need to understand how the concrete decisions made by Trump will affect Brazilian politics – and how to respond to them.

Will Trumpism save Bolsonarism?

In October 2023, Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court barred Bolsonaro from running for public office for eight years due to accusations of abuse of political power in his bid for re-election. The court’s decision came as a shock to Bolsonarism, which was on the verge of losing momentum and electoral appeal.

Since then, pro-Bolsonaro congressmen began discussing with their pro-Trump colleagues how they could act together to reverse Bolsonaro’s ineligibility. Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of Jair, and other allies made official visits to Washington three times between November 2023 and May 2024.

The common narrative was that the Brazilian authorities were violating the fundamental rights of “conservative” activists and politicians. For the Republicans in the US, the framing of Lula’s Brazil as being on the verge of a dictatorship was useful to show what could happen to the US if the Democrats remained in office.

The cause of the far right gained even more momentum with the fight between Elon Musk and Brazil’s Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. Musk’s criticism of censorship in Brazil energised Bolsonaro’s supporters, who saw a path to future sanctions against Brazilian authorities should Trump return to the White House.

Now Bolsonaro and his followers are convinced that the Trump administration, with Musk as its centrepiece, will help them return to power in Brazil. Eduardo Bolsonaro was at Mar-a-Lago celebrating Trump’s victory. In recent days, the former president has been giving interviews and writing op-eds as if it’s only a matter of time before he takes the presidency once again.

Is Trump about to take on Brazil?

Even if the White House considers sanctioning Brazil to put pressure on the authorities to allow Bolsonaro to run, there are other ways to help Trump’s staunchest ally. Through foreign policy, the US could harm Brazil and weaken the Lula government.

President Lula, of course, doesn’t want to antagonise Trump. Although he declared his support for Kamala Harris “as a safer bet for democracy”, Lula was quick to congratulate the Republican candidate on his victory and said he looked forward to a good working relationship between Brazil and the US.

Lula knows that Brazil is not a priority for Trump, but he is also aware that Bolsonaro’s promise of unconditional loyalty to the US president can be quite seductive.

Trump’s foreign policy could threaten Brazil in at least two ways. The first concerns tariffs. Protectionist policies could jeopardise exports of Brazilian industrial products to the US. If these policies slow down the Chinese economy, Brazil’s agribusiness sector will also find itself in difficulty.

In addition, the fear of high inflation in the US will keep interest rates high in both countries, leading to less foreign direct investment in Brazil and increasing the challenges for Lula to keep the Brazilian economy stable.

The second immediate threat has to do with Trump’s relationship with Argentina. Javier Milei has never hidden his antipathy towards Lula and promises to abandon long-standing commitments to Brazil, such as the South American trade bloc, Mercosur. A preferential alliance between the White House and Argentina will jeopardise Brazil’s efforts to drive South American integration.

On Wednesday 13th, Trump nominated Marco Rubio to be the next Secretary of State. Rubio is a hardliner, who recently called Lula a “far-left leader” and criticised the government’s decision to suspend the social network X in Brazil.

End of democracy in Brazil?

Times are tough for Brazil and the world – and they could become even more problematic from January next year. However, we can look at the glass half full and think of less apocalyptic ways forward for the Brazilian government.

The first task is to reinforce the basic institutional rules of Brazilian democracy. The list of possible criminal charges against Bolsonaro is long and involves planning a coup d’état, the most visible result of which was also an insurrection that took place on 8 January 2023 – and almost entirely inspired by the 6 January 2021 riots on Capitol Hill.

Despite all the enthusiasm among Brazil’s far right, there are no guarantees that Bolsonaro will be able to run for office – and that he won’t be convicted of crimes.

There may be pressure from the White House, but its effects will encounter political and legal limits. A recent failed attack on the Supreme Court building by a Bolsonaro supporter will almost certainly make any discussions on amnesty of the January 8 rioters (which could include a pardon to Bolsonaro) even murkier.

In addition, Brazil can capitalise on Trump’s isolationism by strengthening its leadership role on issues such as climate change, global governance reform and human rights. The current G20 presidency has allowed Brazil to find meaningful interlocutors and continue to push these agendas forward.

The tides may be turning, and the challenges are certainly increasing, but it is fundamentally up to the political actors to shape their own future. Are the Lula government and other defenders of democracy in Brazil up to the task? Läs mer…

United States President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to implement an across-the-board tariff of at least 10 per cent on all imports into the country.

While there could be some exemptions for American imports of oil, gas and other natural resources, it’s not yet clear whether Canada will be protected by the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

In fact, when the deal comes up for a mandatory review in 2026, Trump has said: “I’m going to have a lot of fun.”

Read more:
Facing trade renegotiations, Canada can no longer count on free trade to protect it from U.S. power

Given that more than 77 per cent of Canada’s exports go to the United States, Canadians have understandably viewed Trump’s declarations with alarm.

And against the likely torrent of American protectionism, Canada has few good options. Responding in kind, for example, will likely lead to a rise in inflation.

Kicking out Mexico?

One idea, recently floated by Ontario Premier Doug Ford, is to abandon CUSMA’s trilateral framework and seek a bilateral Canada-U.S. trade deal. As Ford put it: “We must prioritize the closest economic partnership on Earth by directly negotiating a bilateral U.S.-Canada free trade agreement.”

The premier’s specific complaint is that the Mexican government has failed to prevent the trans-shipment of Chinese goods — especially auto parts and vehicles — through its country in order subvert tariffs imposed by the American and Canadian governments against China.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford at the Ontario legislature in October 2024.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young

If Mexico won’t act to prevent trans-shipments or impose its own tariffs on Chinese goods, Ford explained, “they shouldn’t have a seat at the table or enjoy access to the largest economy in the world.”

Ford’s comments drew immediate criticism from Mexican trade officials, but Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s deputy prime minister and finance minister, was more sympathetic. Concerns about Mexican handling of Chinese goods “are legitimate concerns for our American partners and neighbours to have. Those are concerns that I share,” she said.

This is not the first time Canadians have expressed wariness about including Mexico in common North American arrangements.

Canada’s position on Mexico

In 1956, when U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed a trilateral summit with Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent and Mexican President Adolfo Ruiz Cortines, Canadian diplomats expressed their opposition to anything that “would appear to equate the relations between the United States and Canada and the United States and Mexico.”

For Ottawa, it was essential to preserve the notion of a special relationship between Canada and the U.S.

Even though the three leaders eventually met in Warm Springs, Ga., the “summit” ultimately consisted of separate U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico bilateral meetings.

Four decades later, Canada pressed to be included in what became the North American Free Trade Agreeement — known as NAFTA — not because of any fellowship with Mexico, but to ensure that its newly won market access to the United States (thanks to the 1988 Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada) was not undercut by a bilateral Mexico-U.S. deal.

Common front?

As we document in our new book, Canada First, Not Canada Alone, even if Canada’s suspicions of Mexico about trade matters aren’t out of the ordinary, they must be considered against the notion that in dealing with the U.S., there can be strength in numbers.

The author’s book on Canadian foreign policy.
(Public Domain)

Throughout the early phase of the CUSMA negotiations during the first Trump presidency, Freeland herself was adamant that Canada not abandon Mexico in favour of a bilateral deal.

Rather, she pointedly emphasized the need to work alongside Mexico to present a common front against the Trump administration’s efforts divide its two North American trading partners.

When faced with an overwhelming aggressor, she argued, it’s best not to stand alone.

U.S. made side deal

This position was backed by other ministers as well as by Ottawa’s trade negotiators even as prominent Canadians — including former prime minister Stephen Harper — called for ditching the Mexicans.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with Donald Trump, not shown, in London in December 2019.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

At first, the Canadian approach appeared to succeed. Freeland herself earned a fearsome reputation among American officials, with Trump attacking her as a “nasty woman.”

Later, however, Canadian negotiators thought they saw an opening and offered the Americans a bilateral deal without notifying their Mexican colleagues.

Not only did Washington reject the offer, American officials approached Mexico City and concluded a separate side deal of their own. This time, it was Canada left unaware.

Warning signs

The threat of being cut out of a trade agreement was more imagined than real — the Trump administration could not replace NAFTA with a bilateral arrangement without congressional approval — but Canada still had to move quickly to restore a trilateral solution.

CUSMA subsequently came into effect on July 1, 2020.

The CUSMA negotiations should offer Ford and the entire Canadian negotiating team a warning.

If Canada is prepared to leave Mexico behind, Canadian officials should be prepared for their Mexican counterparts to do the same. And while it seems right now that the U.S. has problems with Mexico and its management of America’s porous southern border than it does with Ottawa, under the mercurial Trump, the situation can can change in an instant.

It’s therefore probably not in Canada’s interest to throw Mexico under the bus. Läs mer…