Full executive list:

• President – Nicole Spiteri
• Vice President – Timon Nuernberger
• Secretary General – Julianne Vella
• Financial Officer – Francesca Giudice
• International Officer – Nikos Chircop
• Project Officers – Keaton Agius and Alexander Borg
• Civic Education Officer – Steven Bajada
• Social Media Officer – Luca Formosa
• Content Officer – Juanita Galea
• Policy Officer – Katrina Cassar
• Events Officer – Veronica Micallef
• IT & Logistics Officer – Liam Gatt

Presidential Comment

I am thrilled to have been chosen to lead JEF Malta as President for this term. In the past term, despite the huge challenge for organisations like JEF Malta to revive their activities and continue to engage youths, I can safely say that JEF Malta managed to successfully implement two Erasmus+ funded projects as well as a number of successful social events.

This term, along with the rest of the vibrant and talented executive board, I am looking forward to taking JEF Malta to new heights where we will be hosting the Spring FC in 2023 and working towards a new flagship project. We also want to especially focus on driving home the message of federalism, specifically that of working towards a more united and democratic Europe, by continuously engaging local youths and inspiring them to contribute to this perspective of the European Union.

Nicole Spiteri

The Third Eye congratulates the new executive and wishes them the best of luck for their upcoming term!

The post Nicole Spiteri elected as JEF President for 2022/23 appeared first on The Third Eye.

On the 10th July 1994, Alexander Lukashenko was elected President of Belarus after receiving 80.3% of the vote. This event set off a chain of reactions which has severely deteriorated the state of human rights and rule of law in Belarus, and as of 2017, presidential and parliamentary elections in Belarus are no longer considered to be free and fair by the OSCE, United Nations, the EU and the U.S. However, OSCE stopped recognising elections as fair in 1995, only one year after President Lukashenko’s first election.

Brave Belarusians have taken the streets to protest against these unfair elections for decades, and over the years international watchdogs have uncovered systematic abuse, torture and imprisonment of these activists who dare to question President Lukashenko’s authoritarian regime. These activists are not only fighting for democracy and free elections in their country, but they are inadvertently fighting for their own sovereignty under the weight of Russian interference.

But how did Belarus end up here?

Alexander Lukashenko began his political career at a young age, originally holding a post in the Soviet army and the communist youth organisation back when Belarus was still a part of the Soviet Union. In 1990, he was elected to the parliament in the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic and he was the only deputy who was against an agreement that led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In 1994, he was elected as President for the first time, and by 1996 he had persuaded Belarusian voters to approve constitutional amendments which expanded the authority of the presidency. Since then, he has received significant financial and political support from Russia, with many viewing President Lukashenko as a puppet of the Russian government.

In recent years, human rights violations in Belarus have hit international headlines. Particularly the protests held after President Lukashenko won his 6th term with 80% of the vote in 2020. Pro-democratic protesters embarked on the streets of Minsk and several Belarusian cities. The peaceful protest quickly turned violent, with Belarusian police and military targeting the protestors. Just a few months after the election, the United Nations Human Rights Office reported more than 450 documented cases of torture and mistreatment of activists and the Viana Human Rights centre documented 1,000 testimonies of torture victims. It is estimated that up to 35,000 people were arrested during these protests. President Lukashenko’s main opponent, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, fled the country in fear of her life. This effectively ended any real political opposition to President Lukashenko. The elections were criticised internationally, with the EU publishing a statement rejecting the legitimacy of the elections and condemning the repression of protestors. Shortly after, the EU, UK and Canada all imposed sanctions on Belarusian officials.

Just last year, President Lukashenko made headlines again after the Belarusian authorities forced a Ryanair passenger plane to land in Minsk due to an alleged bomb threat. Once landed, the authorities boarded the plane and arrested journalist Roman Protasevich, a vocal critic of President Lukashensko’s regime. Protasevich was in exile in Lithuania and had been actively organising protests through the messaging app Telegram. However, after the forced landing of the plane he was detained in Minsk and now stands accused of organising riots, facing up to 15 years in prison if convicted. Later that same year, Belarusian Olympic sprinter Krystina Tsimanouskaya refused to fly back to Belarus after the Olympic games in Tokyo. Tsimanouskaya criticised Belarusian Olympic officials for forcing her to race in the 4 x 400 metres relay without her consent; she later sought protection from Japanese airport police over fears for her safety. After receiving international attention, she was eventually granted a humanitarian visa in Poland where she still remains.

The violation of democracy on the EU’s border after 3 decades since the dissolution of the Soviet Union is a threat to the stability of Eastern Europe and causes serious doubts over the West’s handling of these regimes, particularly since Belarus falls under the European Neighbourhood Policy. The situation has since escalated further as Belarus assisted Russia in their invasion of Ukraine, allowing Russian troops to enter Ukraine through the Belarus border. Since the start of the invasion, an investigation into potential war crimes by Russian troops has been launched, once again associating Belarus with anti-democratic and illegal behaviour. The situation is desperately deteriorating and in the process Belarus slips further away from joining the rest of its former-Soviet neighbours in modern-day democracy. Although the West needs to address the real danger that comes from President Lukashensko’s rule, there has to be a harmonised response from the West to prevent Belarus from slipping into the isolationist future that Russia is headed for. While the West must do what they can to defend Ukraine, we must also ensure that the 9.4 million people of Belarus are not lost in an anti-democratic abyss in the process.

The Young European Federalist (JEF Europe) have been organising the “Free Belarus Action” since 2006 to raise awareness of President Lukashensko’s regime. In 2014, this was rebranded to the “Democracy under Pressure Action” with the intention of addressing numerous violations of democracy and human rights in Europe.

Here’s how you can get involved:

• Speak up for democracy on social media – Remember to use #DemocracyUnderPressure !
• Consider writing a letter to a prisoner in Bearus or if you did it already that and the prisoner is still imprisoned, write a follow-up letter to them!
• Organise an event covering topics of the campaign, such as reasons behind democratic values put under pressure, why people vote for parties that want to limit human rights, how the rule of law is under threat in the EU and beyond.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily be reflective of JEF as a whole

The post Democracy Under Pressure: Belarus | JEF appeared first on The Third Eye.

Ukraine, Russia, and neighbouring Belarus were born about 1,200 years ago on the banks of the Dnieper River, rooted as Kievan Rus, a mediaeval superpower that included a large portion of Eastern Europe. However, linguistically, historically, and, most crucially, politically, Russians and Ukrainians diverged.

Moreover, when Putin came to power, he has consistently stated that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people,” part of the “Russian civilization,” which also includes neighbouring Belarus. Ukrainians, on the other hand, are dismissive of his allegations.

Ukraine saw two revolutions in 2005 and 2014, both times refusing Russia’s supremacy and pursuing a path to membership in the European Union and NATO. Putin is particularly angered by the thought of NATO facilities on his borders, claiming that Ukraine joining the US-led transatlantic alliance would be a “red line” crossed.

Following Ukraine’s 2014 Revolution of Dignity, which saw months of protests eventually remove pro-Moscow Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Putin took advantage of the power vacuum to invade Crimea and support separatists in the southern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The insurgents established two autocratic, economically weak “People’s Republics” in which the death penalty was reinstated. They oversaw a slew of concentration camps where activists were tortured and killed.

The struggle quickly escalated into Europe’s most ferocious conflict. More than 13,000 people have been murdered and millions have been displaced as a result of the disaster.

The Ukrainian military was under-equipped and demoralised in 2014, whereas the insurgents possessed Russian “consultants” and weapons.

However, Ukrainians are considerably stronger militarily and morally these days, and thousands of volunteers who assisted in repelling the separatists are ready to do it all over again.

‘Nothing has alienated Ukraine more in the last eight years than Kremlin policies, particularly Russia’s military invasion of Crimea in 2014 and its engagement in the Donbas conflict, which has taken over 13,000 lives’ – Steven Pifer (Standford Scholar)

According to government sources in Western Europe and the United States, Russia has gathered more than 100,000 Russian soldiers on the Ukrainian border and has occupied Crimea in recent weeks. This has raised fears in Kyiv that a new war with its neighbour and former province, which chose to break free from Moscow’s political orbit, is on the horizon.

Russia, on the other hand, rejects any plans for an invasion. Moscow claims that it has the ability to move Russian soldiers wherever it wants and that all of its actions are defensive.

Russian authorities, including President Vladimir Putin, have cautioned NATO not to expand eastward.

Ukraine purchased or acquired advanced equipment from the West and Turkey, including Javelin missiles, which proved fatal to separatist tanks, and Bayraktar drones, which played an important role in last year’s battle between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

The suspension of military aid and arms deliveries to Kyiv precipitated former US President Donald Trump’s first impeachment. In the following weeks, his successor, Joe Biden, may send lethal weaponry and advice.

Because of the modern weaponry being used—mostly nuclear—the horror of this war escalating is greater than that of any previous conflict in recent years. This is in addition to the comments exchanged by Putin and the other European leaders.

“If he launches another invasion, he will force the west to bring about much of what he seeks to prevent.” – Boris Johnson (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom). Wrote this in reference to Russia’s military targeting the border of Ukraine and their State.

Aside from ideological and political considerations, Putin had sorely sought Ukraine’s inclusion in a Moscow-dominated free-trade zone that had been established in 2000. The Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) brought together various ex-Soviet states and was largely regarded as a first step toward resurrecting the USSR.

Ukraine was planned to be the most important member of the EAEC after Russia, with a population of 43 million and a tremendous agricultural and industrial production, but Kyiv declined to join.

Ukraine’s economy sank after the country cut ties with Russia, its erstwhile primary economic partner. However, seven years into the conflict, the recession has ended, as international prices for Ukraine’s main exports, grain and steel, skyrocket, and Ukrainian businesses and labour migrants find new ways to the West.

Ukraine and Uzbekistan, with a combined population of 34 million, are expected to be included in order for this market to flourish and become self-sufficient. That is why these states are constantly embroiled in geopolitical conflicts with Russia. Further fueling the motivation and development of the current crisis that we are seeing in 2022 between the two Nations.

Putin’s favour ratings are falling as Russians oppose vaccinations and lament the economic hardships caused by the virus.

Following the annexation of Crimea and the emergence of a new war or escalation, it is considered that Putin has done so at an opportune time in order to divert public attention away from domestic concerns and improve Putin’s popularity. He also wants to reestablish contact with the West, particularly the United States, and amassing an army near Ukraine has already been effective.

“Dialogue is necessary because that’s the only thing that will help, in my view, to build a context of security and stability on the European Continent.” – President Macron (The President of France).

Russia’s illegal invasion of Crimea in 2014 was Europe’s largest land grab since World War II, and it violated many of Russia’s obligations to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The Kremlin then incited and supported the fighting in Donbas, in some cases with genuine Russian army formations. These activities had significant negative consequences for Russia’s relations with the West, and the West replied. For example, the US and Europe collaborated on sanctions aimed at the Russian economy. NATO, which had been reducing its military capability since the early 1990s, changed course; member states agreed to raise defence spending, with a target of 2% of GDP by 2024. Furthermore, NATO began deploying ground soldiers on its eastern flank in member states.

Moscow has attempted to portray this crisis as one between Russia and NATO, but still the Kremlin’s principal aim is Ukraine. This has something to do with geopolitics and Moscow’s aim for a sphere of influence in post-Soviet space. It is, nevertheless, very much about Russian domestic politics. A Ukraine that constructs its own path, consolidates its democracy, and implements reforms that unleash the full potential of its economy is a nightmare for the Kremlin: Such a Ukraine would prompt Russians to question why they do not have the same political voice as Ukrainian citizens – and perhaps even contest Putin’s authoritarianism.

The Third Eye stands with and supports Ukraine during this difficult time

The post Russia’s refusal to recognise Ukraine as an independent state has resulted in a huge strategic defeat appeared first on The Third Eye.

“You are a monument” said European Council President Charles Michel in his speech dedicated to the Chancellor, he expressed her role as a “compass” and “shining light” of the European project. The speech was concluded by a standing ovation from the heads of governments and further warm remarks expressing her lasting influence as a peacemaker and as a “great European”. Infamous for her self-effacing approach, Angela Merkel took the floor with a meek smile and a gentle step, and in a very fitting manner, she thanked the attending journalists for their long nights at the summit.

Merkel’s Childhood

Angela Merkel was born in 1954 in West Germany, however her childhood consisted of a frugal and conservative Christian life beyond the Iron Curtain. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Merkel took her first step into politics after spending a number of years working as a Research Assistant with a doctorate in quantum chemistry. She joined the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and remained as a member ever since. Her childhood is often credited with the mild and cooperative approach that she took in debates, and has led to her generally being seen as a stable figure.

She ran two ministries, served as the CDU Secretary General, leader of the opposition, and eventually led her party to victory in 2005.  As her counterparts across Europe came and went, Merkel remained a leading figure who navigated crisis after crisis. Although Merkel became the unofficial crisis manager of the EU, her faith in the European project never wilted. Certainly, her unique experience as young woman in in a divided country gave her a rare insight into the importance of European cooperation, and ultimately, unification.

Career Highlights

Some remarkable events during her years at the Chancellory include the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent Eurozone crisis. Germany paid the largest amount of the EU’s first bailout to Greece in 2010 and throughout the rest of the crisis. However, she staunchly pushed for tough measures alongside the bailout and continued to advocate for strong reforms in Greece and Portugal. Her actions and directions caused great criticism and controversy, but Merkel continued to hold her ground, firmly believing that her stance would be key in keeping the union together in a time of doubt.

Later, the migration crisis of 2015 caused increased tension between Member States as Italy and Greece were particularly hit by an influx of refugees. Merkel stepped in to find a compromise, with Germany itself taking in over one million refugees and defended the further relocation of refugees across Europe. During this time, she also led tense negotiations with Turkey to curb the influx of refugees into the EU.

Of course, Merkel’s 16 years were not a perfect leadership. Her support for the Nord Stream 2 oil pipeline has been criticised for bringing Germany closer to Putin’s Russia, which undermines any action taken by the West against Russia in regards to their human rights violations. Her mild approach has at times been a weakness rather than a strength, particularly by causing delayed decisions in the EU in an attempt to allow for cooperation and compromise rather than firm action. Many argue that Merkel purposely dragged out discussions in order to see in which direction the wind was blowing, only then to step in with her input. Some critics say this resulted in the deterioration of the rule of law in Hungary and Poland since the EU lost the advantage of responding to the situation as fast as they should have.

How Merkel Made Her Way To The Top

Merkel owes a large part of her success to her controlled media image. Prior to her success in her party, Merkel was underestimated and often publicly undermined by her colleagues and mentor. However, a financial scandal during the 1990s and 2000s involving senior members of her party gave Merkel the upper hand to push her way up, eventually going as far as denouncing her own mentor, and crushing the glass ceiling. This move appears to be an accurate representation of her approach in politics, her subtle persona seems to shield her from the scandals often affecting charismatic and media-hungry politicians. 

As a person who is simultaneously popular and controversial, Angela Merkel undoubtedly finds a fitting place in the gallery of monumental European figures. Her manner ultimately became a symbol of Western neoliberalism, one that often fights for values and unity, but not quite enough to venture outside the definition of a ‘moderate’.

The post The End of an Era: 16 Years of Angela Merkel | JEF appeared first on The Third Eye.

Written by Katrina Cassar for JEF on internet governance

Ah, the internet: the invention that changed our lives, revolutionised communication and gave us access to mountains of data at our very fingertips.

What is Internet Governance?

Although you’re probably familiar with the internet, the term ‘Internet Governance’ might not necessarily ring a bell. Internet Governance is the development and application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the internet.

There are various approaches to Internet Governance. One such approach is that of multistakeholderism. Complex problems could be more efficiently tackled by drawing on diverse expertise and involving different stakeholders in the decision-making process. A multistakeholder framework allows for the involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and citizens in said process. This approach is one that aligns with JEF’s values as it promotes subsidiarity and participation.

Goal of Internet Governance

An important underlying goal of Internet Governance is that of protecting fundamental rights online. One such right is online freedom of expression. Nowadays, various parts of the internet can be considered a public forum. Today, someone without access to the internet will have little to no idea of the current events and goings-on of the world around us. Nor would they be able to reach out and make their voices heard to the voters and constituents of society. And so, an important question is put forward: is barring access to such sites a violation of freedom of expression?

Case Study

One particularly interesting case study is that of Knight v. Trump. This was a lawsuit brought forward by a group of Twitter users blocked by former U.S. President Donald Trump’s personal @realDonaldTrump account. They alleged that this account constituted a public forum, and that blocking access to it is a violation of their First Amendment rights. The court ruled that the Twitter account was a presidential account as opposed to a personal account, and that blocking people from it violates their rights to participate in a designated public forum. After this ruling, the 7 Twitter users that were a part of the lawsuit were unblocked.

The right to information

Furthermore, the right to information is one worth mentioning. This right is being challenged by a principle known as content curation. Content curation algorithms gather information relevant to a particular internet user, and show them the content that the algorithm considers to be of interest to that user. This is a particularly dangerous practice as it creates an echo-chamber of content. It harms democratic principles such as pluralism and diversity, and narrows the access to information.

There are a number of digital rights that have been challenged mostly in the past year and a half due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The right to disconnect is a proposed human right regarding the ability of people to disconnect from work and not to engage in work-related electronic communications such as e-mails or messages during non-work hours. The concept of working from home has blurred the lines regarding when work “ends”. In fact, Portugal has recently brought in new laws which ban employers from contacting their employees outside of working hours.

Personal Experience

As a student myself, I remember that in the early stages of Covid when both students and teachers were struggling with the transition to online learning, I was receiving school-related e-mails all day every day, even as late as 10 o’clock at night. When the new scholastic year began, administration made it a point to inform lecturers not to send us any e-mails past 5pm, which is the end of the school day.

In order to disconnect, one must be able to connect in the first place. Some might argue that internet access should be categorized as a privilege rather than a right, however, accessing the internet has become integral to human life in this day and age. Moving classes online has increased inequalities for students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, who have limited or no access to a stable internet connection or to a computer. Even before Covid, the United Nations declared access to the internet a human right, and condemned any efforts to hinder people from getting online.

Of course, with rights come responsibilities, and sometimes that means regulation. Several proposals have been announced by the European Commission in order to regulate digital giants and companies. For example, the Digital Services Act will enact new legislation regarding illegal content, transparent advertising and disinformation. Furthermore, the Digital Markets Act intends to ensure a higher degree of competition in the European digital markets by preventing large companies from abusing their market power and allowing new players to enter the market.

In short, there are various approaches to Internet Governance, and some approaches benefit certain parties more than others. It is for this reason that we must find a compromise that works for everyone, respecting the rights of users and regulating tech giants accordingly.

Event Details

Join us on Saturday the 27th November at AX The Palace Hotel to discuss Internet Governance and its importance in the ever-changing digital sphere we are living in. Explore what youths’ role is in Internet Governance as well as the relationship between internet governance and democracy. Don’t forget to register using this link: https://forms.gle/L5nkcHHVyksxejxv6

This event is funded by the Council of Europe, the European Youth Foundation, and co-funded by the Europe for Citizens Programme of the European Union.

For further article published by JEF click Here!

The post Internet Governance: What is it and how can it be tackled? appeared first on The Third Eye.

Written by Michaela Pia Camilleri

Today marks the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery. It is important to remember humanity’s history- of cruelty that is slavery which our ancestors contributed to so senselessly. It seems that this cruelty however, is a recurring phenomenon. Particularly seeing the xenophobia certain people so proudly endorse.

Why was Slavery Justified?

The Americans, Europeans and us Maltese are the reason why Africans travel miles and endure the most precarious conditions. We have decided to erase our horrendous and cruel deeds and push them underneath the carpet. Slave trade in Africa started with the Europeans. The horrible deeds the British, Portuguese, Spanish, Belgians (who everyone seems to forget) and other powers have done to maintain such power are often overlooked.

La Mission Civillisatrice was a civilizing mission that posed the following argument, which justified the horrors of colonialism;

“We made them more civilized than they could ever make themselves become.”

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Africa thrived before exploitation (dressed as colonization) began. Before colonisers arrived, it had its own forms of commerce, science, art, and measures of what is considered civilised. Imperialists failed to recognise, and actively distorted, the notion of civilisation and successful ways of living different to theirs. Shocking . The exploitation of Africa started with wars inspired to procure slaves and export them to the West. The International Slave Trade continued well into the 19th century. Needless to say, these slaves were treated cruelly as if less than human.

Slavery in Malta?

If you think that the Maltese had nothing to do with this, think again. Schools leave out the fact that: in the 18th century Malta was deemed one of the four most prominent Mediterranean countries to practiced slave trade . It was only abolished with the arrival of Napoleon in Malta. Historian Godfrey Wettinger discussed this in his scholarly article Black African Slaves in Malta. The Maltese contributed to these disgusting inhumane crimes for the sake of wealth, while obliterating that of these other countries. Europe underdeveloped Africa, so Africa could develop Europe.

Colonisation: The act of settling and establishing control over the indigenous people in the area

Colonisation pushed these African communities under the tyranny of Europeans. Their main intention was the exploitation of the mineral and agricultural wealth taken at the lowest prices. A search on the Belgians in Congo should be clear enough. Clearly, the economic and societal improvement of these countries was not the aim, as the African enterprise was rejected by the Europeans’ greed. The work Africans could do was that of serving these tyrannical superpowers. Africans were made to feel inferior, that their skin, customs and way of life were not right. This internalised racism festered into a perceived inferiority. They felt that they could not improve their situation, let alone take control of their country, since their dignity and self-respect
was quashed.

Consequently, these countries have not yet managed to recover. Their situation hasn’t been improved by their mineral wealth. On the contrary, Westerners, be them imperialists or modern day multinationals, skew the configuration to benefit the corrupt elite and themselves, thus allowing this practice to carry on.

Act of Exploitation

The assassination of Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba in 1961 by the USA and Belgium is a quintessential example of outside intereference. Lumumba believed in the need to free Africa from the Europeans’ and Americans’ iron fist, yet the US had not yet finished exploiting Congo’s mineral wealth. The USA paid billions of dollars to Mobutu Sese Seko and Joseph Kasa-Vubu, who were also given weapons directly from the CIA, to kill Lumumba and suppress any attempt by Africans to stop this exploitation.

Conclusion

These tyrants who seek self-profit still control these minerally wealthy but impoverished countries, indulging in their wealth, leaving the impoverished people’s hands tied. How can these people be blamed for seeking better lives? The system of global inequality has ruined any chance of it. The irregular migration Europe has been facing is far less than what is deserved. We should feel ashamed of our past. Africa had so much potential, probably being the richest continent of natural resources. Yet a history of exploitation has left them too unstable to actualise their potential.

Is this how we treat our brothers and sisters who are no less but maybe more human than us?
How do we have the decency to ignore their calls for help to escape the very same societies we ruined?

Check this article out to learn 40 Ways to Fight Racism

The post Lest We Forget: Commemorating International Day for the Abolition of Slavery | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.

There’s always room for diversity; we’re all sisters. It’s about all of us trying to understand each other from our different circumstances. There is space for all of us.

Panelist Francesca Fenech Conti addressed the conversation regarding women’s rights, abortion as well as contraception.

“Criticism helps us grow” said the activist. She spoke about how criticism is good and if someone proves her wrong she’s willing to change.

The morning after pill was discussed and Fenech Conti stated if a woman is menstruating and has a risk of pregnancy she should be allowed to purchase a morning after pill regardless of her age whilst always discussing with specialists and emphasised the importance of education in this matter.

She expressed that it is important to talk about contraception despite it not being discussed on a national level and she stressed that contraception should be free and readily available for those in need of it.

She continued by saying that legalisation of abortion is the end product of a very tough journey which includes a number of diplomatic talks and a lot of compromise.

The right to life comes from a very religious background back when ensoulment was very important. It’s the biggest moral dilemma and it is a very personal and private issue. The right to life is a very moral concept. She emphasised that it is such an important choice for a woman. A woman has a right to life as well.

Decriminalisation would also be a very good start said the activist. Ideally abortion should enter as a policy but politicians are too scared to take this leap. Policies should be there to cater for all our citizens and not just those who can afford to leave the country to commit the act.

Fenech Conti stated that no one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. Quite to the contrary she wishes that no woman would be in a state to consider abortion however, it is a reality which we have to act upon. Making the act unlawful would only prevent women from accessing a safe abortion rather than banning abortion throughout.

Statistics show that 92% of abortions happen when the woman is less than 13 weeks pregnant and the next 7% happen between 14% to 20% because they get diagnosed with a severe anomaly whilst the very few left happen after 20 week mark.

To add on, a member of the audience stated that the current situation right now does not allow women to discuss their experiences which lets them grow.

This conversation was a part of JEF’s campaign, JEF Talks which President Nicola Mangion described as, “an idea to have students discussing issues they feel are relevant in an intimate context.”

The post Abortion, a Reality We Have to Act Upon | JEF Talks appeared first on The Third Eye.

This debate will feature several prominent European politicians, dignitaries, and officials. The first hour will take the form of a hot seat question and answer session with several European ambassadors who will be there to share with us what Europe means to them. Following this, a lively panel debate will begin at 13.00. The aim of this debate is to bring policymakers, experts, and youths closer together, in an attempt to look towards ideas that would fit our vision as European youths.

The hot seat session will see guest speakers H.E. Ambassador Béatrice Le Fraper Du Hellen (France), H.E. Ambassador Gudrun Maria Sräga (Germany), O.B.E. British High Commissioner Stuart Gill (United Kingdom), H.E. Ambassador José Maria Pons Irazazábal (Spain), H.E. Ambassador Mario Sammartino (Italy), H.E. Ambassador Joop Nijssen (Netherlands), Dr. Elena Grech (Head of Representation, European Commission Office). Following this, the panellists for the debate will be Hon. Dr. Roberta Metsola MEP (EPP), and Dr. Mark Harwood (Director of the Institute for European Studies). More panellists will be confirmed closer to the date.

Facebook Event

The post Our European Identity – JEF appeared first on The Third Eye.

This debate will see guest speakers Dr. Ahmed Bugri (Chairman of Foundation for Shelter and Support to Migrants), Ms. Sara Ezabe (Student and Activist), and Mr. Luca Caramagna (Office of the Commissioner for Refugees). 

The speakers will engage with the audience to discuss issues including integration, media bias against migrants, detention centres, and the possibility of a better common European policy for migration, amongst others. The aim of this debate is to bring experts and youths closer together, in an attempt to look towards solutions that would fit our vision as European youths.

We would like to invite a representative from your media organisation to attend this event. Kindly RSVP via e-mail, and do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions. We also have a Facebook page for the event:

https://www.facebook.com/events/156693378487828/

JEF (Young European Federalists) Malta is a supranational, political movement which promotes a vision of a united and more democratic Europe. It is a pan-European, youth non-governmental organisation which works on political issues and is the main youth lobby group for the European Parliament. This year, JEF Malta has launched ‘Generation Europe’ – a structured dialogue project comprising of monthly day-long seminars. This campaign will provide an opportunity for citizens to give concrete solutions on critical topics of European relevance, through the creation of reports which are then presented to European and national policymakers and politicians.

The post Youth-Led Debate on Migrants’ Rights appeared first on The Third Eye.