The highest profile of these final commutations was that delivered to Chelsea Manning, a former army intelligence operative found guilty of offences under the Espionage Act and sentenced to 35 year’s imprisonment. Manning will be released in May 2017, after seven years in military prison.

The factual basis for Manning’s conviction is now infamous worldwide. She leaked over 700,000 items of intelligence data to WikiLeaks – the whistle-blower website established by Australian national Julian Assange. Many of these were published online, including videos that showed US military strikes causing civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Manning, previously known as Bradley Manning, came out as a transgender woman during her imprisonment. Serious concerns were held for her health, particularly as she had attempted suicide twice in the past year and remained confined in a men’s prison. News of her impending release was welcomed by human rights organisations and Manning’s supporters, who regard her as a human rights defender.

It appears that Obama’s decision to commute Manning’s sentence was influenced by awareness of risks to her health and campaigning on her behalf. In a public statement, the White House drew a stark contrast between its view of Manning and its position on another well-known whistle-blower, Edward Snowden. Snowden is currently in exile in Russia, having fled the US after leaking classified intelligence material while working as a CIA contractor. While Manning had faced trial and imprisonment following her conviction,

Mr Snowden fled into the arms of an adversary and has sought refuge in a country that most recently made a concerted effort to undermine confidence in our democracy.

Nevertheless, mercy for Manning drew calls for similar approaches to the cases of Snowden, currently in exile in Russia, and Assange, currently under effective house arrest in the London embassy of Ecuador.

Considering earlier public comments from now-President Trump, calls for a pardon for Snowden are unlikely to find favour with the new Administration.

Snowden is a spy who has caused great damage to the U.S. A spy in the old days, when our country was respected and strong, would be executed

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 19, 2014

And further, it seems unlikely that Russia will surrender Snowden to the US for such a potential fate. Indeed, as Manning’s sentence was being commuted, Snowden’s Russian protection visa was extended.

After writing on this case for The Conversation, I was interviewed for English language radio in South Korea. The interview gave me a glimpse into how news of Manning’s sentence commutation was received in another country, with its own distinctive views on relations between the US, Russia and the international community.

I was asked whether Russian President Putin may have extended Snowden’s asylum to exact revenge on President Obama, and whether Snowden may be being used by Russian intelligence to undermine American interests. I declined to answer those questions, not claiming any expertise in what is motivating Russia’s relationship with Snowden.

However, I was able to respond to the journalist’s question regarding the differential treatment of Manning and Snowden, by highlighting differences between pardon and commutation, trial in a US court and exile overseas, and degrees of damage caused by the release of more or less ‘top-secret’ intelligence.

My South Korean interviewer was also interested in whether Russia might ‘gift’ Snowden to incoming President Trump. Again, this was beyond my expertise. However, on a parallel note, it was interesting to follow Assange’s offers to surrender himself to the US Department of Justice in return for Manning’s release. This move, as yet unrealised, has been cited as evidence of an alliance of sorts between Trump and Assange. It is well known that the WikiLeaks hacking of Democratic Party emails during the recent US Presidential campaign boosted the Trump campaign.

As has become rapidly clear, only the bravest of commentators would confidently predict the future actions of the Trump administration. I’ll go so far as to say that Trump seems unlikely to act as a great defender of press freedom. But then, despite celebrating its record of clemency, the previous White House led the way in criminalising whistle-blowing and shielding its military activities from public scrutiny.

Dr Amy Maguire, University of Newcastle Law School, 3 February 2017

However, reducing gender equity to a battle of the sexes is simplistic, crude and ultimately dangerous for both women and men. A closer analysis shows a complex picture and highlights the urgent need for higher education to continue to actively engage in questions of gender equity, including by developing sophisticated strategies designed to combat institutional sexism and misogyny. Such strategies require an understanding that gender equity intersects with other inequalities, such as race, ethnicity and social class, often in insidious and subtle ways.

Many women have done very well in gaining access to higher education in recent years but this is after long and difficult struggles as well as concerted attention by institutions and policy-makers to develop appropriate equity measures. Yet, it is mainly white women from higher socio-economic backgrounds who have benefitted from equity policies and practices in higher education.

Women (and men) from lower socio-economic and minority ethnic backgrounds remain under-represented in higher education. Furthermore, it is important to take note of where women are located in higher education institutions. For example, women remain under-represented in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects as well as postgraduate research programs. On the other hand, female students are over-represented in subjects such as Teaching, Social Work and Nursing. These subjects tend to be connected with those traits associated with femininity such as caring, and with professions that carry lower status and lower pay.

Gender equity is not only about students but also about staff and faculty. Women are under-represented in leadership positions, with only about 20% of professors being women. According to the Federation University Australia the numbers of female vice-chancellors has decreased from 28% in 2004 to only 18% in 2009. There has been much focus in recent years on encouraging more women into leadership positions both within and outside of the university sector. This is important and needs continued attention. However, change is also required at the cultural level of organisations.

Gender equity is about more than numbers of women occupying certain positions or roles. Women in leadership roles are often compelled to conform to dominant practices in order to be regarded as legitimate leaders. Thus, transformation requires attention to the cultural practices that dominate ‘leadership’. As long as we have leadership approaches that privilege those traits associated with (White Westernised) masculinity (such as being tough or hard, taking control and power and valuing individualism over collaboration and community) we risk excluding those traits associated with (minority ethnic and/or indigenous) femininity (such as being compassionate, caring, redistributing control and power and valuing collaboration and community over individualism).

The blame of under-representation is repeatedly laid at the feet of women, through a range of deficit discourses that explain women’s under-representation in terms of their assumed low aspirations and/or low confidence. On the other hand, the collective strength of women expressed through feminism is also seen as a problem, with continual innuendos about feminism leading to the ‘demasculinisation of men’. This pays no attention to the continuing structural power exercised by many men and the relation of patriarchy to ongoing inequalities of class, ethnicity and race.

The simplistic claim that men are now the disadvantaged sex, not only undermines the achievements made by women, but also implies that women’s success must be viewed as a direct threat to men’s social position and status. Universities have a responsibility to actively engage with the striking levels of gender inequality outside of higher education. Data released by The Workplace Gender Equality Agency reveals that women in the top levels of management are getting paid up to 45% less than their male colleagues. Violence against women is rampant with one woman a week killed by her current or former partner in Australia and double that figure in the United Kingdom. According to UN Women, some national violence studies show that up to 70 per cent of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence in their lifetime from an intimate partner and in Australia the estimated cost of violence against women and children is AUD 13.6 billion per year.

What role does higher education have to play in challenging gender inequalities both within universities and outside of them?

Higher education must create spaces to challenge destructive assumptions that place men and women in competition with each other. Gender equity requires that men and women have the opportunity to think more deeply about what gender means both for individuals and for wider society. For example, creating spaces for students and faculty to examine masculinity might help to understand why the constant pressure on young men to demonstrate that they are ‘tough’, ‘strong’ and ‘in control’ often has long-term damaging consequences, including in multiple forms of male violence (against both women and men).

Gender is always deeply entwined with sexuality and there have been many reports across the globe in recent years about the prevalence of sexual violence on campus and its traumatising effects. Higher education strategies must include the provision of pedagogical spaces for students, staff and faculty to critique those forms of gender and sexuality that not only reinforce unequal power relations between men and women but also create the conditions ripe for sexual violence (in all its forms, including verbal, symbolic and physical). This requires not only continuing to monitor the numbers of women in higher education but also the transformation of higher education cultures and practices across multiple dimensions, including access and admissions, teaching and learning, curriculum development, assessment, professional development and leadership and management. It also requires attention to complex gendered relations across the informal spaces in universities, including peer groups, networks and clubs.

Men and women have the capacity to adopt feminine as well as masculine dispositions and practices. We need to stop thinking in terms of binaries and oppositions. It is important to consider the consequences of cultural practices that implicitly encourage heterosexual forms of hyper-masculinity and hyper-femininity; gendered extremism that leads to destructive relations and symbolic, physical and sexual violence. Valuing both femininity and masculinity, whilst also understanding the constant potential for gender oppression, is a vital step. The bottom line is that higher education as a social institution must take leadership in creating the conditions for gender equity on campus and beyond. Written by Professor Penny Jane Burke, Global Innovation Chair of Equity and Co-Director of the Centre of Excellence in Equity in Higher Education, University of Newcastle.

Over the past 10 years the city’s culture has evolved, slowly developing into a hub of creativity and innovation. It is a process that must be embraced and supported if Newcastle is to truly shake off the ‘steel city’ identity and move into a phase of renewal and rebirth.

When I came to be Mayor of Pittsburgh in 1994 the city was still reeling from changes in the steel industry that began in the early 1980s. City finances were in a sorry state, with a $US32 million deficit, and there was no serious plan for an economic turnaround. Younger, college-educated workers were leaving in droves, and older residents were pessimistic about the region’s future.

As Mayor, it was my job to see what the city could be, not what it was. After three terms in office Pittsburgh was in significant transformation. As part of the economic revitalisation plan, more than $US4 billion in new investment was directed into the city. This included office towers for two of the city’s nationally ranked banks, new world-class facilities for the city’s professional football and baseball teams, and an expanded downtown convention centre.

The parallels between Newcastle in the present, and Pittsburgh in the mid 90s are considerable. Pittsburgh was able to replace its ‘steel city’ tag for one that was focused on the future, attracting venture capital and realising the potential of the city.

Newcastle has the opportunity to invest in the talent of its own people to begin the same transformation. The university of Newcastle has 39,131 students. This is almost 40,000 people who have the potential to help shape the vision for the city.

Smart cities invest in talent and Universities can be the key to transforming a city. The NeWSpace project offers Newcastle CBD the ‘wow factor’, with its interesting design and ability to inject $95 million into the local economy. A stronger local economy and plentiful opportunities for growth and innovation will ensure the best and brightest teachers, researchers, academics and graduates stay right here and continue to develop the city.

NeWSpace will also shape how Newcastle is viewed globally, through the role it will play in leading the transformation of the city into a more walkable, cyclable, livable city.

With the current focus on the planning failures of the city, there exists a unique opportunity to reimagine the city and how the people of Newcastle want to engage with their surrounds. In New York City, 50 per cent of people do not own a car. Increasingly they are cycling and taking public transport to move around.

Now is the time to imagine your city in a different kind of way. If the city creates the opportunity for people to live, work and move around the city in an effective way through alternative transport options, people will happily use them.

What kind of city do you want Newcastle to be? Now is the time to decide and more importantly, take action to ensure it is realised.

Image credit

In December 2012 Australia became the first country in the world to introduce plain packaging of cigarettes. The policy was a legislative coup, coming after a long and intensive battle with the tobacco industry, which fought hard to maintain their marketing strategy of branding cigarettes.

The aim of the plain packaging policy introduced by the Australian government was to discourage uptake of smoking by reducing the appeal of the product, increasing the effectiveness of the graphic health warning labels and reducing wrong perceptions about the harms of smoking.

At the University of Newcastle we have conducted studies of the impact of the plain cigarette packs on smokers’ ratings of appeal and perceptions of the product. We have found that plain packs are rated by long-term smokers as less appealing and attractive. The participants of our research also said that they had noticed deterioration in the quality of tobacco. They also reported that they now struggled to tell the difference between the tastes of different cigarette brands now that packs all looked the same.

This finding is important for a number of reasons. It indicates the power of product branding. Over a period of time when only the packaging had been altered, smokers questioned the content and quality of their cigarettes.

Read the full Newcastle Herald article

Professional communicators strive to get people to think in particular ways. Whether it’s a health agency promoting immunisation or a local company flogging surfboards, the underlying techniques are quite similar.

The techniques aim to engage audiences and get them to build in their minds the meanings intended for them. Those working in the business would rarely, if ever, stop to consider the impacts of their work from a feminist view.

I’m talking a broad feminist viewpoint that sees efforts aimed at achieving equality of the sexes, nothing more radical than that.

What happens when you flick on this switch? Well, you become more alert to things that are going on in your organisation that could directly or indirectly put women down. You also become more alert to whether the community is accepting of images and messages that are demeaning to women.

Read the full Newcastle Herald Article

*This opinion piece represents the author’s views

Picture this: You are walking down Hunter Street minding your own business when a stranger, without warning, sinks their teeth into your shoulder leaving puncture marks. You would be entitled to expect, wouldn’t you, that after a police investigation, the individual involved would be charged with assault?

However, while Luis Suarez’s more recent decision to lunch on Giorgio Chiellini’s left shoulder during Uruguay’s World Cup clash with Italy appears to have cost the Uruguayan forward nine international appearances, it has not attracted a hint of criminal prosecution.

Sport, whether football or any other, does not give a player the right to deliberately assault or inflict harm on somebody else. So why is it that the same incident occurring on a football field is unlikely to lead to criminal charges?

The fact is, though the option of criminal liability exists, violence on the sports field is a grey area where police remain reluctant to intervene.

Read the full Newcastle Herald article

*This opinion piece represents the author’s views

Youth unemployment in Australia is at a 12-year high.

For those aged 15 to 24, the unemployment rate is 13.1 per cent.

Unemployment among those aged 15 to 19 in the Newcastle district stood at 32.6 per cent last December.

Underemployment and non-participation are major issues that obfuscate the real depth of youth unemployment.

Unemployment and under-employment is impeding young people’s efforts to earn, establish savings, develop professional experience and secure jobs with long-term prospects – all of which were fairly normal situations for previous generations.

But changing employment patterns and slow economic growth leave young people susceptible to the risk of becoming entangled in long-term unemployment or under-employment, or being unable to find stable work that is either only seasonal or part-time.

Securing an entry-level position has become more complex than it was just a generation ago.

Such concerns are transnational. They present a real risk to global stability.

Read the full Newcastle Herald article

*This opinion piece represents the author’s views

How do you feel having your picture taken without your consent in a public space? If you are walking along the footpath and someone pulls out a camera and just snaps a frame, do you care?

There are various laws aimed at indecency, offensive behaviour, filming for sexual gratification, defamation and commercial use. Yet, for the most part, taking a picture of someone without consent in a public place is more of an ethical and moral issue than a legal one.

How do you feel about having your picture taken?

Does it depend on circumstances such as who wants to take the photo, where you are and what you are doing?

In March, the Australian Law Reform Commission released a discussion paper titled Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era. This was a follow-up to last year’s Issues Paper.

The papers raise myriad issues pertinent to privacy in the digital era. It notes that many disputes about invasions of privacy are between individuals.  

Read the full Newcastle Herald article

*This opinion piece represents the author’s views

No Treasurer can please all the people all the time in a tough economic climate, but each federal budget manages to have a funding centrepiece that shines like a beacon among the inevitable winners and losers.

Defence, education, infrastructure, welfare and so on have all had their time in the spotlight, now it’s the turn of medical research with the announcement of the new Medical Research Future Fund that is expected to generate $20billion by 2020.

Here, the government has recognised the importance of medical research in securing our long-term health and prosperity, while globally, it will elevate Australia to the top echelon of nations doing the heavy lifting in health research and development.

That is vitally important because Australia must innovate in order to flourish. For too long in the medical research sphere, good ideas have struggled to evolve from seed phase because the purse could stretch only so far.

With the creation of this $20-billion endowment fund into perpetuity, we finally have the financial clout and stability needed to encourage our best and brightest minds to go into medical research and stay for the long haul.

It can take years, even decades, for research to reap clinical benefits. Researchers have to unravel highly complex health conundrums and expand or validate existing knowledge, which takes time.

Eureka moments are rare.

Usually, such positive outcomes are the result of systematic investigation involving experimentation, testing, interpretation and critical appraisal. Ultimately, it is about preventing illness, reducing mortality, refining healthcare policy and developing beneficial therapies for the community.

This has to be tempered, of course, with the need to continually provide healthcare services for today’s families. People still need to visit GPs and hospitals, which means investing equally in the “frontline” and the “future”.

Although details of the package are yet to be spelt out, the Hunter Medical Research Institute – and the Hunter community – should be well placed to benefit.

Read the full article in the Newcastle Herald.

HMRI is a partnership between the University of Newcastle, Hunter New England Health and the community.

*This opinion piece represents the author’s views.

Do you donate your time to a non-profit organisation? Or money to charity?

By world standards, Australians are a generous mob when it comes to donating money to charities, and time and effort to non-profits.

But what do you expect to receive in return?

A green light for a development application? A loosening of a regulatory framework; a change in legislation; information regarding a tendering process; an empathetic ear? Or someone to look away?

Maybe you expect nothing more than a warm, fuzzy feeling when your head hits the pillow, knowing that your contribution made someone’s life a little better.

While the ICAC focused on (corrupt) giving and taking, and the federal budget was all about taking, two new reports highlighted the terrific capacity of Australians to give generously to those in need.

National Volunteer Week celebrated its 25th anniversary and acknowledged the important and ongoing contribution of 6 million Aussies who sacrifice time and money to help those in need or those who are less fortunate.

And one of Australia’s big banks released its fourth annual charitable giving index.

It is rarely unreasonable to argue with any bank’s motivation or methodology for calculating just about anything.

It’s of little comfort when you read the fine print around the charity index, which advises the bank does not warrant or represent that the information, recommendations, conclusions or opinions are accurate, reliable, complete or current.

Not a great deal of wriggle room in that non-guarantee.

The sceptics will suggest a bank’s charitable giving index is about utilising data to trawl through customer records to achieve an outcome that is as much about their own brand building and customer engagement than it is to provide charities with a useful snapshot of donor behaviour.

Nevertheless, the charity giving index found our nation’s donors dug deep in the year to February 2014.

Read the full article in the Newcastle Herald.

*This opinion piece represents the author’s views.