BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vested international interest are harming Myanmar

Regional players like China and India are interested in border security and internal stability for Myanmar. There is no basis to say that their political and commercial relationship with Myanmar must necessarily be for short-term benefit. It is unfair to compare Myanmar with Western standards of preserving human rights or with ‘a model democratic state’, though there may not be any countries in the world that fit the description. It is sufficient if it is at a stage where its standard of governance is comparable with other countries in South Asia that do not face international isolation or censure. There is also evidence to show that exposure to more sophisticated markets does have a positive influence on the development of internal legal systems. Though Russia may not be a model economy, its economic growth has been accompanied by gradual changes to attitudes and institutions internally. Reengagement would make it easier for these changes to take place, while a policy of disengagement would, in effect, be a policy of apathy.
States should not be isolated on political grounds

The isolation of Myanmar by some of the developed Western powers is arbitrary and marked by hypocrisy. The real reasons for the stance taken by these countries are political. There is little consistency in the attitude taken towards other governments and dictatorships across the world that also have questionable human rights records (Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to name a few), but either offer other strategic and economic benefits, or are much more influential in international affairs than Myanmar. Myanmar is only part of a group of countries (also including Cuba and North Korea) whose economic and political policies have remained relatively opaque to arm-twisting by the US and the EU. It is unfair to impose sanctions on and isolate Myanmar on this basis, especially in an emerging multi-polar international environment.
There is scope for further diplomatic progress in the region through disengagement

Reengagement has potential for having a positive influence in various contexts.  Myanmar is rich in natural resources, including forest products, minerals and gems. Removing trade restrictions and offering developmental aid would benefit the local economy and population.1 In the longer term, economic activity can act as a stimulus for development of a stronger legal and business framework to reduce corruption. If the US and the EU create confidence in the Myanmar government that they are willing to offer something constructive rather than critical, it may be possible to ask for greater transparency in government and reduce systematic violations of human rights as well.2 The newly elected civilian government has indicated it is willing to pursue democratic reform, and the US and the EU should not lose this opportunity for change.   1 BBC News, ‘India and Burma expand trade ties and sign gas deals’, 14 October 2011. 2 Human Rights Watch, ‘China: press visiting Burmese leader on elections and accountability’, 6 September 2010, (example of how state relations can encourage democracy)
Regional factors favour re-engagement

Myanmar has continuing economic and political relations with many other countries, including members of the ASEAN, and significantly, China (which is also the source of a large proportion of foreign investment in Myanmar). These countries, some of which are major economic and political partners of the US and the EU, do not share the same attitude about the legitimacy of the Myanmar government and the approach that should be taken towards it. For the purposes of regional stability, it would be better for the US and the EU to align their positions with the others. This reduces the risk of diplomatic rifts which could destabilise the region. Further, if the international community presents a united viewpoint on what steps Myanmar should take to improve its democracy, such steps are more likely to be taken.
The importance of jobs in livelihoods - money

Jobs are empowerment. Building sustainable livelihoods, and tackling poverty in the long term, requires enabling access to capital assets. A key asset is financial capital. Jobs, and employment, provide a means to access and build financial capital required, whether through loans or wages. When a woman is able to work she is therefore able to take control of her own life. Additionally she may provide a second wage meaning the burden of poverty on households is cumulatively reduced. Having a job and the financial security it brings means that other benefits can be realised such as investing in good healthcare and education.[1]. Women working from home in Kenya, designing jewellery, shows the link between employment and earning an income[2]. The women have been empowered to improve their way of life. [1] See further readings: Ellis et al, 2010. [2] See further readings: Petty, 2013.
The effects of unemployment

Unemployment has been linked to several health and wellbeing effects. Firstly, the psychological impact of unemployment involve a range of issues - from confidence to mental well-being.   Issues of mental health problems - such as depression, suicide, anxiety, and substance abuse, need recognition in Africa. The impact of mental health may not only be on the individual, but dispersed within families and across generations. Secondly, unemployment may result in a loss of social networks and networking skills. The power of social capital, or networks, in reducing vulnerability has been widely noted. Therefore encouraging women to participate within the labour market ensures new networks are built and retained through the vital communication skills used. Finally. unemployment may affect physical health status. Unemployment may place individuals in a downward spiral, making it harder to re-enter the job market.
Labour participation and rights

Labour participation enables an awareness, and acquirement, of equal gender rights. Firstly, labour participation is challenging cultural ideologies and norms of which see the woman’s responsibility as limited to the reproductive sphere. Entering the productive sphere brings women equal work rights and the right to enter public space. By such a change gender norms of the male breadwinner are challenged. Secondly, labour force participation by women has resulted in the emergence of community lawyers and organisations to represent them. The Declaration of the African Regional Domestic Workers Network is a case in point.[1] With the rising number of female domestic workers, the network is working to change conditions - upholding Conferences, sharing information, and taking action. [1] See http://wiego.org/informal-economy/declaration-african-regional-domestic-workers-conference
The double burden

Despite a feminising labour market there has been no convergence, or equalisation, in unpaid domestic and care work. Women still play key roles in working the reproductive sphere and family care; therefore labour-force participation increases the overall burden placed on women. The burden is placed on time, physical, and mental demands. We need to recognise the anxieties and burdens women face of being the bread-winner, as survival is becoming ‘feminised’ (Sassen, 2002). Additionally, women have always accounted for a significant proportion of the labour market - although their work has not been recognised. Therefore to what extent can we claim increased labour force participation is empowering when it is only just being recognised?
Women need alternatives for empowerment

Empowerment cannot be gained for women through employment, alternatives are required. A gender lens needs to be applied to women’s life course from the start. To tackle the discriminatory causes of gender inequality access to sexual and reproductive health rights is required for women. Access to such rights ensures women in Africa will be able to control their body, go to school, and choose the type of employment they wish to enter into. The importance of enabling sexual and reproductive health rights for women is being put on the agenda for Africa[1]. There is a lot to be done beyond workforce participation - ending violence against women, promoting equal access to resources, opportunities and participation. Such features will reinforce women’s labour market participation, but in the jobs they want. [1] See further readings: Chissano, 2013; Puri, 2013.
The importance of jobs in livelihoods - money

The relation between employment, money, and household poverty is not a simple correlation when we consider the type of jobs women are entering. In developing countries work in the informal economy is a large source of women’s employment (Chen et al, 2004). In the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, 84% of women in non-agricultural work are in the informal economy (ILO, 2002). Only 63% of men work in the informal economy. Women represent a large proportion of individuals working in informal employment and within the informal sector. Informal employment means employment lacks protection and/or benefits, and the informal sector involves unregistered or unincorporated private enterprises. Such a reality limits the capability to use employment to escape poverty (see Chant, 2010). With wages low, jobs casual and insecure, and limited access to social protection schemes or rights-based labour policies, women are integrated into vulnerable employment conditions. Data has shown informal employment to be correlated with income per capita (negative), and poverty (positive) (ILO, 2011). Further, the jobs are precarious and volatile - affected by global economic crisis. Women’s employment in Africa needs to be met with ‘decent’ work[1], or women will be placed in risky conditions. [1] See further readings: ILO, 2014.
The effects of unemployment

Again employment needs to be contextualised with what type of jobs are provided and entered into. It remains questionable as to whether the mental health of women improves if women are employed to work within hazardous work environments, or where there is no job security. For example domestic workers remain vulnerable to different abuses - such as non payment, excessive work hours, abuse, and forced labour. Women may be vulnerable to gender based violence on their way to work. Furthermore, street traders are placed in a vulnerable position where the right to work is not respected. The forced eviction and harassment of female street-traders is a common story, underlined by political motivations. A recent example includes the eviction of street hawkers in Johannesburg[1]. [1] See further readings: WIEGO, 2013.
Labour participation and rights

For rights to be granted women need to be able to have a position within trade unions, and policy change is required. A recent study shows fewer women than men are found in trade unions across eight African countries looked at in a study(Daily Guide, 2011). The greatest degree of women’s involvement was from teacher and nurses unions, however, there remains a lack of representation at leadership levels. The lack of a united, or recognised, women’s voice in trade unions undermines aims for gender equality and mainstreaming for those women who are working. Additionally, at a larger scale, policy change is required. Empowerment cannot occur where unequal structures remain - therefore the system needs to be changed. Governments need to engender social policy and support women - providing protection, maternity cover, pension schemes, and security, which discriminate against women and informal workers.
Freedom of speech should apply to teachers as much as anyone else

Freedom of speech and expression are protected by the first amendment to the US constitution[1] and teachers are entitled to freedom of speech and their academic freedom as much as anyone else. If a science teacher does not believe that the evidence supports evolution then why should s/he have to teach evolution as fact rather than just as one of several competing theories? The Tennessee bill protects freedom of expression by freeing teachers to include whatever other angles on controversies such as evolution or climate change as they wish. [1] Legal Information Institute, ‘First Amendment: An overview’, Cornell University Law School, 19 August 2010, http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment
Teaching creationism as well as evolution gives students freedom to choose

This bill that opens the door to creationism is really about changing the way that teaching is done to make it more critical and analytical. This is an improvement in scientific education as it will help ensure that science is about critical, constructive discourse rather than just imbibing ‘facts’.[1] This bill aims to “inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens”.[2] How can students be critical and learn to analyse if there is only one theory available to them through which to look at and analyse those facts? That would not be education, it would be indoctrination.[3] [1] Zimmer, Robin, ‘Critical Thinking, Analysis Foster Good Science’, The Tennessean, 11 March 2011, http://www.discovery.org/a/16591 [2] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee, http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf [3] ‘New Tennessee law: encouraging creationism or academic freedom’, Public Radio International, 23 April 2012, http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/new-tennessee-law-encouraging-creationism-or-academic-freedom-9548.html
The bill does not exclude evolution just allows room for other theories

What this bill allows is for the facts to be taught and then seen through the lens of various theories. The bill requires that the schools within the state remain within the state science curriculum. It “protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine”.[1] Evolution will therefore still have to be taught and won’t be replaced wholesale by any other theory. The result therefore is that this Tennessee law opens up academic enquiry and science rather than shutting it down as opponents claim. [1] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee, http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf
Teachers should not have freedom to teach whatever they wish as fact

There is a difference between a demand for freedom to teach what you like and freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not apply in the classroom; students are not allowed to stand up and discuss whatever issues they want and neither should the teacher. Both have to stick to a syllabus that ensures that the children are taught the basics of each subject so that the student can move on to more advanced instruction. Ultimately for students to be able to exercise their right to freedom of speech they need to have a well-rounded education that provides a grounding of knowledge and how to analyse that knowledge. The student is then perfectly free to challenge this teaching and exercise their freedom of expression and explore many more ideas and dismiss evolution if they wish. Essentially this bill is encouraging criticism of science at too early a stage, in elementary or even secondary school teachers are still teaching what science is, what it is for and how it works and it does not help to ‘muddy the waters’.[1] [1] ‘New Tennessee law: encouraging creationism or academic freedom’, Public Radio International, 23 April 2012, http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/new-tennessee-law-encouraging-creationism-or-academic-freedom-9548.html
Children should have the freedom not to be misled

Part of freedom of speech is the freedom to get accurate information. The students in school have this right not to be misled by their teachers[1] so teachers should have to concentrate on providing facts and evidence and what has been scientifically proven. Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education argues “Telling students that evolution and climate change are scientifically controversial is miseducating them” because there is no controversy among scientists.[2] The law as it stands may attempt to sound balanced but preventing “discrimination for or against religion or non-religion”[3] opens the door to any theory seeking to explain the evidence no matter how flawed. This would be directly counter to the objective teaching the bill claims to promote. If there is to be objectivity schools must stick to the evidence and what it shows; evolution. The teachers may of course encourage the students to come up with their own interpretations of the evidence but should not be attempting to force their own views upon the students.  [1] Zabarenko, Deborah, ‘Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial’, Reuters, 13 April 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-education-tennessee-idUSBRE83C0JR20120413 [2] Strauss, Valerie, ‘Tennessee back to the future with new anti-evolution law’, Post Local, 11 April 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/tennessee-back-to-the-future-with-new-anti-evolution-law/2012/04/11/gIQAJb7g9S_blog.html [3] Dunn, ‘House Bill 368 An Act to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools’’, State of Tennessee, http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf
Tennessee is not seeking to protect freedom of speech

While supporters of this bill justify it based upon ‘academic freedom’ this is clearly not a motivating factor for the Tennessee legislature. At almost the same time a bill that prevents teachers discussing homosexuality was passed through the state’s education committee, if freedom of speech has been a concern this would never have even been brought up.[1] Moreover if the bill was about freedom of speech there would be no need to highlight particular controversies or particularly pick out science as an area requiring more discussion and dissent. Students could learn much more about competing interpretations of historical events, competing ideas in geography such as alternative theories about how oil is created,[2] even the English language is not totally settled as new meanings are created and new words added. [1] Selwyn, Casey, ‘Teaching creationism in US schools’, Free Speech Debate, 2 May 2012, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/teaching-creationism-in-us-schools/ [2] Glasby, Geoffrey P., ‘Abiogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons: An Historical Overview’, Resource Geology, vol.56, no.1, 2006, pp.85-98, http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf
As it is not science creationism should not even be covered by the Tennessee law

As creationism does not fit the definition of "science", it is not even addressed by the law cited in the introduction to this discussion. The act specifically allows to discuss "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories". It is a very false conclusion that because evolution is both scientific and a hypothesis, any other hypothesis must be scientific as well. Creationism is lacking the key point of anything that could even remotely be called science, namely testability and falsifiability. Evolution posesses this property: There may one day be actual evidence that the theory is incorrect, such as a modern human fossil being found in a layer of soil that dates back aeons. Given enough such incidents, one could reasonably claim that evolution has been disproved and that there must be a better model to approximate reality. This is what commonly happens in the world of science. As a prominent example one may cite our views on atoms: They have been refined from "they are tiny multi-symmetrical grains" to the detailled analysis of sub-atomic particles we see today. This took innumerable steps, and yet we know for sure that our theories will never be accurate enough to describe reality. However, such a process is impossible with creationism, as it is based on a belief. In theory, it could very well be true - God could have created C14 signatures in such a way that they would appear billions of years old to a modern researcher, and we could never know. This may be applied to each and every other aspect of research on the foundations of our universe. But excactly because we can never know, creationism can never be subjected to scientific analysis, and thus cannot qualify as scientific or science. It can only be subject to belief: You may well chose to believe that the creation happened excactly as described in the bible, as an omnipotent being would surely have the power to defy the laws of physics and just 'make things be'. Thus, in theory, any contradictory evidence such as the C14 signatures may be dismissed based on belief in an omnipotent being, whose non-existance may never be disproved either due to the laws of logic. For this reason, creation may never be falsified, cannot be called a scientific theory and is not addressed by the law cited above. Hence, its discussion should not be supported by the state.
Freedom of speech should apply to teachers as much as anyone else

This is not a freedom of speech issue. Teachers are already free to express their own views during their own free time. When teaching in a school however they are limited by the demands of what is necessary to teach their pupils. Freedom of speech does not give teachers qualified in one subject the wherewithal to teach their class a different subject which is effectively what teaching creationism means. Creationism should remain in religion classes and evolution should remain in science classes. Teachers are employed by the state in order to teach children facts, not spread personal ideology. It is therefore best to seperate facts and ideas into seperate subjects.
Teaching creationism as well as evolution gives students freedom to choose

Teaching just evolution does not prevent teacher encouraging students to analyse how well evolution fits with the facts the students have learned. Similarly there can still be critical discourse in the classroom; analysing a fossil to decide what kind of animal it was and what its various parts of its anatomy were for would be just as rewarding for students. Moreover analysing on a smaller scale would mean having all the available evidence whereas students could never be expected to study all the evidence on creationism and evolution.
The bill does not exclude evolution just allows room for other theories

In practice allowing room for other theories is a “permission slip for teachers to bring creationism, climate-change denial and other non-science into science classrooms”. The singling out of these subjects in the bill shows that it is not about impartiality and objectivity in science.[1] Instead it is promoting a kind of science denial allowing anyone with some quack theory to demand to be allowed to teach it regardless of the evidence. [1] Thompson, Helen, ‘Tennessee ‘monkey bill’ becomes law’, nature, 11 April 2012, http://www.nature.com/news/tennessee-monkey-bill-becomes-law-1.10423
Teachers should not have freedom to teach whatever they wish as fact

It is never too early to teach students to question ideas and theories no matter how well grounded they may claim to be. Students are capable of realiseing that there is a difference between the theories that interpret the facts and the facts themselves so educating in the facts will not be more difficult. The result will be classes that are much more engaged in the subject because they have more input in the teaching, this can only be good for science education.