Had gestational diabetes? Here are 5 things to help lower your future risk of type 2 diabetes



For women who have had gestational diabetes, maintaining a healthy diet can help lower the risk of developing type 2 diabetes later on.
From shutterstock.com

Clare Collins, University of Newcastle; Hannah Brown, University of Newcastle, and Megan Rollo, University of Newcastle

Gestational diabetes is a specific type of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy.

Once you’ve had gestational diabetes, your risk of having it again in your next pregnancy is higher. So too is your lifetime chance of developing type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

The good news is taking steps such as adopting a healthier diet and being more active will lower those risks, while improving health and well-being for you and your family.




Read more:
Gestational diabetes in the mother increases Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes risks for the whole family


What is gestational diabetes?

Gestational diabetes affects about one in seven to eight pregnant women in Australia.
Women are screened for gestational diabetes at around 24 to 28 weeks gestation using a glucose tolerance test. Gestational diabetes is diagnosed when blood glucose levels, also called blood sugar levels, are higher than the normal range.

Screening is designed to ensure women with gestational diabetes receive treatment as early as possible to minimise health risks for both the mother and the baby. Risks include having a baby born weighing more than four kilograms, and the need to have a caesarean section. Management of gestational diabetes includes close monitoring of blood glucose levels, a healthy diet, and being physically active.

The risk of developing type 2 diabetes increases markedly in the first five years following gestational diabetes, with risk plateauing after ten years. Women who have had gestational diabetes have more than seven times the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future than women who haven’t had the condition.

Type 2 diabetes

If type 2 diabetes goes undiagnosed, the impact on your health can be high – especially if it’s not detected until complications arise.

Early signs and symptoms of type 2 diabetes include extreme thirst, frequent urination, blurred vision, frequent infections and feeling tired and lethargic.

Doing regular exercise can lessen the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
From shutterstock.com

Long-term complications include an increased risk of heart disease and stroke, damage to nerves (especially those in the fingers and toes), damage to the small blood vessels in the kidneys, leading to kidney disease, and damage to blood vessels in the eyes, leading to diabetes-related eye disease (called diabetic retinopathy).

If you’ve ever been diagnosed with gestational diabetes, here are five things you can do to lower your risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

1. Monitor your diabetes risk

Although gestational diabetes is a well-known risk factor for type 2 diabetes, some women have not been informed of the increased risk. This means they may not be aware of the recommendations to help prevent type 2 diabetes.

All women diagnosed with gestational diabetes should have a 75g oral glucose tolerance test at 6–12 weeks after giving birth. This is to check how their body responds to a spike in blood sugar after they’ve had the baby, and to develop a better picture of their likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes.

From that point, women who have had gestational diabetes should continue to have regular testing to see whether type 2 diabetes has developed.

Talk to your GP about how to best monitor diabetes risk factors. Diabetes Australia recommends a blood glucose test every one to three years.

2. Aim to eat healthily

Dietary patterns that include vegetables and fruit, whole grains, fish and foods rich in fibre and monounsaturated fats are associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

In more than 4,400 women with prior gestational diabetes, those who had healthier eating patterns, assessed using diet quality scoring tools, had a 40-57% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared with women with the lowest diet quality scores.




Read more:
Are you at risk of being diagnosed with gestational diabetes? It depends on where you live


Glycaemic index (GI) ranks carbohydrate-containing foods according to their effect on blood glucose levels. The lower the GI, the slower the rise in blood sugar levels after eating. Research suggests that a higher GI diet, and consuming lots of high GI foods (glycaemic load), is associated with a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, while a lower GI diet may lower the risk of type 2 diabetes.

Take our Healthy Eating Quiz to check how healthy your diet is and receive personal feedback and suggestions on how to boost your score.

3. Be as active as possible

Increasing your physical activity level can help lower your risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Engaging in 150 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise per week, such as walking for 30 minutes on five days a week; or accumulating 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity physical activity a week by swimming, running, tennis, cycling, or aerobics, is associated with a 45% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after having had gestational diabetes. Importantly, both walking and jogging produced a similar lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

In contrast, prolonged time spent watching TV was associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes.

Strength training is also important. A large study of 35,754 healthy women found those who engaged in any type strength training, such as pilates, resistance exercise or weights, had a 30% lower rate of developing type 2 diabetes compared to women who did not do any type of strength training.

Women who did both strength training and aerobic activity had an even lower risk of developing either type 2 diabetes or heart disease.

Breastfeeding has been shown to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, even in mums who haven’t had gestational diabetes.
From shutterstock.com

4. Breastfeed for as long as you can

Research shows breastfeeding for longer than three months reduces the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by about 46% in women who have had gestational diabetes. It is thought that breastfeeding leads to improved glucose and fat metabolism.

The Nurses Health Study followed more than 150,000 women over 16 years. It found that for every additional year of breastfeeding, the risk of developing type 2 diabetes was reduced by 14-15% – even in mothers who had not been diagnosed with gestational diabetes.

Organisations such as the Australian Breastfeeding Association and lactation consultants offer support to help all women, including those who have had gestational diabetes, to breastfeed their infants for as long as they choose.




Read more:
Want to breastfeed? These five things will make it easier


5. Keep an eye on your weight

Weight gain is a known risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes. In a study of 666 Hispanic women with previous gestational diabetes, a weight gain of 4.5kg during 2.2 years follow-up increased their risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 1.54 times.

Another study saw 1,695 women with previous gestational diabetes followed up between eight to 18 years after their diagnosis. This research found that for each 5kg of weight gained, the risk of developing type 2 diabetes increased by 27%.

Aiming to modify your eating habits and being as active as you can will help with weight management and lower the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Within interventions that support people to adopt a healthy lifestyle, one review found every extra kilogram lost by participants was associated with 43% lower odds of developing type 2 diabetes.




Read more:
Health Check: what’s the best diet for weight loss?


The Conversation


Clare Collins, Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle; Hannah Brown, PhD Candidate Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle, and Megan Rollo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Nutrition & Dietetics, University of Newcastle

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisements

We asked five experts: should Australia lower the voting age to 16?


Sasha Petrova, The Conversation

Voting is a key part of the democratic process. It allows all citizens of a certain age to have a say on matters important to them. Voting in federal elections and referendums is compulsory for every Australian aged 18 and over.

But decisions made by elected governments – especially in areas such as education, health and energy – impact young people too. Legal and political voices have long called for Australia to lower the voting age to 16. After all, people under 18 can leave school, get a job, drive a car and pay taxes. So why not vote?

A parliamentary inquiry is currently looking into the issue. In the meantime, we asked five experts their views. Here’s what they said.

Five out of five experts said yes

Here are their detailed responses:


If you have a “yes or no” education question you’d like posed to Five Experts, email your suggestion to: sasha.petrova@theconversation.edu.au


Disclosures: Louise Phillips has received competitively awarded funding from The Spencer Foundation, and the Queensland Department of Education, and is a current member of the Early Childhood Australia and the Australian Association for Research in Education.

Philippa Collin has received funding from a range of government and quasi-government agencies (NHMRC, Australian Research Council, Department for Industry and Innovation, Western Australian Children’s Commissioner, UNICEF) as well as industry (Google, Navitas English) and non-profits (Multicultural Youth Affairs Network NSW and the Foundation for Young Australians). She is a member of the Technology and Well-being Roundtable and the Australian NGO Child Rights Task Force and an expert advisor to the Raising Children Network.The Conversation

Sasha Petrova, Section Editor: Education, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Bowen says Labor would have lower tax take than under Howard years


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen on Wednesday will seek to counter the Coalition’s attack on Labor as high-taxing by saying a Shorten government would have a lower tax take as a proportion of the economy than under the Howard years.

Delivering his post-budget address at the National Press Club, Bowen will point to an analysis released by KPMG last week estimating that by the end of the forward estimates Labor’s tax-to-GDP ratio would be just over 24%.

“If the Liberal party want to attack us for that, they’d be attacking one of their own.

“Tax-to-GDP was at or above 24% of GDP five times during the Howard years. That is, for roughly half their time in office. And it was 24.3% in two of those years.

“Far from being high-taxing, based on KPMG’s analysis we’d have a lower tax take as a proportion of the economy than under the Howard years,” Bowen says in his speech, released ahead of delivery.

“Under a Labor government, Australia would have a lower tax take than Japan, New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands and most other OECD economies. In fact, we would remain in the bottom third of all comparable OECD economies”.

Bowen condemns the proposed second and third stage of the budget’s tax cuts as “fiscal recklessness on an unprecedented scale”.

They are regressive “and the claim they can be afforded is based on dodgy accounting,” he says.

“If the government is planning on paying for these tax cuts with spending cuts they should outline those spending cuts before an election – not afterwards like they normally do,” he says.

Labor has adopted the first stage of the tax cuts, and improved on it for low income earners, but rejected the other stages. The tax package had not yet been legislated.

The budget provides that from 2022-23 the top threshold of the 19% tax bracket will be increased from $41,000 to $45,000 and the low income tax offset from $645 to $700. From 2024-25 the 32.5% rate would be reduced to 30%.

Bowen says it will be 18 months before the assumptions underpinning the projected 2019-20 surplus can be fully assessed, and he questions the budget’s projections in the out years.

“The budget surplus in 2022-23 is projected to be a thin $9 billion, just 0.4% GDP.

“A surplus that wouldn’t be there were it not for the government apparently spending $12 billion less than it anticipated just six months ago at MYEFO [the budget update].

“What Government decisions have led to this significant reduction in government spending?”

Bowen says information from Senate Estimates indicated there had been no such decisions.

“The Department of Finance told the Senate that there was a ‘methodology change’.

“A methodology change that boosted the bottom line in that year by $7.8 billion. We have a surplus by methodology,” Bowen says.

“More miraculously, under the government’s assumptions, payments to GDP free fall from close to 25% GDP this year – the average level under the Coalition government – to around 23.6% of GDP by the end of the decade, well below historical averages.

“The size of government magically shrinks over time. If they are going to cut government services they should outline what they are”.

The Grattan Institute had called out this claimed reduction in spending in its analysis, Bowen says.

He says bigger surpluses are needed and a Labor government would deliver them.

“Based on the budget figures presented by the government last week, at the election we’ll present a fiscal plan with bigger budget surpluses and one that pays down more debt”.

Highlighting that Labor would take a very experienced team into office Bowen says: “If Labor forms a government, sixteen out of 21 of us in the cabinet would have served at the cabinet level before. I can’t begin to tell you what a difference this would make, making us a better government for it.

“Bill Shorten will be the first Labor prime minister elected from opposition since Andrew Fisher who has previous ministerial experience.”The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Newsflash. The government doesn’t need to break up power companies in order to tame prices. The ACCC says so



File 20181207 128202 130403n.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Victoria’s Loy Yang brown coal power station at night. Breaking up generation companies might do little to bring prices down.
Shutterstock

Tony Wood, Grattan Institute

Who wouldn’t want cheaper power?

And who wouldn’t enjoy a bit of a stoush between the big bad generators and the government, trying to break them up on our behalf?

Even if it was largely tangential to keeping prices low.

The “big stick” of forced divestiture, where the government through a court could order an energy company to sell off bits of itself, never made it to a vote in the final chaotic fortnight of parliament just finished.

It will be the subject of a Senate inquiry that will report on March 18. After that, parliament is set to sit for only seven days before the election, so its possible it’ll never happen, under this government.

The government’s bill is good in parts

Parts of its Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill are uncontroversial.

The main trigger was the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission’s June report, Restoring Electricity Affordability and Australia’s Competitive Advantage.

It found against forced divestiture, but thought along similar lines to the government in some respects.

The legislation presented to parliament this month bans three types of misconduct:

  • electricity retailers’ failing to pass on cost savings
  • energy companies’ refusing to enter into hedge contracts (agreements to buy and sell at a particular price) with smaller competitors
  • generators’ manipulating the spot (short term) market, for example by withholding supply.

It imposes civil penalties for the first, forces companies to offer contracts for the second, and provides for divestiture orders for the third, after they have been recommended by the government and approved by the Federal Court.




Read more:
Consumers let down badly by electricity market: ACCC report


There are good reasons for the government to act on the three behaviours, although each of the its proposed solutions raises concerns.

The ACCC wants something similar but different

Firstly, the ACCC did not identify the legislation’s first target as a major cause of high prices. They did observe that it is complicated to shop around and the offers are confusing, and sometime next year Australian governments will force retailers in some states to offer fairer default offers at an affordable price.

But it not clear why the energy sector has been singled out as an industry whose retailers have to pass on cost savings, and not supermarkets or banks or airlines or petrol stations, or any other kind of industry.

Secondly, the ACCC most certainly did raise concerns about dominant generator-retailers preferring not to enter into hedge contracts with competitors, particularly in South Australia.




Read more:
FactCheck Q&A: are South Australia’s high electricity prices ‘the consequence’ of renewable energy policy?


It recommended that the Australian Energy Market Commission impose a “market making obligation” forcing large, so-called gentailers to buy and sell hedge contracts.

Its recommendation has the same intent as the one proposed by the government, although it has the advantage of being administered by a regulator that already exists.

Thirdly, the ACCC also concluded that concentration in the wholesale market means higher prices. Its report focused on the bidding activity of the Queensland government owned generator Stanwell Corporation.

Manipulation isn’t a major price driver

The Grattan Institute identified market manipulation by generators as a contributor to higher prices in our July 2018 report Mostly working: Australia’s wholesale electricity market.

But we found it made a much smaller contribution than high gas and coal prices and the closure of ageing coal generators.

We recommended a rule change to constrain generators’ bidding practices in specific circumstances.




Read more:
Why the free market hasn’t slashed power prices (and what to do about it)


The ACCC recommended giving powers to the Australian Energy Regulator to investigate and fix such problems.

It considered a divestiture mechanism of the kind in the government’s leglislation, but rejected it as extreme.

Its own less extreme recommendations would “if implemented, be a better means to restore competition to a level which serves consumers well”.

Breaking up corporations is a broader question

There may well be a case for breaking up corporations whose size prevents or substantially lessens competition. It happens overseas.

The government cites the example of the United States Sherman anti-trust legislation. It has been in place since 1890 and has been famously used to break up Standard Oil and AT&T. The ACCC does not have this power.

There is debate about whether it would work in the much smaller market of Australia.




Read more:
Uncomfortable comparisons. Why Rod Sims broke the ACCC record


Allan Fels, a former head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission a believes it would.

But quite sensibly he argues it should apply across the board, including sectors such as banking in light of the findings of the royal commission.

Ian Harper, who led the government’s 2015 competition review, is less convinced. However, he says if a divestment power is introduced, it should be introduced broadly.




Read more:
Harper Review: a mixed basket for Coles and Woolworths


It’s worth considering divestment powers broadly, rather than rushing to introduce them in one sector of the economy in what was to have been the leadup to Christmas because of a concern that its prices were too high.

The ACCC has already delivered a comprehensive report on the means to bring them down.

The government would be better served acting comprehensively on its recommendations.The Conversation

Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Blaming immigrants for unemployment, lower wages and high house prices is too simplistic


Robert Breunig, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University and Mark Fabian, Australian National University

Australia should cut its immigration intake, according to Tony Abbott in a recent speech at the Sydney Institute. Abbott explicitly cites economic theory in his arguments: “It’s a basic law of economics that increasing the supply of labour depresses wages; and that increasing demand for housing boosts price.”

But this economic analysis is too basic. Yes, supply matters. But so does demand.

While migration has increased labour supply, it has done so primarily in sectors where firms were starved of labour, and at a time of broad economic growth.

Immigration has put pressure on infrastructure, but our problems are more a function of governments failing to upgrade and expand infrastructure, even as migrants pay taxes.

And while migrants do live in houses, the federal government’s fondness for stoking demand and the inactivity of state governments in increasing supply are the real issues affecting affordability.

The economy isn’t a fixed pie

Let’s take Abbott’s claims about immigration one by one, starting with wages.

It’s true that if you increase labour supply that, holding other factors that affect wages constant, wages will decline. However, those other factors are rarely constant.

Notably, if the demand for labour is increasing by more than supply (including new migrants), then wages will rise.

This is a big part of the story when it comes to the relationship between wages and migration in Australia. Large migrant numbers have been an almost constant feature of Australia’s economy since the end of the second world war, if not earlier.

But these migrants typically arrived in the midst of economic growth and rising demand for labour. This is particularly true in recent decades, when we have had one of the longest periods of unbroken growth in the history of the developed world.

In our study of the Australian labour market, we found no relationship between immigration rates and poor outcomes for incumbent Australian workers in terms of wages or jobs.

Australia uses a point system for migration that targets skilled migrants in areas of high labour demand. Business is suffering in these areas. Migrants into these sectors don’t take jobs from anybody else because they are meeting previously unmet demand.

These migrants receive a higher wage than they would in their place of origin, and they allow their new employers to reduce costs. This ultimately leads to lower prices for consumers. Just about everybody benefits.




Read more:
A focus on skills will allow Australia to reap fruits of its labour


There’s an idea called the “lump of labour fallacy”, which holds that there is a certain amount of work to be done in an economy, and if you bring in more labour it will increase competition for those jobs.

But migrants also bring capital, investing in houses, appliances, businesses, education and many other things. This increases economic activity and the number of jobs available.

Furthermore, innovation has been shown to be strongly linked to immigration. In the United States, for instance, immigrants apply for patents at twice the rate of non-immigrants. And a large number of studies show that immigrants are over-represented in patents, patent impact and innovative activity in a wide range of countries.

We don’t entirely know why this is. It could be that innovative countries attract migrants, or it could be than migrants help innovation. It’s likely that the effect goes both ways and is a strong argument against curtailing immigration.




Read more:
How migrant workers are critical to the future of Australia’s agricultural industry


Abbott’s comments are more reasonable in the case of housing affordability because here all other things really are held constant. Specifically, studies show that housing demand is overheated in part by federal government policies (negative gearing and capital gains tax exemptions, for instance) and state governments not doing enough to increase supply.

Governments have responded to high housing prices by further stoking demand, suggesting that people dip into their superannuation, for instance.

In the wake of Abbott’s speech there has been speculation that our current immigration numbers could exacerbate the pressures of automation, artificial intelligence and other labour-saving innovations.

But our understanding of these forces is nascent at best. In previous instances of major technological disruption, like the industrial revolution, the long-run effects on employment were negligible. When ATMs debuted, for example, many bank tellers lost their jobs. But the cost of branches also declined, new branches opened and total employment did not decline.




Read more:
New research shows immigration has only a minor effect on wages


In his speech, Abbott said that the government needs policies that are principled, practical and popular. What would be popular is if governments across the country could fix our myriad policy problems. Abbott identified some of the big ones – wages, infrastructure and housing affordability.

What would be practical is to identify the causes of these problems and address these directly. Immigration is certainly not a major cause. It would be principled to undertake evidence-based analysis regarding what the causes are and how to address them.

The ConversationA lot of that has already been done, notably by the Grattan Institute. What remains is for governments to do the politically difficult work of facing the facts.

Robert Breunig, Professor of Economics, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University and Mark Fabian, Postgraduate student, Australian National University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Cricket: The Ashes Report – 15 July 2013


In the end it was a very close match that England won and Australia lost. The first test of the current Ashes series is over with plenty of controversy and action a plenty. It was a great game, though sadly it will be remembered for the controversy surrounding the DRS as much as for the game itself. But having said that, Australia really did a bad job in the way it used the DRS system, while England handled the DRS masterfully and full credit to them. With just 14 runs between the two sides, the second test has a lot to live up to following this match.

I can’t really make any useful comments on the English team, but as far as Australia is concerned I think it is time for Ed Cowan to be shown the door and for David Warner to return. Failing the return of Warner, who I believe has been sent to Africa with Australia A for some batting practice, perhaps it is time for the return of Usman Khawaja. The Australian batsmen really need to lift their game, because in reality the match was a lot closer than it should have been and they have the lower order to thanks for that – particularly the bowlers.

As for the bowling effort – work needs to be done also. There was far too much waywardness in the fast bowling ranks. Thankfully Nathan Lyon should be banished to the sidelines given the performance of Ashton Agar – a spinner who actually spins the ball and he can bat, which is very handy in the absence of a reliable upper order.

Asylum Seeker Legislation Passes Lower House… Will not Pass Upper House


Pakistani Woman Appeals Death Sentence for ‘Blasphemy’


District judge bows to pressure of local Muslims, handing down stunning sentence to Christian.

LAHORE, Pakistan, November 13 (CDN) — Attorneys for a Christian mother of five sentenced to death by hanging for allegedly speaking ill of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, have filed an appeal of the verdict, they said.

Bowing to pressure from Muslim extremists in Pakistan, according to the Christian woman’s husband and rights groups, a district court judge handed down the stunning sentence to Asia Noreen on Monday (Nov. 8). Additional District and Sessions Judge Naveed Ahmed Chaudhary of Nankana Sahib district delivered the verdict under Pakistan’s controversial “blasphemy” statute, the kind of law that a resolution before the United Nations condemning “defamation of religions” would make legitimate internationally.

Noreen is the first woman to be sentenced to death under Pakistan’s widely condemned law against defaming Islam.

Noreen’s lawyer, Chaudhry Tahir Shahzad, said that among other allegations, she was accused of denying that Muhammad was a prophet.

“How can we expect a Christian to affirm a Muslim belief?” Shahzad said. He added that he and lawyer Manzoor Qadir had filed an appeal against the district sessions court’s verdict in the Lahore High Court.

Asia (alternately spelled Aasya) Noreen has been languishing in isolation in jail since June of last year after she argued with fellow field workers in Ittanwali village who were trying to pressure her into renouncing Christianity. Her husband, Ashiq Masih, told Compass that the argument began after the wife of an Ittanwali elder sent her to fetch water in Nankana Sahib district, about 75 kilometers (47 miles) from Lahore in Punjab Province.

The Muslim women told Noreen that it was sacrilegious to drink water collected by a non-Muslim, he said.

“My wife only said, ‘Are we not all humans?’ when the Muslim women rebuked her for her faith,” Masih, a field laborer, told Compass by telephone. “This led to an altercation.”

Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS) General Secretary Katherine Sapna told Compass that the women told Muslim cleric Muhammad Salim about the incident, and he filed a case with police on the same day, June 14, 2009.

On June 19, 2009, Masih said, the Muslim women suddenly raised a commotion, accusing Noreen of defaming Muhammad.

“Several Muslim men working in the nearby fields reached the spot and forced their way into our house, where they tortured Asia and the children,” said Masih, who confirmed that his wife is 45 years old and that they have five children – four girls and a boy, the oldest daughter 20.

Police arrived and took his wife into custody, presumably for her own protection, he said.

“They saved Asia’s life, but then later a case was registered against her under Sections 295-B and C [blaspheming the Quran and Muhammad, respectively] at the Nankana police station on the complaint of Muhammad Salim, the local imam [prayer leader] of the village,” he said. “Asia has been convicted on false charges. We have never, ever insulted the prophet Muhammad or the Quran.”

Salim reportedly claimed that Noreen confessed to speaking derogatorily of Islam’s prophet and apologized. Under immense pressure from local Muslims, according to Masih, CLAAS and Sohail Johnson of Sharing Life Ministry, local judge Chaudhary ruled out the possibility that Noreen was falsely accused. In spite of repeated efforts by the Muslim women to pressure her into renouncing her faith, the judge also reportedly ruled “there were no mitigating circumstances.”

Chaudhary also fined her 100,000 rupees (US$1,150), according to CLAAS.

Ataul Saman of the National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP) said that lower court verdicts in blasphemy cases are usually overturned by higher courts. He said lower court proceedings take place under intense pressure, with local Muslims gathering outside and chanting slogans to pressure judges. Saman added that NCJP research showed that up to 80 percent of blasphemy charges are filed against people to settle personal scores.

Rights groups have long criticized Pakistan’s blasphemy laws as too easily used to settle grudges or oppress religious minorities, such as the more than 4 million Christians that Operation World estimates out of Pakistan’s total population of 184.7 million. To date no one has been executed for blasphemy in Pakistan, as most are freed on appeal after suffering for years under appalling prison conditions. Vigilantes have killed at least 10 people accused of blasphemy, rights groups estimate.

Noreen was convicted under Section 295-C of the defamation statutes for alleged derogatory comments about Muhammad, which is punishable by death, though life imprisonment is also possible. Section 295-B makes willful desecration of the Quran or a use of its extract in a derogatory manner punishable with life imprisonment. Section 295-A of the defamation law prohibits injuring or defiling places of worship and “acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class of citizens.” It is punishable by life imprisonment, which in Pakistan is 25 years.

Between 1986 and August 2009, at least 974 people have been charged with defiling the Quran or insulting Muhammad, according to the NCJP. Those charged included 479 Muslims, 340 Ahmadis, 119 Christians, 14 Hindus and 10 from other religions.

Johnson of Sharing Life Ministry, which is active in prisons and has been following Noreen’s case from the onset, said he was impressed by her continued faith.

“A week before the verdict, I went to visit Asia in jail,” he said. “I asked her what she was expecting. She told me that Jesus would rescue her from this fake case.”

The verdict was shocking in that no one was expecting a death sentence for a woman, he said. Masih agreed.

“Asia was hoping that the judge would free her and she would come home to be with us, but this conviction has dashed our hopes for now,” Masih said.

He said that since the sentencing, authorities have not allowed him or other members of their family to visit his wife.

“We don’t know yet how she is, but we trust the Lord,” he said. “Asia is suffering for Jesus, and He will not forsake her.”

Report from Compass Direct News

Hung Parliament Likely in Australian Federal Election


Greens and Independents to Hold Balance of Power in Both Houses

It would seem that the likely outcome of the 2010 federal election in Australia is that of a hung parliament, with government going to the party that gains the support of one or two possible Greens members of parliament in the lower house, and three other independent members of parliament in the lower house. It seems likely that the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate.

The Greens have now clearly become the third major political party behind the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal Party (Lib) – National Party (Nat) coalition. They have now gained a representative in the lower house with the seat of Melbourne in Victoria falling to Adam Bandt. It is possible that the seat of Grayndler in New South wales (NSW) could also fall to the Greens, with ALP member Anthony Albanese in a close fight with Sam Byrne of the Greens.

The three other certain independents, all former National Party members, are Bob Katter (Kennedy – Queensland, Tony Windsor (New England – NSW) and Rob Oakeshott (Lyne – NSW)

The ALP has also lost large numbers of seats in Queensland ( QLD – Flynn, Leichhardt, Forde, Bonner, Dickson, Herbert, Longman, Brisbane and Dawson) and seats in NSW (Bennelong, Macarthur, Macquarie and Gilmore), one in the Northern Territory (Solomon), one in Western Australia (Hasluck) and possibly one in Tasmania (Denison) to independent Andrew Wilkie. It would seem that a total of 18 or 19 seats have been lost by the ALP. They have gained two in Victoria, winning La Trobe and McEwan.

The ALP’s greatest hope would seem to be the seat of Boothby in South Australia, which still appears too close too call. At this stage Denison in Tasmania remains an ALP seat, but it also remains too close to call.

It seems to me that there will be 73 seats to the ALP (possibly 72 if Grayndler falls to the Greens in NSW), 73 seats to the Coalition, one seat to the Greens (possibly 2 if they pick up Grayndler in NSW – who would lean to the ALP) and 3 to the Independents (all formerly National Party members who would likely lean to the Coalition). If these predictions prove to be true, it would seem that the Coalition will be able to form a minority government with the support of the Independents.

After the promise of the ALP in the previous election and the result that occured, the ALP should have held office for at least two terms. However, the ALP has failed to deliver and instead gave Australia a very lazy, poor and mediocre government. Under Kevin Rudd the ALP successfully steered Australia through the financial crisis, for which Australians should be very thankful. However, there has also been poor management of ecomomic stimulus projects, environmental issues and other projects, which have left many Australians disillusioned with the government. This of course led to the downfall of Kevin Rudd prior to the election and the elevation of Julia Gillard to the Prime Ministership of the country. This was too little too late to save the ALP from electoral disaster and the Australian people have delivered swift punishment for their failure to deliver what we had hoped for under the Kevin Rudd led ALP government.

Perhaps the experience of a hung parliament and a minority government, from whichever side of politics, will result in someone or some party standing up with a real commitment to governance and leadership in Australia. At the moment there seems little of both and the Australian people are largely disillusioned with both major parties. The ALP should prepare itself for major defeats in state elections over the next couple of years, especially in New South Wales and Queensland, where voters are fed up with poor government – not that the alternatives are much better.

Afghan parliamentarian calls for execution of Christians


International Christian Concern (ICC) has told the ASSIST News Service (ANS) that it has learned that an Afghan parliamentary secretary has called for the public execution of Christian converts from the parliament floor, reports Dan Wooding, founder of ASSIST Ministries.

On Tuesday, the Associated Free Press reported that Abdul Sattar Khawasi, deputy secretary of the Afghan lower house in parliament, called for the execution of Christian converts from Islam.

Speaking in regards to a video broadcast by the Afghan television network Noorin TV showing footage of Christian men being baptized and praying in Farsi, Khawasi said, “Those Afghans that appeared in this video film should be executed in public. The house should order the attorney general and the NDS (intelligence agency) to arrest these Afghans and execute them.”

An ICC spokesperson said, “The broadcast triggered a protest by hundreds of Kabul University students on Monday, who shouted death threats and demanded the expulsion of Christian foreigners accused of proselytizing.

"As a result, the operations of Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) and U.S.-based Church World Service (CWS) have been suspended over allegations of proselytizing. The Afghan government is currently undertaking an intensive investigation into the matter.

"According to Afghan law, proselytizing is illegal and conversion from Islam is punishable by death.”

ICC sources within Afghanistan have reported that many national Christians are in hiding, fearful of execution. Under government pressure during investigations, some Afghans have reportedly revealed names and locations of Christian converts.

Aidan Clay, ICC Regional Manager for the Middle East, said, “It is absolutely appalling that the execution of Christians would be promoted on the floor of the Afghan parliament. Khawasi’s statement sounded a whole lot like the tyrannical manifesto of the Taliban not that of a U.S. ally. American lives are being lost fighting terrorism and defending freedom in Afghanistan – yet Christians are being oppressed within Afghan borders.

“This comes after billions of U.S. dollars have been invested in the war effort, and millions more have been given in aid. The U.S. government must intervene to protect the religious freedoms and human rights of all Afghans. The U.S. is not a mere outside bystander – but, is closely intertwined within Afghan policy.”

Clay added, “Intervention is not a choice, but a responsibility, as Afghan policies reflect the U.S. government’s ability and commitment to secure a stable government in Afghanistan.”

Report from the Christian Telegraph