Category: English

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nick Draper, Professor of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Canterbury

The widely held view among rugby players, coaches and officials is that headgear can’t prevent concussion. If so, why wear it? It’s hot, it can block vision and hearing, and it can be uncomfortable.

Headgear was originally designed to protect players from cuts and abrasions. But players still hope it will offer them a degree of protection against the collisions they experience in the game. Some players adopt it after previous concussions.

We’re now seeing increasing numbers of professional players opting in. The Irish men’s team, for example, field up to five players each match sporting headgear. In Japan, it’s mandatory for juniors. And more parents in New Zealand are making their children wear it, too.

The exact specifications for rugby match kit – boots, shorts, shoulder pads and
headgear – are regulated through World Rugby’s Law 4 and Regulation 12. In 2019, the governing body launched a trial enabling players to wear headgear with new technical specifications in training and matches.

The specifications have meant manufacturers can take advantage of novel “isotropic” materials that can potentially reduce the impact forces experienced by players.

Conventional headgear is composed of soft foams that flatten when a player’s head collides with the ground or another player. As such, they can only minimally absorb those collision forces.

Isotropic materials behave differently. They can absorb impacts from multiple directions and may offer a level of protection against the effects on a player’s head of a tackle or other collision event.

Given these changes, and in light of recent research, we may need to change the narrative around rugby headgear: while it may not prevent concussion, it might reduce the total contact “burden” experienced by players in a game and over a whole season. And this could have benefits for long-term brain health.

Impacts across seasons and careers

Contact in rugby – through tackles, at the breakdown, and in scrums and lineouts – leads to players experiencing a number of collisions or “head acceleration events”. This contact is most commonly head to ground, head to body or head to head.

By having players use “smart” mouthguards with embedded micro-accelerometers and gyroscopes to capture head movements, researchers can now measure each collision and each player’s contact load in a game – and potentially over a career.

A player’s total contact load is found by adding together the magnitude of the impacts they experience in a game. These are measured as “peak linear accelerations” or “peak rotational accelerations”.

While past research and media attention has focused on concussion, it has become clear the total contact burden in training and matches – the total “sub-concussive knocks” through head acceleration events – may be as important, if not more so.

One of our own research projects involved following 40 under-16 players wearing smart mouthguards for all training and matches across one season. Peak Linear accelerations are measured as a g-force (g). Activities such as such as running, jumping and shaking the head would measure under 8g, for example, whereas heading a soccer ball might measure 31g.

The results of our study showed the players differed greatly in their cumulative exposure over a whole season, from 300g to nearly 14,000g. These differences would be amplified further over an entire rugby career.

Some of the variation is likely due to a player’s team position, with loose forwards having a greater burden than others. But it also seems some players just enjoy the contact aspects of the game more than others.

Potential benefits of new headgear materials

Researcher Helen Murray at the University of Auckland has highlighted the need for more research into the burden of collisions, rather than just concussions, over a rugby career. In particular, we need to know more about its effect on future brain health.

We hope to contribute to this by following our existing cohort of players through their careers. In the meantime, our research has examined the potential of existing rugby headgear and new isotropic materials to mitigate peak accelerations in rugby collisions.

Using the field data collected from male and female players over the past four seasons, we have designed laboratory testing protocols to compare the conventional and newer materials.

The results suggest the new forms of headgear do have the potential to reduce the impact burden for players.

We found 55–90% of head acceleration events do involve direct contact with the head. As such, collision-mitigation headgear could be beneficial. And our laboratory testing produced an estimated 30% reduction in peak linear accelerations with the headgear compared to without.

The nature of concussion is complex and related to the size of an impact as well as its direction and angle. For instance, we observed the concussions experienced by the junior players occurred between 12g and 62g – well below the male threshold of 70g requiring professional players to be removed from the field for a head injury assessment.

Currently, it seems unlikely headgear can prevent concussion. But it does appear new headgear materials could significantly reduce the total impact burden for players during their careers. And this may help safeguard their future brain health.

Nick Draper receives funding from the Health Research Council, Cure Kids, the Neurological Foundation, Canterbury Medical Research Foundation, Pacific Radiology Group, the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust, and the UC Foundation.

– ref. Rugby headgear can’t prevent concussion – but new materials could soften the blows over a career – https://theconversation.com/rugby-headgear-cant-prevent-concussion-but-new-materials-could-soften-the-blows-over-a-career-258912

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Belinda Clarence, Law Lecturer, RMIT University

During the recent conflict between Iran and Israel, Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s major shipping routes.

Would that be possible, and what effects would it have?

The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It is used to transport about 20% of global daily oil consumption.

Iran effectively controls this crucial shipping route because it is a coastal state bordering this narrow stretch of water. The strait is too narrow to avoid navigating waters claimed by Iran. This raises thorny legal questions about whether it is really possible for Iran to block the strait, and what recourse other states have if it does.

This geographical reality is far from new, and the legal frameworks governing international maritime activity have developed over centuries. At its heart is the lex mercatoria — the “law of merchants” — a body of transnational commercial law that emerged organically from the practices of traders operating across borders.

Within this broader framework sits the lex maritima, or customary maritime law, which has long adapted to the hazards of shipping across vast oceans.

The lex maritima originated from the shared practices of seafarers and merchants. Its purpose? To manage the unpredictable nature of maritime trade that demands coherent and stable rules.

One of the most enduring principles of this legal tradition is the idea of mare liberum, or “the free sea”, set out by Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1609. He argued the high seas should remain open to all for peaceful navigation and trade. This conveniently legitimised the ambitions of European colonial powers, granting them unfettered access to global maritime routes at a time when control over sea-based trade promised immense economic and strategic advantage.

The shifting boundaries of maritime law

One of the most fundamental questions in maritime law is: where do a nation’s territorial waters end, and the high seas begin?

After the second world war, a series of conferences culminated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the customary 3 nautical miles (5.56km) of territorial waters states could claim as their own was extended. This narrow limit was rooted more in historical naval range – the so-called “cannon shot rule” – than in modern geopolitical or environmental realities.

In 1959, Iran took the unusual step of unilaterally extending its territorial sea to 12 nautical miles, despite not being a party to UNCLOS. Two decades later, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the US Embassy hostage crisis, Washington grew increasingly anxious about the security of oil flows from the Persian Gulf. These concerns intensified during the Iran-Iraq War, especially as Iran began using small islands in the Strait of Hormuz to deploy military forces and threaten commercial shipping.

UNCLOS and the new rules of the sea

One of the key compromises of UNCLOS was an extension of territorial waters for states that ratified the treaty. In exchange, UNCLOS replaced the older concept of “innocent passage” – which allowed only surface navigation through territorial seas – with the broader notion of “transit passage”. Under this regime, vessels and aircraft from other states are granted the right to travel not only on the surface, but also under the sea and through the air above straits used for international navigation.

While 169 states have ratified UNCLOS, both Iran and the United States remain notable holdouts. This means Iran does not enjoy the broader 12-nautical-mile limit recognised under UNCLOS, and the US cannot claim the agreement’s protections for transit passage through strategic choke points.

While the geopolitical and legal tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz may seem far removed from the world of private commerce, the global economy continues to function thanks to a powerful legal tool: the contract. Contracts offer a predictable framework that allows trade across borders without parties needing to trust one another personally.

The Strait of Hormuz is bordered by active, assertive states such as Iran, which means the potential for interstate conflict is relatively high. This doesn’t mean commercial contracts are irrelevant to the recent dispute in the Strait of Hormuz — far from it. But their influence is more indirect.

What can be learned?

Without significant political change in Tehran, it’s unlikely either Iran or the US will shift its position on adopting UNCLOS. Yet despite Iran’s repeated threats to close the strait, it has never followed through — and the US Navy continues to maintain a steady presence in the region. For now, a fragile but persistent equilibrium holds.

Belinda Clarence does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-strait-of-hormuz-and-why-is-it-so-important-for-global-shipping-260920

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

The ABC dodged a bullet in the Australian election. The Albanese government supports the ABC. In the United States, however, the 2024 presidential election severely wounded public media in America.

Fresh from his decisive victory in Congress – passage of the One Big Beautiful bill that locks in the legislation to prosecute Trump’s domestic policy agenda – Trump is demanding Congress cancel funding for public media, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). Hardliners in the US House of Representatives have already voted to end all federal funding for public media. The Senate will vote on this issue in mid-July.

We have tale of two vital and powerful media institutions in Australia and the US. What happens over there can affect what happens here.

Towards the end of Australia’s election campaign, Peter Dutton, then leader of the Liberal Party, opened up on the ABC. He looped in The Guardian for good measure. And he implied other media deserved his words:

Forget about what you have been told by the ABC, The Guardian and the other hate media.

Dutton’s words embellished previous policies under Coalition governments, with budget cuts to the ABC of over $500 million, and several inquiries into the degree of ABC’s neutrality and objectivity in its coverage of news and current affairs.

---

Read more:
Peter Dutton calling the ABC and the Guardian ‘hate media’ rings alarm bells for democracy

---

Kim Williams, chair of the ABC, said the network would “perform well” under any scrutiny from a Dutton government. Dutton himself, shortly before the election, demanded the ABC show “excellence” in order to prove to taxpayers that its almost $1.2 billion annual budget was justified.

The Coalition’s defeat aided the ABC’s victory in its longstanding quest for financial stability and future growth. The ABC can continue to build on the commitments established by the Albanese Labor government in 2023 – even though there are choppy waters for the ABC as its new leadership makes programming and staffing decisions for the years ahead.

With a new Coalition shadow cabinet in place, we will see as future budgets play out whether they have changed their tune on their approach to the ABC.

We will see how both the government and the Coalition react to Kim Williams’ powerful case he recently presented for “more investment for much-needed renewal” in the ABC.

Public media in Trump’s America

In America today, public media are facing Trump’s wrath.

Trump’s hatred of mainstream media is legendary. For the past decade, Trump has called the major media outlets the “enemy of the people” – the same label that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin used against those who dared to oppose him.

In his second term, Trump is engaged in aggressive muscling of the enemies he sees in the media. The Associated Press is barred from the pool of journalists covering the president. Trump has silenced the Voice of America. The US ABC and CBS television networks have both settled lawsuits filed by Trump to seek damages for their broadcast coverage of him and the 2024 presidential campaign. The price to help avoid regulatory punishment by the government of those two networks: $US16 million (A$24.5 million) each.

For a country that established freedom of the press under its Constitution, Trump’s attacks on news media are an ongoing assault on America’s democracy.

Trump’s attacks on PBS and NPR show the existential threat they face.

In 1967, Congress established and funded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to bring to life public television and radio across America. Money from CPB supports the stations. The stations contract with PBS and NPR to help produce the programming they air, from the PBS NewsHour, Frontline and Sesame Street on PBS to Morning Edition and All Things Considered on NPR – and much more.

Trump holds the same sentiment that Dutton expressed against the ABC – that the public broadcasters are biased toward the “extreme woke Marxist left”. Trump wrote on Truth Social that:

Jim Jordan of Ohio, one of the most influential Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, was in-your-face direct on the case against public media:

This bill’s real simple. Don’t spend money on stupid things, and don’t subsidize biased media.

In late April, Trump ordered the firing of three of CPB’s five directors. On May 1, Trump issued an executive order that will savage public media’s existence:

At the very least, Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage […] The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS.“

Public media has filed red-hot lawsuits against Trump and his officials for crushing the First Amendment free-speech rights of public televion and radio stations, and for cancelling funds appropriated by Congress. The court rulings in these cases will be crucial to the outcome.

The last near-fatal threat to public broadcasting was in 1981, when President Ronald Reagan sought Congress’ approval to decimate its funding. Under Reagan conservatism, media belong in the private sector. The conservative’s political bias against public broadcasting framed the push to cancel government funding.

But Congress rose up successfully against the Reagan cuts – led not only by Democrats but with Senate Republicans from rural states who understood how important public broadcasting was to their communities. Their budgets were trimmed, but PBS and NPR were not decapitated.

Lessons for the ABC

The same is true here: ABC stations in country areas are similarly held in high regard.

The cuts to public media passed the US House by one vote on June 12.

The Senate will vote in the coming days. We will see if some Senate Republicans who voted against Trump’s One Big Beautiful bill last week will stand up again and vote to buck Trump on this issue and protect public media in their states.

If Trump succeeds in silencing public media in America, the Trump echo chamber in Australia will take note. Some hard conservatives in Canberra and the Murdoch media will likely leverage Congress’ approval of Trump’s order that PBS and NPR be punished for their left-wing bias and that public media should become the province of the private sector. Defunding public media in the US will sustain the sentiment that one day, under a future government here, the scythe will be wielded at the ABC.

If the US Senate supports Trump, the fight for the ABC in Australia – not just over money, but over its role, responsibilities and standing in Australia – may not be over.

Bruce Wolpe is a (non-resident) Senior Fellow at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. The views expressed herein are his own. Wolpe served on the staff of Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He worked on the Democratic staff in Congress on public broadcasting issues and was an executive with NPR. He is the author of two books on Trump and Australia.

– ref. Trump is aiming to silence public media in the US – and if he succeeds, his supporters here will take note – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-aiming-to-silence-public-media-in-the-us-and-if-he-succeeds-his-supporters-here-will-take-note-260584

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally nominated United States President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the president is “forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region after the other”.

Trump, who has craved the award for years, sees himself as a global peacemaker in a raft of conflicts from Israel and Iran, to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

With the conflict in Gaza still raging, we ask five experts – could Trump be rewarded with the world’s most prestigious peace prize?

Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

Jasmine-Kim Westendorf has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Shahram Akbarzadeh receives funding from Australia Research Council.

Ali Mamouri and Ian Parmeter do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/does-donald-trump-deserve-the-nobel-peace-prize-we-asked-5-experts-260801

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jon Whittle, Director, Data61, CSIRO

There’s been much talk recently – especially among politicians – about productivity. And for good reason: Australia’s labour productivity growth sits at a 60-year low.

To address this, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened a productivity round table next month. This will coincide with the release of an interim report from the Productivity Commission, which is looking at five pillars of reform. One of these is the role of data and digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI).

This will be music to the ears of the tech and business sectors, which have been enthusiastically promoting the productivity benefits of AI. In fact, the Business Council of Australia also said last month that AI is the single greatest opportunity in a generation to lift productivity.

But what do we really know about how AI impacts productivity?

What is productivity?

Put simply, productivity is how much output (goods and services) we can produce from a given amount of inputs (such as labour and raw materials). It matters because higher productivity typically translates to a higher standard of living. Productivity growth has accounted for 80% of Australia’s income growth over the past three decades.

Productivity can be thought of as individual, organisational or national.

Your individual productivity is how efficiently you manage your time and resources to complete tasks. How many emails can you respond to in an hour? How many products can you check for defects in a day?

Organisational productivity is how well an organisation achieves its goals. For example, in a research organisation, how many top-quality research papers are produced?

National productivity is the economic efficiency of a nation, often measured as gross domestic product per hour worked. It is effectively an aggregate of the other forms. But it’s notoriously difficult to track how changes in individual or organisational productivity translate into national GDP per hour worked.

AI and individual productivity

The nascent research examining the relationship between AI and individual productivity shows mixed results.

A 2025 real-world study of AI and productivity involved 776 experienced product professionals at US multinational company Procter & Gamble. The study showed that individuals randomly assigned to use AI performed as well as a team of two without. A similar study in 2023 with 750 consultants from Boston Consulting Group found tasks were 18% faster with generative AI.

A 2023 paper reported on an early generative AI system in a Fortune 500 software company used by 5,200 customer support agents. The system showed a 14% increase in the number of issues resolved per hour. For less experienced agents, productivity increased by 35%.

But AI doesn’t always increase individual productivity.

A survey of 2,500 professionals found generative AI actually increased workload for 77% of workers. Some 47% said they didn’t know how to unlock productivity benefits. The study points to barriers such as the need to verify and/or correct AI outputs, the need for AI upskilling, and unreasonable expectations about what AI can do.

A recent CSIRO study examined the daily use of Microsoft 365 Copilot by 300 employees of a government organisation. While the majority self-reported productivity benefits, a sizeable minority (30%) did not. Even those workers who reported productivity improvements expected greater productivity benefits than were delivered.

AI and organisational productivity

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to attribute changes in an organisation’s productivity to the introduction of AI. Businesses are sensitive to many social and organisational factors, any one of which could be the reason for a change in productivity.

Nevertheless, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated the productivity benefits of traditional AI – that is, machine learning applied for an industry-specific task – to be zero to 11% at the organisational level.

A 2024 summary paper cites independent studies showing increases in organisational productivity from AI in Germany, Italy and Taiwan.

In contrast, a 2022 analysis of 300,000 US firms didn’t find a significant correlation between AI adoption and productivity, but did for other technologies such as robotics and cloud computing. Likely explanations are that AI hasn’t yet had an effect on many firms, or simply that it’s too hard to disentangle the impact of AI given it’s never applied in isolation.

AI productivity increases can also sometimes be masked by additional human labour needed to train or operate AI systems. Take Amazon’s Just Walk Out technology for shops.

Publicly launched in 2018, it was intended to reduce labour as customer purchases would be fully automated. But it reportedly relied on hiring around 1,000 workers in India for quality control. Amazon has labelled these reports “erroneous”.

More generally, think about the unknown number (but likely millions) of people paid to label data for AI models.

AI and national productivity

The picture at a national level is even murkier.

Clearly, AI hasn’t yet impacted national productivity. It can be argued that technology developments take time to affect national productivity, as companies need to figure out how to use the technology and put the necessary infrastructure and skills in place.

However, this is not guaranteed. For example, while there is consensus that the internet led to productivity improvements, the effects of mobile phones and social media are more contested, and their impacts are more apparent in some industries (such as entertainment) than others.

Productivity isn’t just doing things faster

The common narrative around AI and productivity is that AI automates mundane tasks, making us faster at doing things and giving us more time for creative pursuits. This, however, is a naive view of how work happens.

Just because you can deal with your inbox more quickly doesn’t mean you’ll spend your afternoon on the beach. The more emails you fire off, the more you’ll receive back, and the never-ending cycle continues.

Faster isn’t always better. Sometimes, we need to slow down to be more productive. That’s when great ideas happen.

Imagine a world in which AI isn’t simply about speeding up tasks but proactively slows us down, to give us space to be more innovative, and more productive. That’s the real untapped opportunity with AI.

Jon Whittle works at CSIRO which receives R&D funding from a wide range of government and industry clients.

– ref. Does AI actually boost productivity? The evidence is murky – https://theconversation.com/does-ai-actually-boost-productivity-the-evidence-is-murky-260690

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology

The offer pops up in your social media feed. The website is professional and the imagery illustrates an Australian coastal region, or chic inner-CBD scene.

The brand name indicates this exclusive fashion retailer is based in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, or an exclusive enclave such as Double Bay or Byron Bay.

The businesses have history, having apparently been “established” 30–40 years ago, and a story. The owners have reluctantly decided to close or relocate, resulting in significant discounts.

However, behind the illusion of prestige and luxury, is cheap, poorly manufactured clothing from Chinese factories.

The recent growth of these online “ghost stores” has led the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission to issue public warning notices about four websites.

Everly-melbourne.com, willowandgrace-adelaide.com, sophie-claire.com and doublebayboutique.com are the four named.

A new type of scam

The ACCC’s Targeting Scams report estimated Australians lost A$2.74 billion in 2023. Most losses were from investment scams ($1.3 billion), remote access scams ($256 million), and romance scams ($201.1 million).

---

Read more:
3.5 million Australians experienced fraud last year. This could be avoided through 6 simple steps

---

However, online ghost store scams are so new, researchers and government agencies have not yet had time to measure the financial impact these businesses are having on consumers or legitimate fashion businesses.

It is possible a consumer, once stung by a ghost store scam, will be less likely to shop with a legitimate online fashion retailer.

This type of emerging scam was touched on in a 2015 report called Framework for a Taxonomy of Fraud. The report noted there were businesses selling “worthless or non-existent products”. Their sites made:

misleading claims about products that are exaggerated, undervalued, or non-existent.

Since the beginning of 2025, the ACCC reports it has received at least 360 complaints about 60 online ghost retailers. It says many more may be operating across several social media sites.

Tricky tactics

Ghost stores use a variety of tactics to attract unsuspecting customers.

Price: Customers regularly assume higher prices mean higher quality. Most customers seeing a “leather” jacket for $19.74 on Temu would expect low quality. However, a silk maxi-dress from Everly Melbourne reduced from $209.95 to $82.95 – a 60% saving – seems reasonable and reflective of normal mid-season clearance pricing. That fact it’s still priced at more than $80 also implies good quality.

Cosmopolitan localism: Researchers have reported that so-called cosmopolitan localism fosters meaningful consumer relationships with brands. Consumers are more likely to trust a business based in Melbourne or Byron Bay over one based internationally.

Adding images of a physical store front creates credibility and “realness”. Customers feel confident to buy from a little business based in Melbourne, Sydney or somewhere well known to them.

Storytelling: Storytelling can influence shoppers’ emotions and affect purchasing. It helps stimulate deeper emotional connections to a brand. Ghost stores will regularly create a narrative around “going out of business” to justify price discounts and pull on heart-strings.

Layout: A professionally developed website, with high-quality images, detailed product information, online payment methods and order tracking, creates the illusion of authenticity. Researchers have found luxury brand website designs can create a strong sense of luxury. This increases a willingness to buy.

How to spot a “ghost”

When the post indicates “closing today” or “closing down sale ends tonight”, it is very easy to impulsively jump in to take advantage of the savings. However, before you click, check for these red flags:

1. The website does not provide a contact phone number or physical address for the store. There might just be an email address or web form. Simply entering the suspected store into google maps will indicate no physical location.

2. The website domain is “.com” rather than “.com.au”. This indicates the store is not an Australian-based business.

3. Is the business registered? ABN Lookup is the free public view of the Australian Business Register – a quick search will identify that the Double Bay designer isn’t registered locally.

4. Review platforms, including Trustpilot, often have negative reviews for the business, whereas the business’ website only features very positive reviews.

5. The images of products or even the owner may be AI generated. For example, Harry – Melbourne, is apparently an artisan watchmaker. However, simply right-clicking on the image reveals Harry is an AI-generated image.

A cautionary note

Online shopping is risky. You can’t physically touch or interact with the product to determine its quality. Three types of risks are common when shopping online. These are performance risk (it doesn’t work, doesn’t fit well, or the quality is poor), financial risk (losing your money on a poor-quality product), and time-loss risk (refund processing takes weeks).

As such, customers must trust the online retailer to act honestly and describe products accurately. When trust is breached, consumers will naturally become cautious even about legitimate online retailers.

As ghost stores scams increasingly populate social media feeds, unsuspecting consumers will continue to get caught out. This will leave legitimate retailers exposed to scepticism and mistrust.

Gary Mortimer receives funding from the Building Employer Confidence and Inclusion in Disability Grant, AusIndustry Entrepreneurs’ Program, National Clothing Textiles Stewardship Scheme, National Retail Association and Australian Retailers Association.

– ref. Are ‘ghost stores’ haunting your social media feed? How to spot and avoid them – https://theconversation.com/are-ghost-stores-haunting-your-social-media-feed-how-to-spot-and-avoid-them-260583

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz has announced a controversial plan to move up to 600,000 Palestinians in Gaza into a designated “humanitarian area” on the ruins of the southern city of Rafah.

Access to the camp would be through strict security screening to ensure entrants were not Hamas operatives. Once inside, the perimeter would be sealed off by the Israeli military. Palestinians would not be allowed to leave.

Eventually the camp would house the entire 2.1 million population of Gaza.

Camp construction would begin during the proposed 60-day ceasefire being negotiated by Israel and Hamas

‘Illegal and inhumane’

The plan is illegal, inhumane and risks worsening the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The forced displacement and containment of any civilian population in an occupied territory is a violation of international humanitarian law.

Done on this scale would constitute a war crime and a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute.

The UN Security Council, UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights have all condemned instances of forced transfer in armed conflicts.

So too, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, which have stressed the fundamental prohibition of forced displacement of a civilian population and the need for all parties to respect this prohibition.

For their own protection?

Katz is describing the camp as a “humanitarian city”. The Israeli military says Palestinians would only be contained for their own protection.

As we have seen, civilian displacement is prohibited. But there is an exception if a case can be made either for military reasons or the protection of the population.

However, this exception only exists for as long as the conditions warrant for it to exist. Anyone subject to such an evacuation must be transferred back to their homes as soon as possible.

Imperative military reasons never justify the removal of a civilian population in order to persecute it. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement entrenches the duty of international actors to avoid creating the conditions that might lead to the displacement of people.

Aid dilemma

Katz has indicated international organisations would be responsible for managing aid and services inside the area.

But Israel has a history of defying even orders from the International Court of Justice to allow humanitarian aid to reach the Palestinians in Gaza.

If international humanitarian agencies were called upon to service the camp, they would face a dilemma.

They would need to decide whether to cooperate in managing aid under conditions that compromise their neutrality and ethical standards, deny basic human rights and are built on violations of international law.

Aid groups would risk being complicit in a process that sets up a transit camp for Palestinians before possibly expelling them from Gaza altogether.

This “humanitarian city” would essentially become an open-air prison. Palestinians would be reliant on international aid under strict Israeli military control.

Mass expulsion?

Could the Rafah camp be a precursor to mass expulsion from Gaza and what does international law say about that?

Katz has been quoted saying Israel aims to implement “the emigration plan, which will happen” – meaning Gazans will eventually be forced to leave for other countries.

Changing the demographic composition of a territory – ethnic cleansing – achieved through the displacement of the civilian population of a territory is strictly prohibited under international law.

The idea of displacing Palestinians has long been part of Israeli strategic thinking, but this announcement signals a dangerous escalation and intention to permanently alter Gaza’s demographic landscape through displacement and containment.

Voluntary exodus?

According to Katz, Gazans would have the option of “voluntary” emigration.

Indeed, speaking at the White House this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there would be no forced exodus from Gaza:

If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave.

But the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is incomprehensible.

The population has been displaced multiple times and 90% of homes in Gaza are damaged or destroyed. The healthcare, water, sanitation and hygiene systems have collapsed.

On average 100 Palestinians are killed daily as they try to access food.

These crisis circumstances negate the voluntary nature of any person’s consent to either the transfer to the Rafah camp or ultimately, the departure from Gaza.

According to Amos Goldberg, historian of the Holocaust at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, what the defence minister laid out was clear plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza:

[it is] a transit camp for Palestinians before they expel them. It is neither humanitarian nor a city.

Shannon Bosch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Israel’s Rafah camp – ‘humanitarian city’ or crime against humanity? – https://theconversation.com/israels-rafah-camp-humanitarian-city-or-crime-against-humanity-260809

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Brenton Griffin, Casual Lecturer and Tutor in History, Indigenous Studies, and Politics, Flinders University

Reality TV series The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives follows a number of social media influencers from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who rose to prominence through social media, and particularly TikTok.

The show is based in Utah, United States, where the church has its headquarters. But it stands in stark contrast with the stereotypical perception of Mormons – and especially Mormon women – the church has promoted for more than a century.

Through its exploration of traditionally “taboo” topics such as sex, marital issues, mental illness and sexual abuse, The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives clashes against the church’s carefully curated public image.

Historical pariahs

Historically, the church’s practice of polygamy placed it at odds with the mainstream sexual and familial norms of 19th century America.

Polygamy had been practised by Mormons since at least the 1830s, and was officially announced as permissible by the church in 1852. The church now acknowledges its founder, Joseph Smith, married almost 40 women and teenage girls before his death in 1844.

When Mormon missionaries began to proselytise throughout the world, newspapers criticised the practice, and Mormons were framed as sexual deviants and racialised “pariahs”. In other words, Mormons were presented as being racially different to the rest of white American society. This claim was even supported by doctors at the time.

To Mormons, however, polygamy was a reintroduction of the correct form of marriage, and they pointed to biblical prophets to justify it.

In 1862, the US congress passed a series of laws aimed at abolishing polygamy. This resulted in the arrest of church leaders and the confiscation of church-owned funds and properties in Utah.

Then, in the 1870s, exposés written by former Mormons (particularly women) decried polygamy as evil, increasing hostility against Mormon leaders.

In 1890, church leader Wilford Woodruff announced in a revelation known as the Manifesto that polygamy would cease. The Manifesto was accepted by most Mormons as the government’s harassment increased. However, breakaway groups called “fundamentalists” continued the practice.

Today, Mormon scriptures continue to state polygamy is the correct form of marriage, and will exist in the afterlife.

The stereotypical Mormon

Since the ending of polygamy, the church has sought to establish itself as a moral equal to mainstream Christian norms, especially sexual norms. In 1995, it released a document titled Family: A Proclamation to the World which emphasised the view that heterosexual marriage and strict gender roles are divinely ordained.

As the church has grown, it has presented its members as model citizens of the nations they reside in.

In doing so, it has promoted unique doctrines and practices, such as sexual abstinence before marriage, and a particular health code called the Word of Wisdom which bars alcohol, tea, coffee and tobacco.

These doctrines, and existing stereotypes of Mormons, are examined in The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives.

Colliding perceptions

The 2024 release of the series caused waves in the Latter-day Saints community, with a number of Mormon-focused publications condemning it.

Before the show was released, the church published a general statement saying media portrayals of Mormons “often rely on sensationalism and inaccuracies that do not fairly and fully reflect the lives of our Church members”. It has yet to directly comment on the show.

Nonetheless, the representation of Mormons in The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives is problematic for the church, because it transgresses its highly curated image of Mormonism.

As the influencers put it, there is a desire to push back against stereotypes around Mormonism, and particularly Mormon women. These stereotypes have been crystallised by the church to combat perceptions of Mormons as sexually abhorrent, due to past practices of polygamy.

The women in the show wear clothing that would not cover “temple garments”, the mandatory Latter-day Saint undergarments which seek to impose sexual modesty.

There is also a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement that while the church prohibits stimulants such as tea, coffee and alcohol, Mormons within Utah and surrounds still consume other, somewhat surprising, substances. For instance, the use of ketamine in therapy is allowed when administered by a healthcare professional.

The series also engages with topics considered taboo in the church, such as marital issues, mental health struggles and consensual sex. Even if these are being played up by the cast or producers, such discussions are lacking in broader Mormon circles.

Importantly, there are admissions by some cast members, including one of the husbands, of being sexually abused as children. According to the cast members themselves, these disclosures are intended to empower viewers who may have had similar experiences.

This is a powerful critique, because the Mormon church has come under intense scrutiny for its failure to properly respond to child sexual assault, both in the US and globally.

The next steps

The show is having a marked impact on perceptions of Mormonism, despite the church’s stance it doesn’t represent the beliefs and lifestyle of Mormons more broadly.

For many viewers, it might be their introduction to the religion. This is concerning for adherents, and particularly for the church’s leadership.

There are internal tools the church could use against the show’s cast members, such as disciplinary councils or excommunication. But these would be ineffective since only about half the members consider themselves “faithful” Mormons.

It’s interesting the church has yet to condemn the show. Perhaps maintaining an image of reluctant acceptance is more important, as in recent years the church has been criticised for overreach against its own members.

In this case, the show would be an uncomfortable reality the church will just have to live with. Either way, the damage to the stereotypical Mormon image is done.

The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives is available to stream on Disney+.

Brenton Griffin was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is no longer a practising member of the church. His research is focused on the religion’s place in Australian and New Zealand popular culture, politics, and society from the 19th century to present.

– ref. The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives shatters the church’s century-long effort to curate its own image – https://theconversation.com/the-secret-lives-of-mormon-wives-shatters-the-churchs-century-long-effort-to-curate-its-own-image-260418

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mireille Rebeiz, Chair of Middle East Studies and Associate Professor of Francophone and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Dickinson College. Adjunct Professor of Law at Penn State Dickinson Law., Dickinson College

After a 12-day war launched by Israel and joined briefly by the United States, Iran has emerged weakened and vulnerable. And that has massive implications for another country in the region: Lebanon.

Hezbollah, Tehran’s main ally in Lebanon, had already lost a lot of its fighters, arsenal and popular support during its own war with Israel in October 2024.

Now, Iran’s government has little capacity to continue to finance, support and direct Hezbollah in Lebanon like it has done in the past. Compounding this shift away from Hezbollah’s influence, the U.S. recently laid down terms for a deal that would see the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon in return for the total disarmament of the paramilitary group – a proposal seemingly backed by the Lebanese government.

As an expert on Lebanese history and culture, I believe that these changing regional dynamics give the Lebanese state an opening to chart a more neutral orientation and extricate itself from neighboring conflicts that have long exacerbated the divided and fragile country’s chronic problems.

The shaping of modern Lebanon

Ideologically, developments in Iran played a major role in shaping the circumstances in which Hezbollah, the Shiite Islamist political party and paramilitary group, was born.

The Iranian Revolution of 1978-79 toppled the widely reviled and corrupt Western-backed monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza and led to the establishment of an Islamic republic. That revolution resonated among the young Shiite population in Lebanon, where a politically sectarian system that was intended to reflect a balanced representation of Muslims and Christians in the country had led to de facto discrimination against underrepresented groups.

Since Lebanon’s independence from France in 1943, most of the power has been concentrated in the hands of the Maronite Christians and Sunnis, leaving Shiite regions in south Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley lacking in development projects, social services and infrastructure.

At the same time, Lebanon for decades had been irreparably changed by the politics of its powerful neighbor in Israel.

In the course of founding its state in 1948, Israel forcibly removed over 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland – what Palestinians refer to as the Nakba, or “catastophe.” Many fled to Lebanon, largely in the country’s impoverished south and Bekaa Valley, which became a center of Palestinian resistance to Israel.

In 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon to push Palestinian fighters away from its northern borders and put an end to rockets launched from south Lebanon. This fighting included the massacre of many civilians and the displacement of many Lebanese and Palestinians farther north.

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon again with the stated purpose of eliminating the Palestinian Liberation Organization that had moved its headquarters to the country’s south. An estimated 17,000 to 19,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians and armed personnel were killed during the conflict and the accompanying siege of Beirut.

It was in this cauldron of regional and domestic sectarianism and state abandonment that Hezbollah formed as a paramilitary group in 1985, buoyed by Shiite mobilization following the Iranian revolution and Israel’s invasion and occupation.

Hezbollah’s domestic spoiler status

Over time and with the continuous support of Iran, Hezbollah become an important player in the Middle East, intervening in the Syrian civil war to support the Assad regime and supporting the Kata’ib Hezbollah, a dominant Iraqi pro-Iranian militia.

In 2016, Secretary General of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah officially recognized Iran’s role in funding their activities.

With Tehran’s support, Hezbollah was effectively able to operate as a state within a state while using its political clout to veto the vast majority of Lebanese parliamentary decisions it opposed. Amid that backdrop, Lebanon endured three long presidential vacuums: from November 2007 to May 2008; from May 2014 to October 2016; and finally from October 2022 to January 2024.

Lebanon also witnessed a series of political assassinations from 2005 to 2021 that targeted politicians, academics, journalists and other figures who criticized Hezbollah.

How the equation has changed

It would be an understatement, then, to say that Hezbollah’s and Iran’s weakened positions as a result of their respective conflicts with Israel since late 2023 create major political ramifications for Lebanon.

The most recent vacuum at the presidential level ended amid Hezbollah’s military losses against Israel, with Lebanon electing the former army commander Joseph Aoun as president.

Meanwhile, despite the threat of violence, the Lebanese opposition to Hezbollah, which consists of members of parliament and public figures, has increased its criticism of Hezbollah, openly denouncing its leadership and calling for Lebanon’s political neutrality.

These dissenting voices emerged cautiously during the Syrian civil war in 2011 and have grown after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks and the subsequent war on Gaza.

During the latest Israel-Iran war, the Lebanese opposition felt emboldened to reiterate its call for neutrality. Enabled by the U.S’s growing tutelage over Lebanon, some opposition figures have even called to normalize relations with Israel.

These efforts to keep Lebanon out of the circle of violence are not negligible. In the past, they would have been attacked by Hezbollah and its supporters for what they would have considered high treason. Today, they represent new movement for how leaders are conceiving of politics domestically and diplomacy across the region.

The critical regional context going forward

As the political system cautiously changes, Hezbollah is facing unprecedented financial challenges and is unable to meet its fighters’ needs, including the promise to rebuild their destroyed homes. And with its own serious internal challenges, Iran now has much less ability to meaningfully support Hezbollah from abroad.

But none of that means that Hezbollah is defeated as a political and military force, particularly as ongoing skirmishes with Israel give the group an external pretext.

The Hezbollah-Israel war ended with a ceasefire brokered by the United States and France on Nov. 27, 2024. However, Israel has been attacking south Lebanon on an almost daily basis, including three incidents over the course of 10 days from late June to early July that have left several people dead and more than a dozen wounded.

Amid these violations, Hezbollah continues to refuse to disarm and still casts itself as the only defender of Lebanon’s territorial integrity, again undermining the power of the Lebanese army and state.

Lebanon’s other neighbor, Syria, will also be critical. The fall of the Assad regime in December 2024 diminished Hezbollah’s powers in the region and land access to Iraq and Iran. And the new Syrian leadership is not interested in supporting the Iranian Shiite ideology in the region but rather in empowering the Sunni community, one that was oppressed under the Assad dictatorship.

While it’s too early to say, border tensions might translate into sectarian violence in Lebanon or even potential land loss. Yet the new Syrian government also has a different approach toward its neighbors than its predecessor. After decades of hostility, Syria seems to be opting for diplomacy with Israel rather than war. It is unclear what these negotiations will entail and how they will impact Lebanon and Hezbollah. However, there are real concerns about new borders in the region.

The U.S. as ever will play a major role in next steps in Lebanon and the region. The U.S. has been pressing Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, and the U.S Ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” by Lebanon’s response thus far. But so far, there has been no fundamental shift on that front.

Meanwhile, despite the calls for neutrality and the U.S pressure on Lebanon, it is hard to envision a new and neutral Lebanon without some serious changes in the region. Any future course for Lebanon will still first require progress toward peace in Gaza and ensuring Iran commits not to use Hezbollah as a proxy in the future.

Mireille Rebeiz is affiliated with American Red Cross.

– ref. A weakened Iran and Hezbollah gives Lebanon an opening to chart path away from the region’s conflicts − will it be enough? – https://theconversation.com/a-weakened-iran-and-hezbollah-gives-lebanon-an-opening-to-chart-path-away-from-the-regions-conflicts-will-it-be-enough-260031

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Aaron J. Cavosie, Senior Lecturer, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University

Ever been late because you misread a clock? Sometimes, the “clocks” geologists use to date events can also be misread. Unravelling Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history with rocks is tricky business.

Case in point: the discovery of an ancient meteorite impact crater was recently reported in the remote Pilbara region of Western Australia. The original study, by a different group, made headlines with the claim the crater formed 3.5 billion years ago. If true, it would be Earth’s oldest by far.

As it turns out, we’d also been investigating the same site. Our results are published in Science Advances today. While we agree that this is the site of an ancient meteorite impact, we have reached different conclusions about its age, size and significance.

Let’s consider the claims made about this fascinating crater.

One impact crater, two versions of events

Planetary scientists search for ancient impacts to learn about Earth’s early formation. So far, nobody has found an impact crater older than the 2.23-billion-year-old Yarrabubba structure, also in Australia. (Some of the authors from both 2025 Pilbara studies were coauthors on the 2020 Yarrabubba study.)

The new contender is located in an area called North Pole Dome. Despite the name, this isn’t where Santa lives. It’s an arid, hot, ochre-stained landscape.

The first report on the new crater claimed it formed 3.5 billion years ago, and was more than 100 kilometres in diameter. It was proposed that such a large impact might have played a role in forming continental crust in the Pilbara. More speculatively, the researchers also suggested it may have influenced early life.

Our study concludes the impact actually happened much later, sometime after 2.7 billion years ago. This is at least 800 million years younger than the earlier estimate (and we think it’s probably even younger; more on that in a moment).

We also determined the crater was much smaller – about 16km in diameter. In our view, this impact was too young and too small to have influenced continent formation or early life.

So how could two studies arrive at such different findings?

Subtle clues of an impact

The originally circular crater is deeply eroded, leaving only subtle clues on the landscape. However, among the rust-coloured basalts are unique telltale signs of meteorite impact: shatter cones.

Shatter cones are distinctive fossilised imprints of shock waves that have passed through rocks. Their unique conical shapes form under brief but immense pressure where a meteorite strikes Earth.

Both studies found shatter cones, and agree the site is an ancient impact.

This new crater also needed a name. We consulted the local Aboriginal people, the Nyamal, who shared the traditional name for this place and its people: Miralga. The “Miralga impact structure” name recognises this heritage.

Determining the timing of the impact

The impact age was estimated by field observations, as neither study found material likely to yield an impact age by radiometric dating – a method that uses measurements of radioactive isotopes.

Both studies applied a geological principle called the law of superposition. This states that rock layers get deposited one on top of another over time, so rocks on top are younger than those below.

The first group found shatter cones within and below a sedimentary layer known to have been deposited 3.47 billion years ago, but no shatter cones in younger rocks above this layer. This meant the impact occurred during deposition of the sedimentary layer.

Their observation seemed to be a “smoking gun” for an impact 3.47 billion years ago.

As it turns out, there was more to the story.

Our investigation found shatter cones in the same 3.47 billion-year-old rocks, but also in younger overlying rocks, including lavas known to have erupted 2.77 billion years ago.

The impact had to occur after the formation of the youngest rocks that contained shatter cones, meaning sometime after the 2.77-billion-year-old lavas.

At the moment, we don’t know precisely how young the crater is. We can only constrain the impact to have occurred between 2.7 billion and 400 million years ago. We’re working on dating the impact by isotopic methods, but these results aren’t yet in.

Smaller than originally thought

We made the first map showing where shatter cones are found. There are many hundreds over an area 6km across. From this map and their orientations, we calculate the original crater was about 16km in diameter.

A 16km crater is a far cry from the original estimate of more than 100km. It’s too small to have influenced the formation of continents or life. By the time of the impact, the Pilbara was already quite old.

A new connection to Mars

Science is a self-policing sport. Claims of discovery are based on data available at the time, but they often require modification based on new data or observations.

While it’s not the world’s oldest, the Miralga impact is scientifically unique, as craters formed in basalt are rare. Most basalts there formed 3.47 billion years ago, making them the oldest shocked target rocks known.

Prior to impact, these ancient basalts had been chemically altered by seawater. Sedimentary rocks nearby also contain the earliest well-established fossils on Earth. Such rocks likely covered much of early Earth and Mars.

This makes the Miralga impact structure a playground for planetary scientists studying the cratered surface (and maybe early life) of Mars. It’s an easily accessible proving ground for Mars exploration instruments and imagery, right here on Earth.

Aaron J. Cavosie receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the US National Science Foundation, and NASA.

Alec Brenner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Earth’s ‘oldest’ impact crater is much younger than previously thought – new study – https://theconversation.com/earths-oldest-impact-crater-is-much-younger-than-previously-thought-new-study-259803