Focused on providing independent journalism.

Sunday, 25 January 2015

SOTT FOCUS: As Islamophobia Rises, Moral Values Decrease


© Carlos Latuff

"Islam is a religion that promotes death and violence!"

Sez who?



For years now in the US, and in European countries such as the UK, Germany, The Netherlands, and France, Muslims have experienced difficulty when it comes to finding a job, due to the ever-increasing islamophobia. And that's not all, a 2006 report by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, entitled "Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia", concludes:


  • Regardless of their ethnic background and/or approach to religion, many European Muslims are facing discrimination in employment, education and housing.

  • Discrimination against Muslims can be attributed to Islamophobic attitudes as well as toracist and xenophobic resentment, as these elements are often intertwined. Hostility against Muslims must therefore be seen in the more general context of xenophobia andracism towards migrants and minorities.

  • It is evident that Muslims are experiencing Islamophobic acts, ranging from verbal threats through to physical attacks, even though data on religiously aggravated incidents is collected on a limited scale.

  • The available data on victims of discrimination show that European Muslims are often disproportionately represented in areas with poorer housing conditions, while their educational achievement falls below average and their unemployment rates are higher than average. Muslims are often employed in jobs that require lower qualifications. As a group they are over-represented in low-paying sectors of the economy.

  • Many European Muslims, particularly young people, face barriers to their social advancement. This could give rise to a feeling of hopelessness and social exclusion.

  • Racism, discrimination and social marginalisation are serious threats to integration and community cohesion.



Now that anti-Islamic sentiments have risen by 110% in France, and 'anti-islamization' demos have been held in several countries, chances are high that the disadvantageous position Muslims already were in prior to the Paris attack, will only get worse. Needless to say, this is far from fair, considering that the Muslim majority had nothing to do with the recent attack in Paris, just as they didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. Yet they've become the very target of hatred, and it affects their daily lives quite significantly.

Take a moment to watch the following 5 minute interview with Jahangir Mohammad, Director at the Center For Muslims' Affairs, in order to get a glimpse of the situation British Muslims are in:



According to recent research, Muslim men are 76 percent less likely to have a job of any kind compared to white Christians of the same age and with the same qualifications. And Muslim women are 65 percent less likely to be employed than white Christian counterparts. The survey has found that religion is now causing more prejudice than skin color. The only religious group with better work prospects than white British Christians are British Jews. Experts say the situation seemingly stems from growing Islamophobia and hostility towards Muslims in the UK.


[embedded content]



Note what Mohammad said near the end: "The current terrorism bill which is going through Parliament is actually proposing to turn the present policy into law and the effects of that is, that the definition of extremism will make it a crime to support certain types of Islam, even to be politically active in some cases. It puts an obligation on all employers, whether at schools, colleges, universities... [It even puts an obligation on] your doctor, your G.P., to report people that they think are extremists. What's happening is that a whole culture is being created in which it is seen as normal to spy on Muslims for their political beliefs."

If this isn't extremely racist, then I don't know what is. Just how far are we from having Muslims "branded", and eventually sent into camps, in order to increase "monitoring efficiency"?



© Twitter

Liberal political commentator Sally Kohn saying what many won't.



Knowing that, so far, there have been about 28 attacks on Islamic places of worship in France, which included firebombs and pigs' heads being thrown into mosques, and knowing that 88 threats have already been made against French Muslims, and taking the recent increase in islamophobic incidents in British schools into consideration, one can't help but think: Just how different is a person who can't accept having Muslims walking on 'their' streets from a 'religious extremist' who in a similar way can't accept having Christians walking on 'their' streets?

Physical torture or discrimination - they're both forms of serious oppression. If people have started discarding their ability for compassion and understanding similarly to those who perform the most atrocious acts, then it's not looking good for Muslims around the world, much less for humanity at large.


In addition, in a report published in 2013, entitled "Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its impact in the United States.", The Council on American-Islamic Relations have identified 37 organizations with an alleged anti-Muslim agenda, which appeared to have a total budget of $120 million to spread hatred and fear of Islam. Perhaps this partly explains why nearly half of all Americans believe that Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers, while only 2% of Americans indicated that they are "very knowledgeable" about the religion. Their opinion appears to be formed for them, and not by themselves.



© Carlos Latuff

The three faces of Islamophobia.



While Muslims have become a target for discrimination, oppression, and racism in the "more developed countries", elsewhere Muslim citizens continue to suffer tremendously at the hands of psychopathic individuals who continue with their unstoppable spree murders, whether it's by, for example, crashing a wedding party, dropping one of those 'humanitarian' bombs, and killing 47 civilians in the process, or by interrupting a playful soccer game on a beach, with the help of a 'self-defence' bomb, and causing the death of four children aged between 9 and 11-years-old. Whether it's in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Palestine, or elsewhere, war crimes like these are committed daily.

[embedded content]





© RT

There never was a war on terror. On the contrary, these two U.S. invasions brought terror to those countries, destroying infrastructure, breaking families apart, and taking away people's bright futures, while looting the place.



Recently, a drone operator by the name of Brandon Bryant said:

'We didn't even really know who we were firing at' - former US drone operator


"There was no oversight. I just know that the inside of the entire program was diseased and people need to know what happens to those that were on the inside," he told RT's Anissa Naouai. "People need to know the lack of oversight, the lack of accountability that happen."


Bryant decried the "black hole putrid system that is either going to crush you or you're going to conform to it," and apologized to families of victims whose deaths he was responsible for. By his estimation, he helped kill some 1626 people. "I couldn't stand myself for doing it" he added.


"I'm sorry that the mistake happened. I'm doing everything that I can to prevent further mistakes from happening."



Like Brandon Bryant, other U.S. soldiers have stepped up in recent years to share their experiences as regards what really happens on the ground and in the skies of the countries that have been invaded, and which continue to be bombed to this day, namely that it is the civilians that are the biggest victims of these 'wars'. A tremendous amount of violence has been committed in the name of 'freedom' against Muslims, and yet, the majority of us stand by and watch, and have now seemingly turned to committing more violence and oppression against the same group, whether consciously or unconsciously, here in Europe or in the U.S.

If the majority of Muslims deserve anything, it is for others to place themselves in their shoes. The horrific attacks in NYC on 9/11 and the recent attack in Paris should not stop us from acting humanely towards a minority group that continues to be unrighteously blamed for these attacks via the mainstream media. To discriminate against them, to kill them, to harass them, to verbally abuse them, is exactly what any terrorist would do. And terrorists we certainly are not aiming to be. Plus, if we keep chasing the wrong people, we will never be able to bring the real monsters to justice.


That such oppression towards a minority group exists should be experienced as one big déjà vu moment by humanity. And when it comes to addressing this problem, we truly ought to look at ourselves. Let us remind ourselves of what V said in V for Vendetta:



And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.



This is a good moment to ask ourselves whether we are part of the problem, or part of the solution. This is the right moment to ask ourselves what we can do to help diminish the increasing pressure of racism on our fellow citizens, whether Muslim, African-American, Jew, Christian, or otherwise. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."



Recommended article: Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Hillary Clinton mocks Putin, gladly accepts $500K in jewels from head-chopping Saudi dictator




Monsters, Inc. A Pixar family picture. Bring the kids!



Hillary Clinton is a comedic genius. Just listen to her "impersonate" Vladimir Putin. Do you hear that husky, not-at-all-Russian voice? It's like she NSA wire-tapped into Putin's voice box and then temporarily share-wared his most inner thoughts. Amazing.

When she loses the 2016 elections, she will surely have gainful employment as a children's entertainer. She'll need that job, too, after her husband is through with the legal bills associated with his most recent flying sex slave scandal. The Clintons - America's living treasures.


And while Clinton is an outspoken, self-righteous Putin hater, she does love an occasional $500K in jewels from Saudi Arabia's newly-dead, head-chopping monster. As The Hill reported in 2013, Clinton received



white gold jewelry with teardrop rubies and diamonds containing a necklace, a bracelet, earrings, and a ring. Bestowed upon Clinton by King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, the jewelry is valued at half a million dollars.



Diamonds are a Clinton's best friend! Especially when they come from a medieval dictator who executes people for sorcery. Sorcery! Sorcery isn't even real. That's like executing someone for being Santa Claus. Can we all appreciate why this is extremely disturbing? Of course not. "Free Pussy Riot!"

Also, free these people who had their heads chopped off by King Abdullah:



Too late. Their heads were chopped off.

Just remember: Russia is a backwards hell-hole. RIP King Abdullah.


Hillary Clinton and every respectable American politician will continue the war against sorcery. Don't get too comfortable, Dumbledore!




Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Obama will not meet US-bound Netanyahu, but Bibi will address US congress


obama

© AFP Photo/Saul Loeb

US President Barack Obama speaks at Boise State University in Idaho on January 21, 2015



US President Barack Obama has refused to meet Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who will make a controversial visit to the United States in early March as he fights for re-election.

It is a "matter of long-standing practice and principle" that the president does not meet foreign leaders engaged in an electoral campaign, a White House spokeswoman, Bernadette Meehan, said Thursday.


Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress in early March -- just a few weeks before Israelis go to the polls on March 17.


But the focus of Netanyahu's address -- Iran -- as much as his timing is giving the White House heartburn.


Obama's allies fear the trip could be used by Israel and by the US Republicans, who control Congress and issued the invitation, to undercut nuclear talks with Tehran just as they appear poised to bear fruit.


The West and Israel accuse the Islamic republic of trying to build a nuclear bomb, a charge it denies.


The complex agreement with the so-called P5+1 group of global powers would subject Iran to safeguards designed to ensure its nuclear program can only be used for power generation or non-military research.


In a statement, Netanyahu said he wanted the "opportunity to share Israel's vision" on how to deal with the threat from Iran and Islamic extremists.


Netanyahu

© AFP Photo/Abir Sultan

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talks during the weekly cabinet meeting at his Jerusalem office, January 18, 2015



View gallery Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talks during the weekly cabinet meeting at his Jerusalem o ...

The White House initially gave an icy response to news of Netanyahu's trip, saying it had not been informed -- a break with protocol.


Twenty-four hours later, the Obama administration announced that neither the president nor his Secretary of State John Kerry would meet Netanyahu.


- Battle over new Iran sanctions -


The Israeli prime minister -- and his Republican Congressional hosts -- have expressed deep skepticism about a brokered deal, believing Iran cannot be trusted to keep its side of the bargain.


US lawmakers have even sketched plans to impose fresh sanctions on Iran, legislation Obama has said would wreck talks and which he has pledged to veto.


"The president has been clear about his opposition to Congress passing new legislation on Iran that could undermine our negotiations and divide the international community," said Meehan.


Four European foreign policy chiefs issued a joint call in support of Obama's position Thursday.


"Introducing new hurdles at this critical stage of the negotiations," they wrote in the Washington Post, "would jeopardize our efforts at a critical juncture."


Negotiators hope to have a framework deal in place by March 31, leaving the last technical details to be worked out by June 30.


While Israel and the United States remain close allies, Obama and Netanyahu have publicly clashed over Iran and issues linked to the Middle East peace process.


In a statement, Netanyahu tried to diminish the diplomatic damage caused by the controversy.


He said the speech would be an opportunity for him to "thank President Barack Obama, the Congress and the American people for their support of Israel."


The White House said Obama had talked to Netanyahu more than any other leader and the pair had had many conversations on the issue of Iran.


"I am sure they will continue to be in contact on this and other important matters," said Meehan





Comment: While Obama may not want to deal with 'chickenshit' Netanyahu, House Speaker John Boehner invited Bibi -- and the Israeli leader accepted - without any involvement from the White House.

In public, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest politely describes this as a "departure" from protocol. He also says the president will not meet with Netanyahu when he visits in early March, but has attributed that decision only to a desire not to influence Israel's upcoming elections.


But in private, Obama's team is livid with the Israeli leader, according to .


"We thought we've seen everything," a source identified as a senior American official was quoted as saying. "But Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are things you simply don't do.


"He spat in our face publicly and that's no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price."



This time Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might have gone too far.

It's bad enough that John Boehner invited him to address a joint session of Congress and lobby for more sanctions on Iran - and directly seek to undercut the president's top diplomatic initiative. Far worse is that Netanyahu accepted the invitation; it was a demonstration of ingratitude and hubris rarely seen before in the annals of the US-Israel bilateral relationship.



It's politics as usual.

Bibi, Boehner Team Up Against Obama


But it is fair to say that, these days, there is a particularly close connection between the Republicans and the Likud. After all, Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson is one of Netanyahu's most avid supporters. And if the ties weren't obvious already, House Speaker John Boehner's announcement Tuesday that he's invited Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress on February 11 makes the link perfectly clear (PDF). He's giving Netanyahu the chance to bask in the full glow of the Washington spotlight just weeks before the Israeli elections on March 17.


There are three takeaways from this ploy that are almost as stunning as they are obvious:


First, Boehner's invitation is motivated as much by hostility to Obama and to his Iran policy as by a desire to reelect Netanyahu as prime minister.

...

That takes us to the second point: Boehner is using Netanyahu as much as Netanyahu is using the invitation. It's not at all clear, of course, where the idea of the invite originated. It doesn't strain the bounds of credulity to imagine it arose from a quiet suggestion by Israel or its prominent supporters here at home. But, in any case, Netanyahu can rally support for the Republican mantra that Iran is the region's dangerous bad boy, and he's virtually guaranteed a rousing reception among both parties.

...

Third, it will help Netanyahu in the March elections. But how much? As my grandmother used to say about her chicken soup, "It probably couldn't hurt." The Israeli pundits hammered Netanyahu's visit to France in the wake of the massacre for what they believed to be a political exploitation of the Paris terrorist attacks. But that visit wasn't well orchestrated. This one will be very carefully stage managed, complete with media interviews.

...

The Washington excursion is just an extra flourish. Any time an incumbent has an opportunity to use the powers and prestige of office to burnish his prime ministerial image, particularly that close to an election, so much the better. It won't be determinative. Israelis didn't ride in on a bale of hay yesterday; they're all too familiar with their politicians' politicking. But in a close election, being feted and supported by your country's key ally with a focus on critical security issues in an age of jihadi terror, well.....that's not a bad photo op.


And if Bibi wins? We probably can expect to see more of him as both Democratic and Republican candidates for president of the United States fight for the title of Israel's best friend.



This attitude towards other independent nations is not new to Israeli politicians or celebrities. The world's 'mightiest' and 'wealthiest' nation is no exception. See:

Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


European parliament report: 'cooperation with Russia is more preferable than confrontation'


Parliament's rapporteur on the strategic situation in the Black Sea and the annexation of Crimea by Russia Ioan Mircea Pașcu has delivered his report to parliament's security and defence subcommittee.


In his report, Pașcu has argued that the annexation of Crimea by Russia is, "completely changing the strategic situation in the Black Sea". He claimed that Russia's move into Ukraine was prompted by NATO's eastward expansion.


Russia's annexation of Crimea and encroachment into eastern Ukraine has been met with widespread condemnation across the world. Its actions in the region have breached several international agreements to which it is party to, including the Helsinki accords, the Paris charter and the Budapest memorandum - the first two of which guarantee national sovereignty, while the latter protects Ukraine's independence and borders.


He went on to say, "Russia now poses a strategic threat to central Europe and to the entire southern flank of NATO and the EU". He highlighted the fact that Russia now shares a maritime border with an EU and NATO member in the Black Sea for the first time - Romania.


The rapporteur then raised several examples of actions that Russian forces had taken to destabilize the region and to increase their presence, including hybrid and cyber warfare, and the engagement of a naval arms race.


He suggested that a review of article five of NATO - which defines an attack on member one as an attack on all - was needed in order to deal with Russian aggression and the evolving nature of modern warfare so that new militaristic actions - such as hybrid and cyber warfare - would prompt defensive action from the organization.


Pașcu also said, "the annexation of Crimea has transformed the sea of Azov into a Russian sea", arguing that this could have economic consequences for the EU. The rapporteur cited the exploration of oil and natural gas and the control of energy trade routes and pipelines as motivating factors behind Russian policy in the region.


The rapporteur also highlighted the naval situation in the Black Sea. Currently only two multinational naval initiatives are in place in the region; the Black Sea naval force and operation Black Sea harmony, both of which Russia is a member of.


The scope of these initiatives is limited to small scale actions including search and rescue and surveillance. Therefore, it is difficult to see how either of these instruments could challenge Russia's aggressive naval build-up. Furthermore, Turkey's cessation of its naval development program could grant Russia a greater military presence in the region.


Pașcu concluded by drawing attention to the only instruments the EU has in place to challenge Russia; non-recognition of the annexation of Crimea, and sanctions, while comparing it to Russia's engagement in a naval arms race and exploration of oil and natural gas in the region. He said that, "in the long run, cooperation with Russia is more preferable than confrontation".


This is a view that would seem to be at odds with that of EU leaders, including British prime minister David Cameron and Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte, who argue that sanctions must remain in force if Russian aggression is to be reined in. However, the rapporteur's comments suggest that he believes the EU's current combination of approaches will not be enough to reverse the situation in the region.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


San Diego cop punished for objection to racist cartoon

SDPD racist cartoon

© KGTV-TV

Racist cartoon used by San Diego police during training exercise



A San Diego, California police officer is suing his supervisors for allegedly punishing him after he objected to the use of a racist cartoon in training sessions for supervisors, KGTV-TV reported.

Sgt. Arthur Scott said in his lawsuit against the city that he was transferred out of his division against his will after he complained to assistant police chief Todd Jarvis about the cartoon - a crude depiction of the department's first Black officer - being shown to sergeants and lieutenants during a mandatory week-long event he attended last August. The suit also said that Scott was threatened with disciplinary action and passed over for a promotion.


SDPD racist cartoon Full

© Unknown



The cartoon, published in the now-defunct in the early 1900s, shows an ape-like caricature of Officer Frank McCarter on patrol. The cartoon also depicts him walking into a neighborhood described as Asian through the use of similarly racist depictions, like dialogue from one character saying, "He no likee John China Man" and the use of a slur. The cartoon can be seen in full above.

reported that, according to Scott's lawsuit, the cartoon was shown during a discussion about McCarter's career, but without any mention of context regarding racism during that era.


Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman said in a statement that she only heard about the cartoon after Scott filed his lawsuit on Wednesday.


"We take these allegations very seriously," her statement read. "We will fully cooperate and support any and all investigations into this matter. At this time, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further on this case since it is in litigation."


KNSD-TV reported that both African-American and Asian-American groups criticized the department after the cartoon was revealed to the public.


"These racist cartoons have been around for centuries," said Gracelynn West, political advocacy coordinator for the local chapter of the National Asian Pacific American Womens' Forum, adding, "I find it really sad that it had to take a lawsuit for this issue to be addressed."


According to the lawsuit, Scott - vice-president of the San Diego Police Black Officers Association - was also criticized by superiors for being "hyper-sensitive" after objecting to other officers keeping what he called racist depictions of President Barack Obama inside their lockers.


"Obviously, the chiefs here don't particularly appreciate someone's right to speak out against racism," Scott's attorney, Dan Gilleon, told KGTV.


Scott's organization for Black officers has also lent its support to him, said fellow member Sgt. Bryan Pendleton, who also attended the class in which the cartoon was shown.


"This lawsuit is not simply about a cartoon," he said. "There are other issues that will come out throughout this process. When you take all of those together and compound them, then you'll see clearly that there is an issue."


Pendleton did not elaborate on the "other issues," but KGTV reported last year that artists commissioned to paint a mural inside the department's Southeast Division accused officers of complaining that it had "too many Black faces."


Watch KGTV's report on the lawsuit, as aired on Wednesday, below.


[embedded content]


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Pentagon dispatches first batch of US forces to train Syrian rebels

Syrian rebel fighters

© Reuters/Hosam Katan

Syrian rebel fighters.



Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is sending the first wave of about 100 US forces to the Middle East in the coming days to train and equip Syrian opposition fighters battling Islamic State militants.

The US troops, mostly special operations forces from the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM), will begin arriving in countries outside Syria in the next few days, Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said on Friday.


"They're going to ... take a look at what's there and prepare for further deployments," according to Kirby, who last week said several hundred troops from foreign governments were also expected to train the Syrian fighters.


The total number of US troops connected to the mission is expected to reach over 1,000 in the weeks ahead, including about 400 trainers and several hundred support forces.


The exact location of the training sites hasn't been revealed, but Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have offered to host facilities where American forces could train members of the Syrian opposition, ostensibly to battle elements of the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). However, given that the coalition governments have all proven their commitment to removing Syrian President Bashar Assad from power, some observers suspect an ulterior motive in the US-led plans.


In September last year, the United States, together with a loose coalition of Arab states, including Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, opened a bombing campaign in northern Syria against IS fighters. However, at the same time, the US has been reportedly arming members of the Syrian opposition, which has been engaged in a civil war against Assad's forces.


Syria Rebels

© Reuters / Stringer



US airstrikes have assisted Kurdish forces in their effort to liberate the Syrian town of Kobani near the Turkish border. Kirby told reporters that the Kurds now control about 70 percent of the town.

The Pentagon spokesman said Major General Michael Nagata had been appointed to oversee the training mission.


The US-led mission is expected to start as early as March, the , quoting Defense Department spokeswoman Cmdr. Elissa Smith, reported last week.


In addition to the 400 military specialists, so-called enabling forces which are to serve as a security detail, will also accompany the trainers, Smith said.


The Pentagon, which said it plans to train 5,000 Syrian fighters a year for three years, foresees the first batch of US-trained rebels returning to Syria around the end of the year.


According to the most recent UN statistics, the Syrian conflict has claimed 220,000 lives, placed 12 million people in severe need, left 7.6 million internally displaced, and rendered 3.3 million people refugees.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.


Greece's Syriza party officially wins parliamentary elections


© Reuters/Marko Djurica

Supporters of opposition leader and head of radical leftist Syriza party Alexis Tsipras cheer at exit poll results in Athens, January 25, 2015.



Greece's radical leftist party, Syriza, is leading the country's parliamentary election, claiming 36.5 percent of the vote, and leaving the ruling New Democracy party in second place with 29.22 percent, according to the first official results.

The votes have so far been counted at 25 percent of polling stations across the country, the Interior Ministry of Greece said.


The exit-polls earlier revealed that Syriza, has won between 35.5 and 39.5 percent of the vote in the national parliamentary election, leaving the New Democracy party more than 10 per cent behind.


The New Democracy party, led by Greek Prime Minister, Antonis Samaras, has received between 23 and 27 percent of the vote.


The results of the exit polls were announced right after polling stations across the country closed at 1700 GMT.


The first official results have been announced at approximately 1920 GMT, with the outcome of the vote to be finalized on Monday morning.


Centrist party To Potami (The River) and the far-right Golden Dawn party are in tight competition for third place, with both attaining 6.4 to 8 percent of the vote, according to a joint poll by Metron Analysis, GPO, Alco, MRB, Marc.


Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left), which is headed by 40-year-old Alexis Tsipras, rose to popularity after it promised to renegotiate Greek debt and put an end to austerity in the country.


In Greece, a political party requires between 36 and 40 percent of the vote in order to secure an outright win, with the exact figure depending on the share of the vote taken by parties that failed to pass the 3 percent threshold required to enter parliament.


According to the exit polls, seven parties are on the way to making it into the new Hellenic Parliament, which is comprised of 300 MPs.


The election was held earlier than scheduled because of the failure of the parliament to elect a new Greek president on December 29 last year.


The presidential candidate presented by the government, Stavros Dimas, had failed to secure the required majority votes from MPs across three rounds of voting.


This means that Syriza will occupy between146 and158 seats in the Greek parliament, while New Democracy will likely have to settle for between 65 and 75 seats.


One hundred and fifty one seats are required for a party to form a government on its own.


"It is a historic victory, we still have to see if it will be a big historic victory. It sends a message against austerity and in favor of dignity and democracy," Panos Skourletis, Syriza spokesman, told .


A senior New Democracy party member, health minister Makis Voridis, has conceded defeat to Syriza in the elections.


"We lost. The extent of that result is not yet clear," Voridis told Mega TV.


If the results of the exit polls are officially confirmed, Syriza will become the first ruling anti-austerity party in Europe.


Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.