On Monday night, the Brooklyn Center City Council passed a resolution banning the use of crowd control tactics like rubber bullets, protester kettling and tear gas. A mere 15 minutes later, the police were already breaking that rule, according to reports.
Videos from later in the night show the police continuing to use the banned tear gas on protesters, spraying protesters with pepper spray and using stun guns to disperse the crowd. About 40 people were arrested at protests on Monday night, where crowds chanted Wright’s name and “no justice, no peace.”
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has said the state has called in “the largest police presence” in the state’s history to patrol the Twin Cities. He also implemented a curfew for the counties surrounding Brooklyn Center. Curfews implemented in other cities during last year’s Black Lives Matter uprisings caused organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union to call them unlawful, as the curfews were imposed to suppress protests.
Meanwhile, organizations like Amnesty International have found that police departments’ ongoing use of tear gas in the U.S. and abroad is “reckless and dangerous” and has injured and killed protesters.
The unrest in Brooklyn Center started on Sunday, when about 200 people gathered near the Brooklyn Center Police Department to protest Wright’s death. Wright was driving on Sunday afternoon with his girlfriend when he was pulled over by police officer Kim Potter.
Body camera footage shows Potter shouting “taser” before pulling a gun on Wright and shooting him. Wright then drove several blocks before crashing into another vehicle. He was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash.
The police officer who shot Wright alleges that she had meant to pull out her taser but pulled out her gun instead. Many have cast doubt on that narrative, however; as news outlets like The New York Timeshave noted, tasers and the type of gun the officer killed Wright with feel very different in hand. They’re also typically worn on opposite sides of an officer’s hip to avoid confusion.
“Not. An. Accident. Why was this cop wanting to pull a taser on a 20-year old kid for expired tags in the first place? Absurd,” wrote leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington). “Impossible that a veteran cop couldn’t tell difference between taser and gun. We need real consequences for these killings.” Potter is a 26-year veteran of the Brooklyn Center Police Department.
Others noted that, if even after extensive training, police can’t distinguish between a gun and a taser, then the system is flawed. There have been multiple similar incidents before, including in Minneapolis, where a police officer had supposedly meant to pull out a stun gun and instead shot someone.
“If someone has been a police officer for 26 years & can’t distinguish a gun from a taser, that’s a solid indication as any that training will do nothing & it’s time to abolish this relic of slavery,” said Bree Newsome Bass on Twitter, racial advocate and artist.
As Corky Siemaszko wrote for NBC, though the police supposedly pulled Wright over for having air fresheners hanging from his rearview mirror — which many have noted is a pretense for targeting Black people — Wright’s real “crime” that led to his death was driving while Black.
The Brooklyn Center City Council also voted on Monday to remove the current city manager and to recommend to the new city manager that the police chief and the officer who shot Wright be fired immediately. The new city manager said that Potter will be dismissed immediately.
Minnesota police shot and killed a Black man on Sunday, as the trial for the officer accused of killing George Floyd continues in Minneapolis.
Brooklyn Center police shot Daunte Wright, 20, after they pulled him over for a traffic violation, according to his mother, Katie Wright. A medical examiner said yesterday the gunshot was the cause of Wright’s death, and ruled it a homicide.
Katie Wright said her son called her after being told to get out of the car by police. She heard “scuffling” and then her son’s phone was hung up. She then spoke to Wright’s girlfriend, who told her he had been shot. Wright’s mother said:
I heard the police officer say ‘Daunte don’t run’. The other officer said ‘put the phone down’ and hung it up. A minute later I called and his girlfriend answered, which was the passenger in the car, and said that he’d been shot.
She put it on the driver’s side and my son was laying there, lifeless.
“Discharged their firearm”
In a press release, Brooklyn Center police said they stopped Wright for a traffic violation, and then discovered he had an outstanding warrant.
They claimed Wright tried to get back into his car as they attempted to arrest him. One officer “discharged their firearm, striking the driver”. The car reportedly travelled several blocks before hitting another vehicle. Wright died at the scene.
Police chief Tim Gannon has since told reporters he believes officer Kim Potter meant to draw a taser, but used her gun instead. In her body camera footage, after calls to use a taser, an officer can be heard saying “holy shit, I just shot him”.
While the Hennepin County medical examiner ruled Wright’s death a homicide, they also stated the ruling did not represent “”a legal determination of culpability or intent.”
Calls for justice
Protesters, including Wright’s family, gathered at the police department building on Sunday evening, calling for justice for Daunte Wright. Police dressed in riot gear used tear gas and flash bangs to disperse the hundreds of marchers. Protests continued on Monday, with police using stun grenades on the crowds.
Brooklyn Center is not far from Minneapolis, where the trial for the officer accused of killing George Floyd is ongoing.
Tensions are high in the state of Minnesota, as it waits to see whether Floyd’s family will get the justice they are hopeful for: a conviction for Derek Chauvin.
The Minneapolis police chief has already testified against Derek Chauvin, saying he does not believe his actions were within police policy.
A fatal pattern
In the US, around 1,000 police shootings a year result in fatality. According to data from a researcher at Bowling Green State University, only 139 police officers have been arrested for murder or manslaughter after an on-duty shooting since 2005.
Of these, only 44 were convicted and 42 cases are still pending, highlighting the difficulty in holding police officers to account.
Philip Michael Stinson, who compliled the police conviction data, said he didn’t see any “systemic change” in how police are prosecuted. He added:
it’s got to be that more of the fatal shootings are unjustified.
Pupils at Pimlico Academy have successfully challenged school leadership to make the secondary school more inclusive and reflective of the student body. On 31 March, students staged a protest on the school grounds in opposition to changes new headteacher Daniel Smith brought in summer 2020.
These changes included school uniform policies banning hairstyles that “block the views of others” and “colourful” hijabs. Pupils also challenged the “insensitive and inappropriate” flying of the union flag on school grounds, the erasure of Black and ethnic minority histories from the curriculum, and the lack of discourse around the Black Lives Matter movement.
Pimlico Academy student protest
Hundreds of students boycotted class to take a stand against a school environment they felt was racist, Islamophobic, sexist, transphobic, and elitist. Students circulated a statement calling on school leadership to “protect marginalised races, religions and other groups instead of target them”.
Student demands included creating an “environment where victims of sexual assault feel safe” and where pupils from Black and ethnic minority backgrounds feel included. Protestors called for discussions about Black Lives Matter, the inclusion of marginalised histories, and the removal of the union flag. They also demanded changes to the school’s “discriminatory” uniform policy, and “a public apology to teachers, parents and students”. Their final message to school leadership was:
You need to understand that you are running a school – not a business.
One student shared a video of Smith attempting to run away from a student:
Commentators took to Twitter to highlight the irony that the student protest coincided with the release of the government’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report. Led by Tony Sewell, the report claims that it “found no evidence of systemic or institutional racism”. Southwark Notes said:
Pimlico Academy pupils on strike against their racist academy school on the same day the Government announces there is no institutional racism in the UK is quite a thing! Love n solidarity to these fantastic young people. Struggle is a school etc pic.twitter.com/tQwCjvsaS2
Students of #pimlicoacademy are protesting the school’s ban on Afro hair & colourful hijabs
The school is located 9mins from Westminster where the gov’t has released a report to say institutional racism don’t exist. Same gov’t making protests illegal pic.twitter.com/8z1HcDNteV
The Sewell Report set out that the UK “should be regarded as a model for other White-majority countries”. It states this despite evidence that school exclusion rates are five times higher for Black Caribbean children and nine times higher for Roma children in some areas. Further, Black and Brown children make up over half of young people in custody today, while making up just 14% of the population. And more than 8 out of 10 children in custody have been excluded from school.
Meanwhile, high profile cases in which school leaders have excluded pupils of colour for their natural hair, including Ruby Williams and Chikayzea Flanders, only give us a glimpse at the extent of race-based hair discrimination in schools. At the Runnymede Trust’s event discussing the failure of the report to address structural and institutional racism in the UK, Operation Black Vote director Simon Woolley highlighted:
“Unless our children have their exam papers marked blindly, they do worse – considerably worse. And even when they get the results, when they go for the jobs, they’ve got to apply 8x more, just to get an interview…these factors are systemic” – Lord Woolley on the #SewellReportpic.twitter.com/6nwhXZ6NLu
Indeed, Smith agreed that school leadership will conduct a review of flying the union flag after Easter, and will not fly it in the meantime. He confirmed that leadership will review the curriculum and has already redrafted school uniform policies. Finally, he issued a public apology [see letter attached].
The Westminster academy – part of Whitehall governance-led lord Nash’s Future Academies – is now at the heart of Britain’s culture war. Nigel Farage has taken issue with students ‘attacking the Union Flag’. Meanwhile, a Tory MP labelled students a “woke mob”. Another said that students “have completely misunderstood what [the union flag] should stand for”. In spite of this, Ayah confirmed that students will not back down:
The students of Pimlico Academy will never be divided. We will protest again if the school does not adhere to our demands.
The government’s stance reflects that we can’t trust it to reshape and restructure racist institutions. Pimlico Academy students have made one thing clear. We must seek transformation and challenge injustice through grassroots movements led by those affected.
CONTENT WARNING – SOME READERS MAY FIND THE GRAPHIC SCENES DESCRIBED HERE DISTURBING
George Floyd’s struggle with three Minneapolis police officers trying to arrest him, seen on bodycam video, has been shown in court at the trial of one of the officers.
“I’m sorry”
The footage included Floyd’s panicked cries of “I’m sorry, I’m sorry” and “I’m claustrophobic!” as the officers tried to push him into the back of a police SUV. At one point, Floyd bucks forward, throwing his upper body out of the car.
Officers eventually give up, and Floyd thanks them – and is then taken to the ground, face down and handcuffed.
Officer Derek Chauvin’s knee pins his neck, another officer’s knee his back, and a third officer holds his legs. As this happens the officers talk calmly about whether he might be on drugs.
Officer Thomas Lane was recorded saying:
He wouldn’t get out of the car. He just wasn’t following instructions.
The officer also asked twice if the officers should roll Floyd on his side, and later said he thinks Floyd is passing out. Another officer checked Floyd’s wrist for a pulse and said he could not find one.
The police on trial
The officers’ video was part of a mountain of footage and witness testimony in Chauvin’s trial on murder and manslaughter charges, showing how his alleged attempt to pass a counterfeit 20-dollar note at a neighbourhood market last May escalated into Floyd’s death.
A security camera scene of people joking around inside the store soon gave way to the sight of officers pulling Floyd from his SUV at gunpoint.
In this image from store video, George Floyd, right, is seen inside Cup Foods on May 25 2020 in Minneapolis (Court TV via AP, Pool)
The extended bodycam footage gave jurors the fullest view yet of the roughly 20 minutes between when police first approached Floyd’s vehicle to when he was loaded into an ambulance. When Floyd was finally taken away by paramedics, Charles McMillian, a 61-year-old bystander who recognised Chauvin from the neighbourhood, told the officer he did not respect what Chauvin had done.
Chauvin could be heard responding:
That’s one person’s opinion. We gotta control this guy ’cause he’s a sizable guy… and it looks like he’s probably on something.
Floyd was 6ft 4in and 223 pounds, according to the post-mortem examination, which also found fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system. Chauvin’s lawyer said the officer is 5ft 9in and 140 pounds.
Chauvin, 45, is charged with murder and manslaughter for kneeling on the 46-year-old’s neck for nine minutes, 29 seconds, as he lay face down in handcuffs.
The most serious charge against the now-fired officer carries up to 40 years in prison.
Defence lawyer Eric Nelson, left, and defendant Derek Chauvin, right (Court TV, via AP, Pool)
“You can’t win”
Floyd’s death, along with the harrowing bystander video of him gasping for breath as onlookers yelled at Chauvin to get off him, triggered protests around the world and a reckoning over racism and police brutality across the US.
As Floyd was pinned down by Chauvin and other officers, bystander McMillian could be heard on video saying to Floyd, “You can’t win” and “Get up and get in the car”.
Floyd replied: “I can’t.”
The defence has argued that Chauvin did what he was trained to do and that Floyd’s death was not caused by the officer’s knee, as prosecutors contend, but by Floyd’s illegal drug use, heart disease, high blood pressure, and the adrenaline flowing through his body.
Guilt
The arrest and alleged murder came after Floyd reportedly handed a cashier at Cup Foods, 19-year-old Christopher Martin, a counterfeit note for a pack of cigarettes.
Martin said that he watched Floyd’s arrest outside with “disbelief – and guilt”. “If I would’ve just not taken the bill, this could’ve been avoided,” Martin said, joining the burgeoning list of witnesses who expressed a sense of helplessness and lingering guilt over Floyd’s death.
Martin said he immediately believed the 20-dollar note was fake. But he said he accepted it, despite believing the amount would be taken out of his pay by his employer, because he did not think Floyd knew it was counterfeit and “I thought I’d be doing him a favour”. Martin then second-guessed his decision and told a manager, who sent Martin outside to ask Floyd to return to the store.
Floyd and a passenger in his SUV twice refused to go back into the store to resolve the issue, and the manager had a co-worker call police, Martin said.
Martin said that when Floyd was inside the store buying cigarettes, he spoke so slowly “it would appear that he was high”. He also described Floyd as friendly and talkative.
Last summer, during what some have called the largest social justice uprising in United States history, the lives of Black trans people were ignored. While many rightly raged against the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, few know the names of Black trans people like Kim Wirtz, who have also been murdered by a racist policing and prison system. In Baltimore, trans activists from the LGBTQ organization Baltimore Safe Haven protested, demanding an end to police violence and an end to the erasure of the Black trans community. The Real News’ Eddie Conway talks to activists on the ground in Baltimore about their fight.
On Wednesday 31 March, the Daily Mail trumpeted that there is “NO evidence of institutional racism” in the UK. If you ignore the UK’s “racist” primeminister, its institutional racism, and the Daily Mail‘s long history of “racist” propaganda – then yes – the UK is not institutionally racist.
the UK is not yet a “post-racial country” – but its success in removing race-based disparity in education and, to a lesser extent, the economy, “should be regarded as a model for other white-majority countries”.
A foreword to the report by chairman Tony Sewell, an education consultant and ex-charity boss, said: “We no longer see a Britain where the system is deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities.”
So, enter the Daily Mail to give its opinion on the report. Like we all needed that.
The Daily Mail says we’re not racist. So it must be true.
No-one denies and no-one is saying racism doesn’t exist. We found anecdotal evidence of this. However, evidence of actual institutional racism? No, that wasn’t there, we didn’t find that.
But one group representing Black people has pulled the report apart.
“Structural”
The group Black Activists Rising Against Cuts (BARAC UK) was highly critical. Its co-founder and national chair Zita Holbourne told The Canary:
There have been several government reports into racism which have yet to be implemented. Those reports exposed the fact that race discrimination is real, obviously black communities did not need the reports to know that as we live with structural and every day racism every day.
But now here is the report of the commission making another set of recommendations but ‘telling us’ that actually racism doesn’t really exist and effectively it’s all in our minds and we are holding onto the past.
An “accusatory tone”
Holbourne also took issue with the tone of the report:
The report says:
This commission finds that the big challenge of our age is not overt racial prejudice, it is building on and advancing the progress won by the struggles of the past 50 years. This requires us to take a broader, dispassionate look at what has been holding some people back. We therefore cannot accept the accusatory tone of much of the current rhetoric on race, and the pessimism about what has been and what more can be achieved.
But as Holbourne emphasised:
If we are to look back over 50 years we will see that gains fought for by our parents generation have been stripped away in recent decades, we have endured over 10 years of austerity which amplified that existing racism and now we are in a pandemic which has exacerbated existing discrimination and inequality included that experienced by racialised people. It seems to be suggesting that racism is all in our heads and if we are held back its our own fault and thinking.
‘Accusatory tone’?! Are we expected to speak positively about our lived experience of racism. Are they suggesting we brought racism on ourselves?
She continued:
Did the Windrush generation facing deportation and destitution inflict the injustice they faced on themselves?
This is what is seems to suggest. It would be an understatement to call the report disappointing but we were never expecting it to deal with structural racism.
An “even more hostile environment”
Holbourne concluded:
As a trade union representative and community activist I represent people every day in individual and collective cases where unequal pay, barriers to promotion and progression, discrimination in policing and the judicial system, in the labour market, racist harassment and bullying at work, the impacts of cuts and now Covid, hate crime and abuse, deaths at the hands of the state and much more and their lived experience of direct and structural racism is real.
To try and disregard that and suggest that Black Lives Matter protestors in the UK were only responding to the horrific murder of George Floyd and not all the things above happening here in the UK as well is shocking.
It creates an even more hostile environment for anyone facing racism .
The Daily Mail parroting a flawed report into racism sums up the UK. That is, racists trying to obscure the fact that the country is still institutionally and societally racist. No amount of propaganda from right-wing tabloids and biased and quite frankly insulting reports will convince anyone otherwise; not least the people who are still on the receiving end of Britain’s institutional white supremacy.
As opening statements begin in Minneapolis for the trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin, we speak withUCLAhistorian and author Robin D.G. Kelley, who says a guilty verdict alone would not represent justice for George Floyd. “The real victory would be to end policing as we know it, to end qualified immunity, to end the conditions that enabled Derek Chauvin to take George Floyd’s life and his colleagues to kind of stand there and watch,” says Kelley.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMYGOODMAN:Professor Kelley, I wanted to move on to a couple of other subjects before we end today. I want to turn to the opening statements beginning today in Minneapolis for the trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin, who killed George Floyd last May by kneeling on his neck for over nine minutes. Floyd’s death set off a worldwide protest movement. Chauvin is charged with second- and third-degree murder, as well as manslaughter, the jury made up of one Black woman, three Black men, three white men, six white women, and two women who identify as multiracial. George Floyd’s family and friends came together yesterday for a vigil in Minneapolis. This is one of Floyd’s brothers, Terrence Floyd.
TERRENCEFLOYD:We’re asking the system for the justice. But this gathering we’re doing right now is what’s needed. We’re going to take not one knee, but both knees. Get down. And we’re going to ask God for the justice, because our justice can’t compare to his.
AMYGOODMAN:Still with us,UCLAprofessor Robin D.G. Kelley. Can you respond to what’s happening today in Minneapolis to this trial?
ROBIND.G.KELLEY:Sure. First, I’m not really holding my breath over whether or not Derek Chauvin will be convicted. I mean, the jury selection is pretty extraordinary. I mean, given the history of jury selection in this country, it’s great that it’s a little bit more representative.
But there are two important things to keep in mind. One is that the fact that the city has already provided a settlement to the Floyd family suggests some effort at accountability, but this trial is not so much about accountability. It’s about whether or not the killing reaches a threshold of second-degree murder. But, you know, I’m not — I have to say, I’m not excited about anyone being in a cage, even if you’re a killer. That, to me, is not the victory. The real victory — the real victory would be to end policing as we know it, to end qualified immunity, to end the conditions that enabled Derek Chauvin to take George Floyd’s life and his colleagues to kind of stand there and watch, and to really divest from the kind of death-dealing systems like policing, and invest in life-sustaining policies and institutions that make us safe. I mean, that, to me, that hasn’t been lost. And that’s what that struggle was about in the first place. And to me, that’s what can vindicate, if vindication is even possible, the murder of George Floyd.
AMYGOODMAN:And I also wanted to ask you about this historic moment in Evanston, Illinois, historic for the whole country. The City Council has agreed to pay Black residents reparations for historic housing discrimination, making it the first U.S. city to adopt such a measure. Wetalkedto Evanston City Councilmember Robin Rue Simmons Friday about this vote.
COUNCILMEMBERROBINRUESIMMONS:What we passed, actually, was in 2019, a resolution to provide reparations to Black Evanston residents. We passed it with funding from our cannabis sales tax, with an initial commitment of $10 million. And what we passed on this last Monday was the first disbursement or the first remedy, which is going to be in the form of a housing remedy, $25,000 direct benefit to eligible Black residents for home equity, home wealth, acquisition or purchase, any type of improvement, but something that will build wealth through home equity.
AMYGOODMAN:Professor Kelley, your response to what’s taken place? And do you see this as a grassroots approach to dealing with this from the bottom up, considering federally it has not been dealt with?
ROBIND.G.KELLEY:Exactly, yeah. I mean, I think it’s historic. And we’re seeing the same thing happening — beginning to happen in places like Vermont and elsewhere across the country. Ten million dollars is a good start. And I get the idea, which is that part of what this reparations campaign is trying to do is address the wealth gap, especially around real estate. But I have to say, I’m a little bit — I’m concerned sometimes, because, one, when you pay out — when reparations are paid, sometimes that shuts down all conversations about other kinds of inequalities that are produced by historic racism.
And we have to ask ourselves really hard questions, like, for example: What does it mean to secure Black property ownership as reparations on stolen land? How does that change kind of racialized property values? I mean, if the property values in Black communities are still lower, how do you address that? Even if you can provide people startup money to put down on a home, how do we address the reasons why Black people are poorer and go to inferior schools? How do we disentangle, say, property values and property taxes from school expenditures or school budgets, like how we actually fund schools?
And then we have the wealth gap. We also have the wage gap. And part of what I’m going to talk — I have this conversation with Reverend William Barber this afternoon at 3:00 about the Amazon workers, but it’s also about, you know: How do we address these kinds of gaps, even through multiracial, working-class organizing? Because my question, of course, is: Will reparations ensure not just equality, but the dismantling of the kind of racialized structures that devalued our lives, our experiences, our property, our wages in the first place? I mean, and this is something that is really important, because racialized wage differentials are also compounded by gender. How are we going to address that, that women make, women of color make, Black women make less money? How do we deal with other kinds of violences, sexual violence, for example, reproductive violence? You know, that goes way beyond the loss of property. Now, so, I’m not saying I’m against it. I’m just simply saying, as we move forward, this is just the beginning, an opening for a larger question.
AMYGOODMAN:And, Professor Kelley, before we end, I wanted to ask you about thepieceyou wrote in theBoston Reviewheadlined “Why Cornel West’s Tenure Fight Matters_. Earlier this month, Cornel West announced he’s leaving Harvard to rejoin Union Theological Seminary, after he was denied tenure at Harvard. In this last 40 seconds we have, explain.
ROBIND.G.KELLEY:Right, right. Very quickly, I think Dr. West shows enormous integrity by making the decision to leave Harvard to go to Union — go back to Union, in many ways. Why do I say that? Because he could have stayed at Harvard. I mean, the chances of him being fired are pretty slim. And he understands that. He was making a larger statement about what tenure is supposed to represent. That is, the protection of our intellectual and academic freedom. And there’s a relationship between the story you told about Bandy Lee, for example, with Cornel West, that if we can’t speak out, if we can’t do our work and make controversial stands —
AMYGOODMAN:Three seconds.
ROBIND.G.KELLEY:— and not be protected, then we don’t need tenure.
AMYGOODMAN:Robin D.G. Kelley, professor of history atUCLA, studies social movements. That does it for our show. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.
It’s been nearly a year since we started social distancing, staying home to make mountains of sourdough, Korean whipped coffees, and focaccia bread art. But for all the at-home deliciousness we’ve mastered, we’re ready for our favorite restaurants! So although travel is still off the table, we’re celebrating with a mouthwatering tour of the stories—and recipes—from some of the best-loved, Black-owned vegan restaurants in America. From soul food in Detroit to Ethiopian eats in Brooklyn to a stoner-inspired burger joint in Wisconsin, get ready, because it’s time to eat.
Scott Suchman / Baltimore Magazine
City of seafood
In a city renowned for its seafood, it’s hard to imagine a vegan eatery reigning supreme. Yet that’s exactly what The Land of Kush—known for its vegan takes on staples like barbecue ribs, buffalo nuggets, and black-eyed pea fritters—has done for nearly a decade. When Chef Gregory Brown had the idea to bring plant-based soul food to Charm City, Naijha Wright-Brown, a former club promoter, stepped in to help make his vision a reality. Together, they worked to bring Brown’s dream to life—and not only was it a wild success (serving up hundreds of thousands of meals, even to the likes of Stevie Wonder and Angela Davis), but the two fell in love and married, proving just how unifying food, community, and love are.
The Land of Kush
Fan-favorite crab cakes
Crab cakes are king in Baltimore. And thanks to The Land of Kush’s award-winning recipe, vegans can feel like royalty, too. Chef Brown takes a lot of pride in the restaurant’s crowd-favorite cakes, crafted with seitan for a meaty, flaky texture along with a flurry of herbs and spices, chief among them being Old Bay Seasoning—the iconic, Baltimore-born mix of celery salt, black pepper, crushed red pepper flakes, and paprika.
Vegan SoulFest
Maryland goes vegan
Could Maryland be the next big vegan state? Wright-Brown thinks so. While Chef Gregory’s brainchild continues to flourish in Baltimore’s Midtown neighborhood, Wright-Brown is expanding Kush’s core mission of highlighting the power of plant-based eating throughout the state. She’s the co-creator of Maryland Vegan Restaurant Week, the Executive Director of The Black Vegetarian Society of Maryland—which orchestrates festivals, meatless dinners, and educational webinars—and the co-creator of Vegan SoulFest, one of the first Black-focused vegfests in the country.
It’s been nearly a year since we started social distancing, staying home to make mountains of sourdough, Korean whipped coffees, and focaccia bread art. But for all the at-home deliciousness we’ve mastered, we’re ready for our favorite restaurants! So although travel is still off the table, we’re celebrating with a mouthwatering tour of the stories—and recipes—from some of the best-loved, Black-owned vegan restaurants in America. From soul food in Detroit to Ethiopian eats in Brooklyn to a stoner-inspired burger joint in Wisconsin, get ready, because it’s time to eat.
From NYC to the PNW
In the land of rain and coffee, comforting vegan grub is practically a way of life. From a hot dog truck to a family-run Thai spot to the country’s oldest vegan pizzeria, there’s no shortage of indulgences in Seattle. But when lifelong vegan Makini Howell left her New York City fashion designer job to return home to Washington—where she grew up working at Quickie Too, her mother’s all-veg diner in Tacoma—she set out to create the restaurant she’d longed for but hadn’t yet found. The result, Plum Bistro, is a fine-dining institution that’s been drawing customers, both locally and internationally, since 2009.
On the menu
Howell wasn’t named one of The New York Times’ “16 Black Chefs Changing Food in America” for no reason, and her customers know why. Among guest favorites is the Mama Africa Salad—a bed of baby greens topped with avocado, seasonal fruit from local farms, tempeh, almonds, and seasoned quinoa all drizzled in mustard aioli and lemon vinaigrette—a masterpiece of contrasting textures and flavors. For brunch, the Peaches & Cream French Toast (a breakfast classic reimagined with a generous helping of grilled peaches, caramel sauce, coconut whipped cream, maple syrup, and an ingenious whipped coconut cheesecake butter) is another can’t-miss.
Why we love Plum Bistro
Born into a family of restaurateurs and food-industry pros, Howell’s resumé is enough to make anyone salivate. When she’s not hosting “Makini’s Kitchen”—a monthly cooking segment on local Seattle station King 5—Howell keeps busy with not one or two, but five food concepts under her booming Plum empire. Keeping it fresh and healthy? Visit Plum Chopped for an array of hearty, filling salads. Looking for lunch? Stop by for a burrito or sandwich at Pantry by Plum, and don’t forget a dessert from Sugar Plum. And when out exploring the Emerald City, keep your eyes peeled for the Plum Bistro Truck to refuel with burgers, wraps, and tacos.
This post was originally published on VegNews.com.
The Wall Street Journal (3/7/21) accused Chinese media of “invoking the woke themes of American progressives as a propaganda weapon against the US.”
The Wall Street Journal editorial board (3/7/21) has accused a major Chinese newspaper, and by extension the People’s Republic of China, of exploiting progressive rhetoric around racial justice to create division in the United States.
The Journal‘s target was an editorial in the Communist Party–owned newspaper Global Times (2/23/21), which complained that the US, Britain and Canada were pressuring China on human rights. The Journal editorial board accused the party paper of using “woke” language:
Note the use of “white supremacy” and “diversity” and “civilization superiority,” which come straight from the progressive critique of America as a country that is “systemically” racist and oppressive. The Global Times editors may be crude, but they’ve obviously been reading the New York Times. Their dismissal of [Sen. Tom] Cotton as racist is what you see on progressive Twitter.
The Journal suggested that the Chinese government was following the playbook of the Soviet Union, which reminded the world of the “social and antiwar turmoil of the 1960s” to turn world opinion against Washington. While implying that concerns of US racial injustice are overstated, the Murdoch-owned broadsheet said the Global Times’ “invocation of woke ideology shows they realize its threat to American confidence and purposes.”
Not only did the Wall Street Journal argue that Chinese “wokeness”—a dismissive term used to deride campaigns against racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia—is a danger to conservatism, it depicts it as an existential threat to the survival of the US republic—whether employed by Communists abroad or social justice activists at home. If a Chinese newspaper can support the claims made by Black Lives Matter, then somehow Black Lives Matter must be a foreign agent of a rival power, the suggestion goes.
The Journal distinguished today’s progressives from the noble civil rights activists of the early 1960s, because the latter wanted to “match American practice with its founding principles,” thus indirectly acknowledging an essential US goodness, while the former are “woke activists” who “find America fundamentally flawed,” an entitled professional elite who worry more about the “Pentagon than they do Chinese censorship.”
The latter point by the Journal is an old deflection, but it has an obvious counter-argument: A US citizen has more responsibility for and agency to change conditions at home than in a foreign power like China. And while the Journal cites repression of Tibetans and Uighur Muslims, these are hardly overlooked issues in the United States. The Free Tibet movement has long had support among celebrities (Hindustan Times, 3/21/08); concerts for Tibet were all the rage in the 1990s (Rolling Stone, 8/8/96), as it was a major cause promoted by the Beastie Boys, and the concerts featured left-wing bands like Rage Against the Machine. Ill-treatment of Tibetans has been covered in the left-wing press (The Nation, 2/26/09; Jacobin, 2/21/17; In These Times, 4/7/05). And US human rights organizations have kept a close eye on the Uigher issue. It’s not like these concerns are unheard of in the United States across the political spectrum.
But acknowledging left critics of China would undermine the Journal‘s guilt by association: If Chinese editorialists think tapping into American wokeness is a way to divide and conquer the US empire, then any American with an LGBT flag or Black Lives Matter flag is either knowingly or unknowingly doing Beijing’s bidding.
The Global Times editorial (2/23/21) attributed white supremacy to the “Five Eyes”—the English-speaking intelligence alliance of the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
The Global Times editorial cited the rise of neo-Nazi rhetoric and organizing around the world, particularly its growth in the Trump wing of conservatism. “Hostility towards immigrant groups and non-Western countries became the realistic carrier of this white supremacy,” it said, pointing to Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas’s call “for 90 million Chinese Communists to be consigned ‘to the ash heap of history.’”
As FAIR.org (2/16/21) has noted, the Journal and its siblings in the Murdoch empire see the threat of wokeness coming not just from left-wing activist groups, but from the for-profit corporations that right-wing media are more accustomed to lauding. That the vanguard newspaper of the investment class sees social justice as so dangerous that it has felt the need to attack major American companies for their pro-tolerance public relations campaigns and to shine light on a Chinese newspaper with much less American readership is telling.
Certainly, one can accuse the Global Times of cheap whataboutism—the attempt to dismiss concerns about one’s own country’s human rights by citing human rights problems in other countries. But whatever one thinks about the limits to their editorial independence, Chinese media have a journalistic obligation to report on racial injustice in the United States. US hate crimes are increasing (BBC, 11/17/20), with a documented increase in anti-Asian violence (NBC, 2/12/21; Human Rights Watch, 2/12/21). The riot on Capitol Hill aimed at annulling the 2020 presidential election exposed the violent potential of far-right militia groups and conspiracy theorists.
And the Global Times is right to target Cotton. He has defended slavery (BBC, 7/27/20) and denied the existence of systemic racism (Newsweek, 2/26/21). The Arkansas ACLU office called his anti-protest bill racist. His infamous New York Times piece (6/3/20) calling for military suppression of Black Lives Matter protesters was considered so outrageous that it forced the resignation of the paper’s top opinion editor (Politico, 6/7/20).
The Wall Street Journal‘s linkage of a foreign foe to the paper’s domestic enemies is a dangerous set up—an omen that the paper will not only push for an aggressive cold war against China, but will bring that cold war home, vilifying racial and social justice activists as traitors and enemies of the state.
While prosecutions of journalists are still “rare,” as the New York Times‘ subhead (3/10/21) notes, police arrests of and assaults on reporters have become increasingly common.
When Des Moines Register reporter Andrea Sahouri was acquitted on misdemeanor charges related to her coverage of a Black Lives Matter protests last summer, she declared (New York Times, 3/10/21) that the jury’s “decision upholds freedom of the press and justice in our democracy.” Amnesty International condemned the charges, and journalists feared that a conviction would be a game-changing attack on the press.
Sahouri’s acquittal still leaves a chilling effect on free speech. Of course, a conviction would have been catastrophic, but merely being charged is an injustice. For months she’s been in legal limbo, and other journalists have spent those months wondering if they’ll be next when they’re caught up in the mix at an anti–police brutality protest. Sahouri, and her newspaper, have had to waste their time and energy on meaningless charges.
And Sahouri, of course, is just one of the more prominent victims in the United States of this rising police repression of journalists covering social justice. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (9/4/20) noted:
Reported press freedom violations endured by journalists during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests alone outpace the annual rates reported by the Press Freedom Tracker. The rate of physical attacks on reporters in the US has spiked dramatically in 2020. The Press Freedom Tracker has documented 185 attacks on the media in 2020, up from 40 in 2019, 42 in 2018 and 50 in 2017, respectively.
Even Voice of America (3/11/21), which is US state media, and the Economist (3/13/21), a center-right publication, have noticed the decline in press freedom.
A journalist who was blinded in one eye by a police projectile during the George Floyd protests has a lawsuit alleging that the Minneapolis police specifically targeted journalists (Star-Tribune, 2/22/21). The ACLU of Minnesota is pushing a class action lawsuit for violence against journalists. The NYPD attacked AP journalists (New York Post, 6/3/20) during a Black Lives Matter protest last year. The NYPD has also sought to make it easier to strip reporters for press credentials in the wake of last year’s BLM demonstrations (New York Post, 7/15/20).
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (9/4/20) counted 60 arrests of journalists in the first two-thirds of 2020—mostly while covering Black Lives Matter protests.
But this isn’t a problem that began last year. Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman faced absurd riot charges for her coverage of the uprising at Standing Rock (Guardian, 10/17/16; FAIR.org, 10/17/16), and another journalist was shot by a rubber-jacketed bullet while covering protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline there (Vox, 11/4/16). The Committee to Protect Journalists (11/11/11) documented police violence and arrests of journalists during the Occupy Wall Street protests.
In this context, journalists need to see the rise of troubling anti-protest bills around the country as anti-journalist bills. Take, for example, a bill in Kentucky, which was a hotbed of Black Lives Matter protests after the police killing of Breonna Taylor, that would make it a crime to insult a police officer during what police deem a riot (WJW, 3/5/21):
Any individual who “accosts, insults, taunts or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words” or makes “gestures or other physical contact that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person” could be imprisoned for up to three months.
A law this vague has a chilling effect on journalism. Is a reporter who overzealously reminds a police officer that they are entitled to stand near a police line, or protests being shoved too much, breaking the law? That we are even asking these questions, and fear that they won’t be answered until a journalist goes to court on these charges, is intimidating in itself.
Journalists don’t need to embrace the cause of a protest in order to cover it accurately and in full. But they do need to take a side in the fight over the right to protest, because the right to protest the police, the government or a corporation, and the right to cover the protest and the issues around that protest, are inherently related, as journalists are learning.
This is where journalists—and their professional associations and unions—are going to need to throw objectivity and neutrality out the window to protect press freedom. No, journalists should not, in good faith, be expected to employ the standard “he said, she said” tropes to cover anti-protest bills, excessive charges against demonstrators and the use of tear gas, acoustic weapons and rubber bullets against protesters. Police tactics are seemingly indiscriminate. Journalists should see these methods not as methods against a particular political movement, but against the public at large, which includes the press.
Sahouri’s acquittal can be met with a sigh of relief, certainly by her, her colleagues and family. But it’s a rallying cry: Press freedom is under severe attack in the US, along with protest freedom, and anyone who cares about the First Amendment needs to fight back.
“The best way to combat this is through solidarity,” said photojournalist Shay Horse, who was arrested and physically abused by police while covering the protests against Donald Trump’s inauguration (US News & World Report, 6/21/17). Horse added that “supporting each other when we do right by one another seems to me the best course of action.”
Women across the UK continue to grieve the loss of Sarah Everard, murdered while she was walking home. Her alleged attacker is a Metropolitan police officer: a cog in a system that claims to keep women safe, but in reality does very little to protect us.
While all of us know Sarah’s name, how many know the names of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman? Or of Wenjing Xu? Or Geetika Goyal and Blessing Olusegun? How many news headlines have they taken up? And why aren’t we just as outraged by their murders, also committed by men?
Sadly, Sarah’s death is a stark reminder that not only do we live in a misogynist society, but that we also live in a white supremacist one. You see, Bibaa, Nicole, Wenjing, Geetika, and Blessing were Women of Colour. It’s perhaps no surprise, then, that mainstream media coverage didn’t get to anywhere near the same levels. After all, these news outlets are racially-biased and are essential in upholding a racist society. As I’ve reported before, the experience of the white person has always been the default front page story to cover, while narratives of People of Colour are too often dismissed.
But it’s not just the media. As white women, we should also reflect on why, if we see a story about a Black woman who was murdered, we are saddened, but we continue to go about our daily lives. But the murder which sparked our nationwide unrest was that of a white woman.
Please don’t get my intention wrong: I don’t mean to insult Sarah’s memory in any way, or disrespect those grieving for her. Nor do I want to take anything away from the women who have faced police repression while protesting on the streets these last few days. I would like us to collectively reflect upon how, when we say nothing about the murders of Black women, we are complicit in upholding a racist society. I would like us to think about how our white silence is, essentially, life-threatening to Women of Colour.
Bibaa and Nicole
Sisters Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman had been celebrating Bibaa’s birthday when they were stabbed to death in a park in Wembley in June 2020. But the news went largely unnoticed by the UK population. Their family even had to search for the women themselves after receiving no immediate help from the Metropolitan Police. Their mother, Mina Smallman, said of the police:
I knew instantly why they didn’t care.
She added:
They didn’t care because they looked at my daughter’s address and thought they knew who she was. A black woman who lives on a council estate.
Mina was told that when the police did finally come, officers took selfies of themselves with Bibaa and Nicole’s dead bodies. Yes, that’s right: they took selfies. Mina said:
Those police officers dehumanised our children.
She also said:
If ever we needed an example of how toxic it has become, those police officers felt so safe, so untouchable, that they felt they could take photographs of dead black girls and send them on. It speaks volumes of the ethos that runs through the Metropolitan Police.
There were no nationwide vigils for Bibaa and Nicole. And I can’t help but suspect that if it were white women who had been dehumanised by the police in such a way, there would have been nationwide outcry. Surely it would have made every newspaper’s front page.
Wenjing Xu and Geetika Goyal
16-year-old Wenjing Xu was murdered on 5 March, just two days after Sarah went missing. She was stabbed to death near her family’s Chinese takeaway. One man has been arrested for her murder, and for the attempted murder of another man. Wenjing was studying for her GCSEs and was described as a “very gentle soul”.
29-year-old Geetika was stabbed and then left to die on a street by a man in Leicester on 3 March, on the same day that Sarah disappeared.
It’s telling of the society we live in that Wenjing and Geetika received next-to-no mainstream media headlines or even mentions on social media, even though they were murdered in the same week as Sarah.
Bennylyn Burke
25-year-old Bennylyn Burke, from Kingswood, Bristol, was reported missing from her home, along with her two children, on 1 March. A 50-year-old man has been charged with the murder of both Bennylyn and her two-year-old daughter Jellica, while her other daughter was found alive inside the arrested man’s home. It’s thought that the man murdered Bennylyn using a hammer.
Blessing Olusegun
21-year-old Blessing was found dead on a beach in Bexhill on 18 September 2020. No-one has been charged with her murder. Sussex police has treated the case as “unexplained” but not suspicious, with a postmortem stating that she died by drowning. But her family want more answers, and a petition is being circulated, calling for justice for Blessing. Joshua Mellody, who started the petition, argued:
Her death IS suspicious and we will not let it be left “unexplained”. Something happened that night that left blessing lifeless on the beach. The police need to investigate it. The system needs to do better. #justiceforblessing #blacklivesmatter #justiceforwomen
The mainstream media is now making comparisons between Sarah and Blessing, as they were both caught on CCTV, walking at night. But it has taken Sarah’s death for many of us to learn about Blessing for the first time.
Say all of their names
I’ve mentioned just a fraction of the women who’ve been killed by men within the last year. “At least 31 women have been killed by men” just three months into 2021. And according to Karen Ingala Smith:
Since 2009, at least 1,691 women and girls aged 14 and over have been killed by men.
We need to keep the momentum going on the streets, outraged by the death of every single woman, and not just the women singled out by the mainstream media as worthy of us mourning. Someone on Twitter summed this up beautifully:
So, as we raise our voices, not just against men’s violence, but against police and state violence towards women, we need to be shouting the names of all the women we have lost. Sarah, Geetika, Blessing, Wenjing, Bennylyn, Bibaa, Nicole. The list goes on and on. Let’s grieve all of their deaths with outrage, and let’s make sure that we continue to fight for systemic change.
Featured image via a Bristol activist, with permission
Charles Booker, a former Kentucky state representative from Louisville and an outspoken advocate for progressive policy and Black lives, announced on social media Monday that he is “strongly” considering a 2022 challenge to Republican Sen. Rand Paul.
Hailing from Louisville’s west end, where violent policing in historically Black neighborhoods is well documented, Booker gained national attention speaking to demonstrators and the media as his hometown became an epicenter for Black Lives Matter protests following the police-perpetrated killing of Breonna Taylor last spring.
Running on support for policies such as universal basic income and Medicare for All that he says are necessary for addressing economic inequality and structural racism, Booker narrowly lost a closely watched primary race last year against Amy McGrath, a moderate who unsuccessfully challenged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Booker received high-profile endorsements from progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and the primary race against McGrath was watched closely as a bellwether for progressive challengers as Black Lives Matter and other social movements nudge the Democratic Party to the left. Now Booker is eyeing a challenge to Paul, a popular Republican, as part of an anti-racist “new southern strategy” for building Democratic voter power in the South.
“We’re going to end poverty,” Booker said in an interview Sunday with Kentucky Educational Television (KET). “We are going to make sure people across Kentucky have health care…. We are going to make sure everyone has a living wage, because we are going to stand up for organized labor.”
Booker recently launched Hood to the Holler, a voter mobilization nonprofit “breaking down barriers of race and class” to build political power across Kentucky that has already organized about 11,000 volunteers across the state. Booker hopes to bridge the urban-rural voter divided with proposals like the Green New Deal — he calls it the Kentucky New Deal — which would address climate change while creating new jobs in Appalachian communities devastated by the declining coal industry.
“It’s realizing that people are the most important aspect of democracy, it’s realizing that the voices of people in the forgotten places — the hood where I am from and the hollers in Appalachia and everywhere in between — that those voices are the pathway to a brighter future,” said Booker, who added that the group has organized 11,000 volunteers across Kentucky.
Booker is taking cues from Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams and other activists who have launched successful movements to combat voter suppression and drive turnout across the South. Having campaigned in Appalachian Kentucky for his 2020 Senate bid, Booker also encourages progressives to “show up and listen” to voters in conservative, rural districts.
“I am humbled to even be mentioned with the likes of Stacy Abrams… Kentucky is not Georgia, but what Georgia helped us see is that change is possible, anywhere,” Booker told KET.
There has also been speculation that Booker would run for mayor of Louisville, where he is already well known among voters who mobilized amid Black Lives Matter protests to put Booker within striking distance of McGrath. Some have wondered whether the 37-year-old former state lawmaker, who grew up poor in Louisville, can build a solid coalition across a state where conservative white Democrats may be wary about voting for a Black politician with an activist reputation.
If Charles Booker runs for Senate I would support him, but lets keep it a buck.Kentucky is not Georgia.The demographics are entirely different.What worked here will not work everywhere.He could get real change accomplished as Mayor of Louisville. The demographics line up as well.
In Georgia, Democrats and voting rights activists focused closely on boosting Black voter turnout, which helped turn the state blue in 2020 and elect two Democrats to the Senate in a historic election that rattled the white, conservative power structure across the South. However, Georgia is about 32 percent Black, while Blacks only make up about 9 percent of the population in Kentucky, according to Census data.
However, Booker knows he cannot win against Paul without white voters. He hopes Hood to the Holler will unite urban and rural voters around common issues and a “populist” message, arguing that Appalachian communities in the “holler” often face the same problems as people of color in the “hood,” including barriers to health care, job losses and violent policing. Drawing from his experience growing up in a low-income neighborhood and campaigning among miners in Eastern Kentucky, for example, Booker argues voters will unite around progressive issues if they are willing to listen to each other and realize their common interests.
“We’ve just allowed national politics to dictate the narrative. People like Mitch McConnell have told us that we are divided, but we aren’t,” Booker said on Sunday. “We’re unified in our fight to heal, to take care of family, to take care of Kentucky, and that is a message that can build new coalitions, and I am excited to tell that story.”
Booker cautioned on Sunday that he has not yet made a final decision about running for Senate or a different office and continues to study his prospects, but an announcement would be coming soon.
While violent Donald Trump supporters shoved their way past police lines on January 6 in order to breach the Capitol building, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) says he wasn’t afraid. But if those people had been Black Lives Matter protesters, then he might have feared them, he said on a conservative talk show last week.
“Even though those thousands of people that were marching to the Capitol were trying to pressure people like me to vote the way they wanted me to vote, I knew those were people that love this country, that truly respect law enforcement, would never do anything to break the law, and so I wasn’t concerned,” Johnson said.
Though many lawmakers including then-Vice President Mike Pence himself were under threat from the far right Trump militants that day, Johnson evidently felt fine, according to him. He then went on to say that progressive protesters fighting for racial justice, such as the Black Lives Matter protesters from last summer, are worse than the Capitol mob.
“Had the tables been turned and President Trump won the election and those were tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and antifa protesters, I might have been a little concerned,” Johnson said.
Johnson is parroting a right-wing talking point that left-wing racial justice protesters are either just as bad or worse than the Trump mob, which included documented violent white supremacists and caused multiple deaths in just one day. He also implies that progressive protesters would have stormed the Capitol in the same way that Trump militants did if Trump had won and Joe Biden lost the election.
Johnson’s statements represent a litany of lies and mistruths. First, it’s exceedingly clear that the Trump mob, some of whom came in full tactical gear, did not, contrary to Johnson’s claims, “respect law enforcement” on January 6 as videos from that day clearly show Trump supporters saying “fuck you police” and attacking Capitol police officers.
Moreover, no evidence has been found regarding the other egregious claim about antifa and left-wing protesters posing as Trump supporters to attack the Capitol that day, refuting Johnson’s implication that the left would have done the same if the election had gone the other way. While there were Trump rallies and many, many documented instances of Trump supporters organizing the storming of D.C. online, including inciting remarks from Johnson himself, there is no evidence of the same from the other side.
Johnson’s remarks earned a swift backlash, with many pointing out their obviously racist nature. While the Trump supporters at the Capitol breach were largely white, last summer’s nationwide Black Lives Matter protesters represented a wide range of races. “What, white people love this country and Black people don’t? That’s exactly what he’s saying,” state Sen. LaTonya Johnson from Wisconsin said.
“We’ve moved from just plain old fringe, extremist rants to fringe extremist and racist rants, tweeted Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin). “This is seriously embarrassing to our state.” Johnson is facing renewed calls to resign as a result of his comments.
Johnson’s comments equivocating left-wing protesters as a particular threat are also reflective of the fact that U.S. law enforcement is three times more likely to use force on left-wing than right-wing protesters, even when the former are completely peaceful. This line of thinking has led to laws like the one recently proposed in Kentucky by state legislators outlawing insulting police during a protest as legislators seek harsh penalties against left-wing protesters.
In the past months, Johnson has also been responsible for spreading various flagrant lies and conspiracy theories about the Capitol attack. He has simultaneously said that “fake Trump supporters” were responsible for the attack, which has been refuted by the FBI, and that the attackers weren’t armed, even though multiple reports have found that some of them were, despite harsh gun regulation in D.C.
For mainstream lawmakers, the January 6 attack was a wake-up call to a simmering threat. No longer able to pretend white nationalist violence is a fringe remnant of a bygone era, some elected officials have drawn attention to law enforcement’s negligence to prevent the violence at the capitol and are calling for new approaches.
However, some of their calls to action point toward old approaches that have only entrenched the forces of white supremacy: domestic terrorism laws. In the immediate aftermath of the January 6 attack, President Joe Biden expressed support for a domestic terrorism law. Brian O’Hare, the president of the FBI Agents Association, called on Congress to make domestic terrorism a federal crime. In a February USA Today op-ed, O’Hare said such a new law would criminalize acts of political violence that run counter to the constitution. But opponents of creating new laws point to existing criminal statutes often overlooked by law enforcement.
Calls for new domestic terrorism laws raise numerous concerns for Black communities and other communities of color. While treated as a distant dark history, the surveillance and scrutiny of our communities leads to more than a healthy skepticism of local and federal law enforcement.
“White nationalist violence has been at the root of this country since its inception,” Maha Hilal, co-director of the Justice for Muslims Collective, told Truthout. The collective organizes to dismantle institutionalized Islamophobia and the long-term impacts of the war on terror.
“It is abhorrent that after all this time the only intervention that the government has been willing to consider — domestic terrorism charges — is one that will end up hurting Black and Brown communities,” Hilal continued. “This fact demonstrates a lack of willingness on the part of the government to actually confront white nationalist violence on its own and stands in stark contrast to how violence from marginalized groups is dealt with immediately and with the harshest of consequences.”
While reports have shown the rising threat of white nationalist violence for years, the focus of law enforcement’s attention to popular movements has often centered on Black activists and other activists of color.
During a press conference held by MediaJustice and partner organizations, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) said the priority should not be on expanding national security powers at the expense of human and civil rights, as this step would undermine an already fragile democracy.
“The intelligence failure that allowed the capitol siege to occur was not the result of insufficient national security or surveillance powers,” said Tlaib. “If our government and the previous administration had focused more on the threat of white nationalist terrorism, and less on harassing Black Lives Matter, civil rights and left-wing protesters, they would have seen this coming a mile away and taken action to prevent it.”
During a panel discussion, Adjoa Aiyetoro of the Black and Brown Activism Defense Collective said that any useful response to the January 6 attack will require a historical grounding. Aiyetoro said the attack was devastating, but people needed to stop treating it as a special incident.
“The difference in treatment of white nationalists and Black and Brown people is historic,” said Aiyetoro. “Black and Brown people have always been the targets. They were the others. And we continue to be other[ed] even though we’ve had civil rights laws and [other laws passed].”
The impacts of surveillance on targeted communities are often lost in mainstream debates on the issue. Although current and former FBI officials and legal experts recount the FBI’s history of COINTELPRO under J. Edgar Hoover as an example of how surveillance can go “wrong,” they often gloss over the continuation of various forms of domestic surveillance.
A few years ago, leaked documents showed the FBI engaging in a familiar pattern of targeting Black activism as “extremism,” justifying surveillance and investigation into Black organizing around police killings. In 2017, an FBI intelligence assessment claimed that “Black Identity Extremists” were a growing threat and motivated to kill law enforcement. Various civil rights organizations, including Media Justice and the ACLU, demanded the FBI explain not only the use of the term but reveal which individuals and groups were being targeted. The groups sued in 2019 to compel compliance with previously submitted freedom of information act (FOIA) requests. After national backlash, the FBI claimed to stop using the term in mid-2019. Instead, the agency began using the umbrella term “racially motivated violent extremist,” lumping in Black and other organizers of color with white nationalists.
In June 2020, in the middle of racial justice uprisings across the country, Media Justice and partner organizations discovered that the FBI continued using the “Black Identity Extremist” label internally. Black self-determination has been treated as a national security threat since the country’s inception. Similar concerns have been raised by Muslim communities, particularly after 9/11. Indigenous advocates and communities have also challenged targeted surveillance and other tactics such as efforts during the Standing Rock protests.
No one should be shocked at the presence of white supremacists within law enforcement and the military, activists say. They are not lone-wolf “terrorists;” rather, white supremacy is part of the institutions of policing and the military themselves.
Meanwhile, the language of terrorism has become a rhetorical device that justifies brutal acts — from using facial recognition software to drone strikes on civilians — under the guise of “protecting America.”
“There’s a real fear in the word ‘terrorism’ as instrumentalized by our political leaders,” shared Sijal Nasralla of MPower Change during the panel. “It’s a term that has been used to harm us. And then I think that it has been used to profile, to harm us, [and] to wage wars on majority Muslim countries … to vindicate that kind of violence.”
The uprisings that took place across the country after the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor added a new layer of concern about local and federal law enforcement surveillance and targeting of Black activists and others committed to racial justice.
The Trump administration labeled racial justice and opposition to white supremacy as threats. As white supremacists are classified as “racially motivated violent extremists,” activists question whether the same classification will be used to target those working for racial justice. The terms may have changed but concerns continue as to how Black and other communities of color are being characterized, tracked and targeted in pursuit of so-called safety and security.
Dissent by people of color is often labeled anti-American and prioritized for targeting by police and carceral systems while white nationalism is often ignored (or even endorsed) by the authorities even when it is publicly recognized as a threat. Having a system built on white supremacy allows for government agencies to conflate the righteous rage of oppressed people with white entitlement and anger.
This is also seen in the renewed focus on anti-protest bills in multiple state houses across the country. “There have been over 50 anti-protest bills introduced since the insurrection in what seems to be an effort by legislators to capitalize on the chaos and advance proposals that increase penalties and create new criminal sanctions for protesters,” Nora Benavidez told Truthout. As the director of U.S. Free Expression Programs for Pen America, Benavidez has studied the increasing criminalization of dissent studying response to racial justice over the past several years.
Benavidez says state legislatures fail to address the growing threat of white supremacy and white nationalist violence, instead opting for false equivalencies between the Capitol attack and racial justice protests. The same misleading narrative is seen in the continued use of racially motivated extremism as a single category to regulate without any discernment in the difference between groups. “This narrative is misleading,” continued Benavidez, saying it “conflates an extremist power grab with a BIPOC-led protest movement for social change.
Some say sunlight is the best disinfectant, yet when government abuses carried out under the guise of surveillance and security are exposed, they’re often characterized as isolated occurrences. However, across jurisdictions, mass surveillance continues to disproportionately impact marginalized communities and those advancing justice and equity.
Efforts to address safety and security must address white supremacy and systemic racism ingrained in law enforcement institutions at all levels of government. The problem of combatting white supremacist violence cannot be solved through the existing law enforcement apparatus, and require exploring partnerships with grassroots movement-based organizations like the BREATHE Act. Simply acting to implement “anti-terrorism” laws without considering the prevalence of harm caused to Black and other people of color by surveillance programs will only continue to exacerbate the problem.
“If the government is truly interested in addressing white nationalist violence, then they must develop measures of accountability that don’t result in the targeting and scapegoating of BIPOC communities,” said Hilal.
Hundreds rallied in downtown Louisville, Kentucky and marched through the streets on Saturday to mark the one-year anniversary of the killing of Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old Black woman who was gunned down in her own home by city police officers — none of whom have been charged for her death.
“This is not a celebration. This is the anniversary of something that should not have happened,” one speaker said at a Louisville event, where Taylor’s family, racial justice activists, and ordinary members of the community gathered to mourn the loss of Breonna and demand action from lawmakers and police departments beyond the small-scale reforms that followed the March 2020 killing.
While Louisville in June banned no-knock raids of the kind that led to Taylor’s death, local activists say far more needs to be done to hold the officers responsible for Taylor’s death accountable, rein in law enforcement abuses, and remedy longstanding racial injustices. But the Kentucky state legislature, controlled by Republicans, is currently more focused on passing legislation to criminalize insulting police officers.
“This is about justice. This is about our power to change this world for our children, for my daughter,” Sadiqa Reynolds, president of the Louisville Urban League, told a crowd of demonstrators on Saturday. “This is so we make sure that not another person dies at the hands of the police.”
Hundreds march in Louisville to remember Breonna Taylor one year after she was killed in a police raid. Time lapse taken on Seventh Street. pic.twitter.com/BRXtdwDaPe
Kentucky state Democratic Rep. Attica Scott, the lead sponsor of legislation that would ban no-knock raids statewide, toldNPR ahead of Saturday’s events that in the 365 days since Taylor’s killing, “justice has not been served.”
“Folks on the front lines are very clear that they are continuing to call for all of the officers involved in Breonna Taylor’s murder to be fired, arrested, and charged for her murder,” said Scott. “They have not wavered from those demands.”
Two officers connected to the raid on Taylor’s home — including the detective who investigators found fired the shot that killed Taylor — were terminated earlier this year. Brett Hankison, another officer involved in the raid, was fired last June and later charged with three counts of “wanton endangerment” for shooting into an apartment unit near Taylor’s.
Hundreds of protesters, meanwhile, have been arrested at demonstrations demanding justice for Taylor and accountability for the officers who killed her.
“I can’t believe it’s a year later and we’re still just asking people to do the right thing,” Tamika Palmer, Taylor’s mother, said in an interview earlier this week. “Not to say all officers are bad, but there’s no accountability.”
Lawmakers at the national level also marked the anniversary of Taylor’s killing on social media.
“Today marks 365 days of injustice. Breonna Taylor’s murder was an injustice. The ensuing cover-up was an injustice. [Kentucky Attorney General] Daniel Cameron’s mockery of a grand jury hearing was an injustice,” tweeted Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.). “The absence of charges for the officers who gunned down Breonna was an injustice. The treatment of protesters in Louisville and across the country was an injustice.”
“That people no longer say Breonna Taylor’s name as often as they should is an injustice,” Bush continued. “A Black woman was murdered by the police in her home, in the middle of the night, and nothing has fundamentally changed. That’s why we won’t stop saying her name. That’s why we have to legislate in defense of Black lives in Congress.”
The most explosive element of the Sussexes’ highly anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey was the claim that someone within the royal household had “concerns” over how dark-skinned the couple’s son Archie might be.
While Winfrey later clarified neither the Queen nor the Duke of Edinburgh were behind the remark, Meghan also suggested their son was denied the title of prince because of his mixed race.
The interview points to a larger issue of racism in the British monarchy, both contemporary and historical.
When the couple began dating, some hoped it would usher in a period of royal renewal. Meghan, who has an African-American mother and a white father, was presented as a symbol of the modern, inclusive monarchy.
These hopes were gradually dashed with consistently negative media coverage, including unfavourable comparisons with Meghan’s sister-in-law, Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge.
Meghan revealed to Winfrey that the pressure to perform official duties in the face of mounting criticism led to depression and suicidal thoughts. The couple lamented the lack of support they received from the royal family.
It is a tragic story at an individual level but it also points to a history of structural racism within the monarchy. Harry noted that the press attacks on his wife had “colonial undertones”, which the royal family refused to address.
These are part of a longer history of colonialism and racism in which the Windsors are entangled.
Queen Elizabeth I: The Pelican Portrait by Nicholas Hilliard, circa 1575. Image: Wikimedia Commons
The slave trade The Queen’s distant ancestor, Elizabeth I, was integral to establishing the British slave trade. One of the founders of the trade in the 16th century, Sir John Hawkins, impressed Elizabeth by capturing 300 Africans.
His biographer Harry Kelsey calls him “Queen Elizabeth’s Slave Trader” and notes that she contributed her ship, Jesus of Lubeck to his next voyage in 1564.
In 2018, Prince Charles denounced Britain’s role in the slave trade as an “atrocity” but there have been calls for the Queen also to apologise on behalf of the monarchy.
Republican campaigner Graham Smith has led the charge noting that the current royals “are sitting on a hugely significant amount which was acquired from slavery and empire”.
A colonial mindset The British empire contracted after the World Wars and eventually dissolved in the 1960s. Nevertheless, a colonial mindset has persisted. This has been regularly demonstrated by the casual racism of Prince Philip. Visiting Australia in 2002, he asked an Aboriginal Australian if they were “still throwing spears”.
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip watch as Warren Clements of the Tjapakai Aboriginal Dance Group makes fire by rubbing sticks in Cairns in March 2002. Image: Brian Cassey/AP
In 1999, he mused that an old-fashioned fuse box must have been “put in by an Indian”. In 1986, he warned British students in China that they would become “slitty-eyed” if they stayed too long.
Australia, China, and India, are just three of dozens of countries touched by British colonisation.
While the Prince’s comments — and many others — are often dismissed as “gaffes” or poor jokes, they tie into a culture war, suggesting colonialism was ultimately a net good and Britain was spreading civilisation throughout the world.
Journalist Peter Tatchell has argued that the institution of monarchy is itself inherently racist as there have only been, and likely will only ever be, white monarchs. He notes,
A non-white person is […] excluded from holding the title of head of state, at least for the foreseeable future. This is institutional racism.
While this could change, of course, the treatment of Meghan and the alleged concerns over her son’s skin colour suggest the privileging of whiteness is deeply ingrained.
Being seventh in line to the throne, there was never a realistic chance Archie would become king. The notion that his mere proximity to the throne has sparked concerns, and the failure to defend Meghan from racist attacks, again points to a structural issue.
The marriage of Harry and Meghan in 2018 by charismatic African-American Bishop Michael Curry, serenaded by a gospel choir, was a public relations coup for the royals. The Sussexes’ exit from royal life after such a short period, and the reasons why, is highly damaging.
Royal silence The monarchy has remained largely silent on the history of racism in Britain and how the royal family has benefited from racism and colonialism.
Sets of shackles used in the transportation of slaves, on display at the International Slavery Museum in Liverpool, England. Image: Dave Thompson/AP
After the death of George Floyd sparked the Black Lives Matter movement, thousands across Britain were quick to show their support and solidarity. So strongly did the movement resonate, in 2020 the English Premier League had the words Black Lives Matter printed on players’ shirts, opening matches with players taking a symbolic knee.
The royal family said nothing. By protocol, the monarchy does not comment on political issues but its role is to offer moral leadership. Without explicitly endorsing Black Lives Matter, the Windsors could have contributed to the zeitgeist by offering statements condemning all forms of racism and visibly championing anti-racism charities.
As a society, Britain is having a difficult national conversation about its imperial past. Statues of slave owners are being torn down and attempts to decolonise the curriculum are gathering pace.
If the royal family is not able to make similar attempts to confront the racism in its past and present, it risks falling ever further out of touch with the people it is supposed to represent.
It’s been nearly a year since we started social distancing, staying home to make mountains of sourdough, Korean whipped coffees, and focaccia bread art. But for all the at-home deliciousness we’ve mastered, we’re ready for our favorite restaurants! So although travel is still off the table, we’re celebrating with a mouthwatering tour of the stories—and recipes—from some of the best-loved, Black-owned vegan restaurants in America. From soul food in Detroit to Ethiopian eats in Brooklyn to a stoner-inspired burger joint in Wisconsin, get ready, because it’s time to eat.
From Mississippi to Portland
When mother-and-son team Kim and Alkebulan Moroski started selling plant-based versions of Cajun-Creole favorites in Jackson, MI, they were proud to be using their talents for good. But in 2019, when a state Senate bill passed outlawing the labeling of plant-based food as meat (essentially, their whole business), they had to pivot. “Selling vegan food in Mississippi can land you in prison,” they said. “[That bill] criminalized our passion.” Not willing to give up, they uprooted and moved cross-country to the vegan promised land that is Portland, OR. Setting up in the city’s all-vegan food-truck court, they’re now free to share their Southern roots, right in the middle of the Pacific Northwest.
The Dirty Lettuce menu
Ribs, fried chicken, greens, and gumbo—the Moroskis have that all down pat. But the duo is also churning out some of the most flavorful vegan seafood west of the Mississippi. Don’t miss the creamy Vegan Seafood Bisque, swimming with jackfruit crab and oyster mushroom oysters, or the spicy and rich Okra and Crab Étoufée. But for a real grand slam, go for the Vegan Seafood Boil, brimming with sweet corn, red potatoes, fresh garlic, housemade andouille sausage, shrimp, and crawfish tails in a luscious butter sauce.
Cajun-Creole, with an Italian twist
Once you think you have Dirty Lettuce figured out, it’s guaranteed to surprise you. That’s why it’s always good to keep an eye out for their specials revolving around a single ingredient that may throw you for a loop: pasta! In the early 1900s, New Orleans saw an influx of Italian immigrants coming from Sicily, bringing with them their national culinary treasure. Fast forward to 2021, and Portlanders are reaping the benefits with fusion dishes like Cajun Creamy Pasta with chicken and shrimp, and Chicken Tetrazzini, a dish that’s become quintessentially Mississippi with thick linguine noodles and tender chicken in a decadent cream sauce.
The COVID-19 pandemic creates universal death anxiety. We cannot see or touch or smell the virus that has now killed 500,000 Americans. It is everywhere and nowhere—making its lethal, invisible contamination seem almost a supernatural force. Continue reading
As George Floyd gasped for breath under the knee of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, another officer turned to the gathering crowd and said, “This is why you don’t do drugs, kids.” Days later, Chauvin’s attorneys told a judge that prosecutors had no probable cause to charge Chauvin because Floyd tested positive for drugs and had medical conditions. Blaming the victim, a common practice particularly when the victim is Black or Brown, attorneys postulated that Floyd had overdosed and caused his own death. Two separate autopsies would confirm that Chauvin killed Floyd, but only after Chauvin’s lawyers spread the dehumanizing notion that Floyd’s alleged drug use made him unworthy of living.
Breonna Taylor, whose name was chanted with Floyd’s as the protests against police-perpetrated violence swept the country last year, was killed by police during a botched drug raid in March 2020. No drugs were found at the home in Louisville, Kentucky, where Taylor, a Black medical worker and aspiring nurse, was gunned down, but prosecutors argued the plainclothes officers who busted inside were justified in their use of force. A grand jury agreed and charges against the cops were dropped.
Democrats and some civil rights leaders applauded the passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 in the House this week as an important step toward curbing police violence. However, the suite of policing reforms does not reflect the transformational demands of the movement that erupted into view after police killed Taylor, Floyd, Daniel Prude, Tony McDade, Modesto Reyes, Patrick Lynn Warren and so manyothers. Activists envision reducing, defunding and ultimately eliminating policing, while redirecting police funding to meet community needs. In contrast, the police reform bill would give police more money in the form of grants that theoretically act as an incentive to adopt modest reforms — if local cops even want the funding. Congress would continue supporting the war on drugs, which looms as one factor behind the deaths of Floyd, Taylor, Reyes and so much of the violence that people of color and particularly Black people face at the hands of police.
Maritza Perez, national affairs director for the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that lobbies Congress to abolish the drug war, said the bill passed by the House on Wednesday falls “far short” of the kind of reform and accountability that is needed to end police violence. House Democratic leaders, Perez said, fast-tracked a version of the bill that passed last year before dying in the Senate, rather than listening to concerns raised by racial justice groups and members of ultra-policed communities.
“Last year we raised at various times while this bill was being put together that it didn’t go far enough, and the way that the Democrats are explaining this bill even isn’t accurate,” Perez said in an interview.
“The bill continues the misguided logic that more police equals more safety and better protections of human rights,” said Erika Maye, deputy senior director of criminal justice and democracy campaigns at the civil rights group Color Of Change, in a statement.
Standards and training have not been shown to have a profound effect on police-perpetrated violence. Activists argue that policing is inherently violent and racist, and only reducing and ultimately abolishing policing can reduce police violence.
For example, the bill would prohibit federal law enforcement officers from putting people in chokeholds and serving “no-knock warrants,” two policing tactics that are notorious for causing serious harm. However, the bill would not stop local and state police from using chokeholds and no-knock warrants; instead, it uses federal funding as an incentive for local cops to adopt federal standards and training. Besides, Floyd was killed by blunt force trauma and asphyxiation from a knee to the neck, not a chokehold. As Derecka Purnell points out at The Guardian, the Justice in Policing Act would not have saved Floyd’s life. It may not have saved Taylor’s either.
No-knock warrants involve police or a SWAT team barging into private property unannounced, most often to search for drugs inside a home, and are blamed for numerous injuries and deaths. Perez said the Justice in Policing Act does not prohibit “quick-knock raids” that can be just as deadly. During a quick-knock raid, which are also often used to serve drug warrants, officers simply knock before they bust into a home.
In Taylor’s case, police officers told investigators they repeatedly knocked and announced themselves before breaking down the door with a battering ram. Other reports indicate there was no warning at all. Taylor was in bed with her boyfriend, who reportedly thought they were being robbed; he pulled a gun and fired one shot. Police responded with a hail of gunfire. In the wake of Taylor’s death, Louisville banned no-knock warrants and set new guidelines for police raids. Even if Congress passes the Justice in Policing Act, states and localities would be left to pass their own reforms, as a few are already doing.
“A lot of these problematic policing practices, a lot of cases that we hear about where people are killed, are derived [from] drug investigations, or drugs are used as a pretext to question somebody and have that initial interaction,” Perez said.
Democrats say the House bill would “limit” the transfer of military-grade equipment to local police departments, but Perez said the legislation would not end the practice outright. The war on drugs has long been used to justify the militarization of police forces, with heavily armed SWAT teams busting into homes in the middle of the night and deploying smoke bombs and flash grenades. In 2014, a flash grenade critically injured a toddler during a no-knock drug raid in Georgia.
Activists have long called for an end to federal programs that transfer military equipment to local police, especially after the 2014 uprising in Ferguson, Missouri, where military equipment was used against protesters after a police officer shot and killed Michael Brown. Federal programs that transfer military equipment to cops would be curtailed under the House bill, as they were during the Obama administration, but the programs would not be shut down.
“Most often when we say ‘militarized police,’ it’s in the course of a drug investigation,” Perez said.
The most substantive provisions in the Justice in Policing Act are also the most controversial in Congress, and organizers are skeptical that even these would make for real change. The bill would “reform” — but not eliminate — qualified immunity for police officers, which currently protects cops from civil lawsuits and prevents victims from collecting damages. (Meanwhile, many abolitionist activists question whether eliminating qualified immunity will save lives. As Black Lives Matter put it in a tweet, the solution is not to “end qualified immunity so we can sue cops AFTER they kill our babies.”) The bill would also loosen a federal legal standard that often prevents prosecutors from charging police with criminal charges. Democrats want to create a National Police Misconduct Registry meant to prevent cops who are fired for misconduct from being rehired by a different force — if police departments choose to use it.
Cops are notorious for getting off easy, even after they kill people, and mainstream civil rights leaders, such as Rev. Al Sharpton of the National Action Network, say national reforms like the George Floyd Act are necessary for pursuing justice at the local and state level. However, Republicans remain opposed to the qualified immunity proposal and other changes, posing a major hurdle in the Senate, where Democrats must convince 10 Republicans to support the bill or end the filibuster to pass it.
Perez said both Democrats and Republicans are mischaracterizing the bill, with Democrats claiming it goes much further than it actually does, and Republicans falsely claiming it would “defund the police.”
“I really don’t think this bill provides real accountability,” Perez said.
In October 2020, a coalition of racial justice and law enforcement reform groups sent a letter to top Democrats on the House Judiciary committee, alerting them that 50 Black people had died since the Justice in Policing Act was first passed earlier that year. They offered concrete proposals to improve the bill, including removing police officers from all schools, banning quick-knock raids for drug cases, strengthening the misconduct registry and making racial profiling data readily available to the public.
Perez said Democrats ignored these recommendations in favor of a quick political victory and appeasing the police. Police oppose real reforms because they threaten their power on the street, which so often involves racist suspicions about drugs. Under the bill, Congress would continue funding the drug war, rather than shifting those resources toward housing, education, harm reduction and other infrastructure that would strengthen communities, according to Perez.
The Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) is pushing its own visionary bill, the BREATHE Act, which would divest federal resources from incarceration and policing and invest in new approaches to community safety that don’t involve legal sanctions and locking people up in jail. For racial justice activists, the only reforms worth fighting for would shrink the criminal legal system, center the protection of Black lives and provide new money to Black communities.
The Justice in Policing Act, on the other hand, provides new money for police.
“Giving hundreds of millions of dollars to police departments for hiring, additional equipment, and training fundamentally ignores community’s calls for public safety that prioritizes housing, health care, and good jobs,” Maye said.
The Justice in Policing Act fails to capture the spirit of the mass movement that took to the streets after Floyd’s death — a movement that demanded an end to policing and the repurposing of resources to defend Black lives and promote public safety by investing in communities. Defunding police would also mean an end to the racist war on drugs, which has empowered and enriched law enforcement since its inception, providing the perfect excuse to target and control communities of color. The war on drugs is a war on people, particularly Black and Brown people. The House Democrats’ proposal would not change that.
“We support drug decriminalization and legalization for that reason,” Perez said. “We want to stop interactions between members of the community and the police, because for vulnerable people — people of color, low-income and no-income people — we know those interactions are often deadly.”
Detroit Will Breathe was formed days after the mass uprising following the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery. Despite the hyper-militarized tools and tactics used by Detroit Police on anti-racist protesters in an attempt to stop the movement, activists kept mobilizing against police brutality. Instead of trying to meet the demands that Detroit Will Breathe developed with the community, DPD continued to use excessive force and brutality. Following a summer of state violence, Detroit Will Breathe was able to file a lawsuit against the City of Detroit: plaintiffs are suing the City for damages and violations to their first and fourth amendment rights. In addition to the lawsuit, a restraining order against DPD was put in place for 14 days until a judge granted a preliminary injunction for the remainder of the case stipulating that the police are no longer allowed to use chokeholds, rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper-spray, batons, shields, force, or vehicles as weapons against protesters; protesters now cannot be arrested without probable cause. Detroit Police Chief, James Craig, responded to the ruling and stated that it “wouldn’t stop how the department handles demonstrations.”
While the lawsuit and restraining order might have provided some legal cushion room in protecting protesters against physical violence, DPD and the City continue to utilize intimidation tactics and political revenge against activists. In response to Detroit Will Breathe’s lawsuit, the City filed a counterclaim for civil conspiracy demanding that any damages are to be paid by individual members of Detroit Will Breathe. City officials disclosed that the claim was only filed in order to get Detroit Will Breathe to drop their lawsuit. Detroit Mayor Duggan stated that the claim is an “attempt to suppress their speech.” Detroit Will Breathe is fighting to have this baseless claim dismissed but continues to face legal obstacles.
On Tuesday, January 26, Detroit City Council voted 5:4 to approve additional funding for the counterclaim. In one of the poorest cities in the nation, $200,000 of taxpayer money was paid out to Clark Hill law firm, despite the fact that activists and residents repeatedly asked Detroit City Council to vote down the contract. The additional funds were requested by the Duggan administration and the city’s top lawyer, Lawrence Garcia. The same day that City Council approved this contract, 238 out of 245 cases against BLM protesters were dismissed due to lack of evidence. The council vote is motivated by political retaliation and is being used to intimidate and suppress protesters. Aside from vengeance, council members were also bribed by Clark Hill. Roy McCallister, a former police officer, was the only council member that voted in favor of the contract that did not receive a gift from the law firm. Detroit City Council doesn’t care about the interests of the people they serve; they are more inclined to fill their own pockets.
Not only is this funding a direct attack on BLM protesters, but it is also inappropriate and disrespectful to Detroiters who are living in poverty. Detroit residents are constantly told there isn’t enough money for the resources they need: housing, healthcare, water, education, transportation, and recreation services lack proper and sustained funding. Housing alone is a major crisis in Detroit: since 2009, $600 million has been stolen from Detroit homeowners in illegal property tax inflation on foreclosures and still, City Council continues to throw away taxpayer money. City Council’s priorities are concentrated on displacing Black and Brown people through state violence, rather than protecting the 85%-Black community that they serve.
In addition to this egregious counterclaim, DPD is asking for another $40 million to be added to their bloated $330 million police budget. If City Council approves this budget increase, it will be even clearer to Detroiters that their lives don’t matter and that there are no consequences for police brutality. Detroit Will Breathe demands that the City refuses to reward DPD additional funding for their violence and hostility and instead puts the money toward resources and services for the community.
A trial date has been set for four people charged with criminal damage in relation to the toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston.
The bronze memorial to the 17th century slave merchant was pulled down during a Black Lives Matter protest on 7 June last year, before being dumped in Bristol Harbour and later recovered by Bristol City Council.
Charges allege that the four defendants, without lawful excuse, jointly and with others, damaged the statue of Edward Colston, a listed monument belonging to Bristol City Council.
It is claimed that the defendants committed the offence “intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged”.
All four defendants pleaded not guilty to the charge against them during the hearing at Bristol Crown Court.
Judge Peter Blair QC, the recorder of Bristol, said he would preside over a trial of the case.
He told the defendants: “You have pleaded not guilty and therefore I am fixing a trial date of December 13 for you which you must attend without fail on that day and the subsequent days.
“We estimate that it will go into a second week. I am suggesting probably setting aside seven to eight days so you need to make sure that your diaries are so arranged.
“There will be a hearing on November 8 to take stock of the case and make sure that everyone is working successfully towards your trial date.
“You don’t have to attend but you may attend if you wish. Your counsel may attend by video link.
“You are on unconditional bail and that will continue, so you are free to leave.”
Ahead of the hearing, the legal firm representing three of the four defendants released a statement.
Raj Chada, head of criminal defence, and Laura O’Brien, associate, at London-based law firm Hodge Jones & Allen, said they would fight the charges “vigorously”.
“We are committed to defending them and their right to a fair trial in this important case. We ask that their privacy is respected,” they said.
The next hearing in the case will take place on November 8 at Bristol Crown Court.
According to a report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), “forces still do not fully understand the impact on individuals and communities of the use of police powers”. The report examined police use of force and stop and search against people from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds.
The report highlights that:
Over 35 years on from the introduction of stop and search legislation, no force fully understands the impact of the use of these powers. Disproportionality persists and no force can satisfactorily explain why.
The MacPherson report 22 years on
The people at Black Lives Matter UK shared their views on Twitter. They said that they – and the police – already know exactly why police disproportionately use their powers on people from BAME backgrounds. It’s because of institutional racism:
Hint: The word they are looking for begins with an R and ends with M. https://t.co/31LEpP00mi
The MacPherson report was published in 1999 following the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence and police mishandling of the case. It found the Met police to be institutionally racist and set out 70 recommendations on how they should tackle this. Institutional racism, as set out in the MacPherson report, is defined as:
The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.
It’s appalling that over 20 years after the MacPherson report was published, forces across the UK are still unwilling and unable to recognise the realities of institutional racism and disproportionate policing, let alone start tackling them.
More recent interventions
In response to the HMICFRS report, shadow justice secretary David Lammy pointed to an independent review which he led. It looked into the treatment of, and outcomes for, BAME people in the criminal justice system:
All people – regardless of their ethnic background – must be treated the same by police and the whole justice system.
The government "accepted" in my review that action must be taken to explain or change disproportionality. Now it must act like it. https://t.co/zkatVz3Jar
Lammy’s 2017 review found that very little had changed since the MacPherson report. And in some cases, things had regressed. Despite making up 14% of the UK population, people from BAME backgrounds made up 25% of prisoners. Meanwhile, the BAME proportion of youth prisoners rose from 25% to 41% between 2006 and 2016. And while Black people make up just 3% of the population, they “accounted for 12% of adult prisoners” and “more than 20% of children in custody”.
In spite of these high profile calls for institutional reform, we’ve seen little positive change in policing and the justice system. Black people continue to bear the brunt of racist policing. According to 2019/20 data, officers are:
9 times more likely to stop and search Black people – 18 times more likely to do so using section 60 powers.
“5.7 times more likely to use force against Black people than white people”.
8 times more likely to handcuff Black people.
9 times more likely to draw tasers on Black people.
3 times more likely to use spithoods on Black people.
Today, Black people account for 8% of deaths in police custody. It’s been over 50 years since Yorkshire police murdered David Oluwale. But since then, not one officer has been successfully prosecuted for killing a Black person in police custody. The joint enterprise doctrine and gang databases continue to target and criminalise young Black men. Meanwhile, forces continue to surveil and criminalise Muslim communities as a result of Prevent and the war on terror.
Institutional racism bolstered by the state
Racist policing doesn’t take place in a vacuum. The structural racism of the state bolsters institutional racism in the police. Here, it’s useful to refer to the Institute of Race Relations’ 1998 definition of institutional racism as:
that which, covertly or overtly, resides in the policies, procedures, operations and culture of public or private institutions – reinforcing individual prejudices and being reinforced by them in turn.
We see this manifested in the government’s racist immigration laws, border control practices, and the hostile environment. It’s in a civil service with a culture of racism and exclusion. Resistance to acknowledging the legacies of slavery, colonialism, and empire in schools, universities, and beyond. And failures to protect the human rights of Black people in the UK. Furthermore, the government is responsible for prison and police expansion.
We have ample evidence to suggest that Britain’s police are institutionally racist. Forces should be beyond getting to grips with the basics of racism and disproportionality. They should have been doing serious work to tackle it for decades. We don’t need any more reviews – we need action.
It looks like if you’re left-wing, you’d best prepare yourself for a dunk or a burning at the stake. Because the witch hunt against us all has stepped up a gear.
Tribune Magazine is “fighting a legal case” which ‘threatens its future’. The Labour Party has banned socialist candidates from the Liverpool Mayor election. And Twitter has suspended left-wing accounts left, right, and centre. But all this is the thin end of the wedge. Because we’re under the greatest attack since the days of McCarthyism.
The Tories recentlyappointed former Labour MP John Woodcock to head up a review into “countering violent extremism”. A preserve of the far right, you may think. Wrong. Because witchfinder general Woodcock will also be looking into the so-called far left. But his review comes at a time when the left wing in the UK is under attack from all sides.
Social media companies aredeliberately censoring our news and views – whilejumping into financial bed with the likes of Rupert Murdoch. Meanwhile, him and the rest of the establishment corporate media aretightening their grip on the narrative – being aided and abetted by the Toriesparachuting their mates into top jobs. And if you want to protest about all this – tough luck.
The governmentbrands groups like Extinction Rebellion “criminals”. Our right to protest is beinglost as an increasinglyauthoritarian police force uses coronavirus rules to its advantage. Oh, and if you think lawyers will help you when you’re nicked – think again. Legal aid hasgone, and those “lefty lawyers” are underattack themselves – simply for doing their jobs. But it’s OK! Because Generation Z will save us! Sorry. Wrong again.
Anti-capitalist teaching is notallowed in schools. The Tories are cancelling university ‘cancel culture’ by making sure free speech matters. But only if it’stheirmates, of course. And if you think those slave trader statues will continue to topple – think again. Because the Tories aretrying to stop that, too.
Journalist Tim Fentoncalled all this a “new McCarthyism”. But are we all now witches, being tried in a modern-day Salem? The truth is, the reality is probably far, far worse. And if we’re not careful, we’ll all soon be metaphorically burned at the stake. We have got a lot to fight – and to succeed, we need to ensure unity is the strongest weapon in our armoury.
It’s been nearly a year since we started social distancing, staying home to make mountains of sourdough, Korean whipped coffees, and focaccia bread art. But for all the at-home deliciousness we’ve mastered, we’re ready for our favorite restaurants! So although travel is still off the table, we’re celebrating with a mouthwatering tour of the stories—and recipes—from some of the best-loved, Black-owned vegan restaurants in America. From soul food in Detroit to Ethiopian eats in Brooklyn to the first plant-based breakfast café in San Diego, get ready, because it’s time to eat.
What happens in Vegas …
Hungry brunchers lucky enough to nosh on Todd Anderson and Samantha Aaron’s waffle-wrapped meatless sausages and plant-based McMuffins at San Diego’s Spoiled Vegan Cafe probably don’t know they owe their good fortune to a gnarly two-day hangover. But when Anderson returned home from a bender in Vegas feeling downright terrible, he knew something wasn’t right. So he began looking into ways to heal and found that switching to a plant-based diet was the answer. Things then moved quickly. He dove into veganism, made like-minded friends, and eventually set out on a plant-based adventure to Costa Rica with a group that dubbed themselves the Spoiled Vegans. So when an opportunity arose for Anderson to start a vegan food pop-up, he had just the name. And the rest is history.
Breakfast of champions
At the city’s first plant-based breakfast café, vegan handhelds are the eatery’s backbone. Spoiled Vegans’ menu boasts sweet and savory dishes like the customer-favorite Spoil Yourself, an English muffin stacked with a crispy hash brown, breakfast sausage, folded vegan egg, melty cheese, and housemade maple mustard. For an Instagram photoshoot, the Let Go of My Diego—a breakfast approach to corn dogs (with waffle instead of corn batter and breakfast sausage in lieu of a hot dog)—is the best bet. But limited-run selections like the Ham and Cheese Remix (black forest ham, folded egg, smoked provolone, and garlic aioli in a freshly made vegan croissant sprinkled with everything bagel seasoning) proves that breakfast is the most important meal of the day.
What’s next for Spoiled Vegans?
After running as a pop-up in a local coffee shop and appearing at SoCal vegan events, Spoiled Vegans has finally found a home in its own brick-and-mortar space. So what can hungry patrons look forward to? Anderson and Aaron are making indulgence a bit healthier by transitioning the menu to being totally air-fried, and they’re working on a lunch and dinner menu, too. But don’t worry, this breakfast café isn’t doing away with the most important meal of the day. In fact, keep your eyes peeled for more breakfast specials, like marshmallow-chocolate and jalapeño-cheddar waffle dogs.
Osime Brown – a Black 21-year-old autistic man with learning disabilities – is facing deportation from his home in Britain to Jamaica. He was imprisoned in 2018 under the joint enterprise act for the theft of a mobile phone, and lost his leave to remain. The Home Office now intends to deport Brown from his home in Britain to Jamaica, a country he left when he was four years old.
Throughout his tumultuous life, Brown has been systematically failed by the services that were supposed to protect him – the education, health and social care, and criminal justice systems. Brown has a learning disability, has high support needs, and now suffers from anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his distress. Regarding the Home Office’s plan to deport her son to Jamaica, Brown’s mother said:
He doesn’t have anybody there. He hasn’t been back to Jamaica, he doesn’t know Jamaica. When he found out the Home Office wanted to remove him he said: “Mum, is there a bus that I can come back on?” His removal would be a death sentence.
She told the Independent:
He wouldn’t cope. If he can’t even cope here, how is he going to cope in a environment and a culture he doesn’t know? He would be exploited because of his vulnerability.
34 MPs have signed a letter calling on home secretary Priti Patel to halt the planned deportation of Brown, saying:
If Osime is deported, it is our and his mother’s belief that he will die.
#StopTheDeportation
Brown’s family have taken to social media to call for a twitterstorm at 7pm on 25 February to raise awareness about his case and stop the planned deportation:
They have shared a useful thread on how people can get involved in the online campaign:
Please don’t forget about the #TwitterStorm happening for #OsimeBrown this evening from 7pm onwards (UK time)
— JUSTICE FOR OSIME BROWN (Official) (@FreeOsimeBrown) February 25, 2021
They encourage those taking part to tag the official @FreeOsimeBrown page and to use hashtags to ensure the campaign is impactful:
Hey all! Just a quick reminder… When making people aware of the #TwitterStorm this Thursday for #OsimeBrown, can you please mention our account @FreeOsimeBrown so others can find the official page
However we choose to support the campaign, we must use our collective voice to demand justice for Brown and send a loud, clear message that we do not accept the Home Office’s plans to put a vulnerable young man into an extremely dangerous situation.
(@SouthwarkNotes) 
Scott Suchman / Baltimore Magazine
Please don’t forget about the 
Emma Taylor 
#JusticeForOsimeBrown (@SpiritoSpartan) 
#PeaceandJustice (@BillWard60) 
#Blacklivesmatter (@AimeeNicole234) 