Category: Justice

  • By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    New Caledonia’s largest pro-independence party, the Union Calédonienne (UC), has unveiled the main outcome of its congress last weekend, including its plans for the French Pacific territory’s political future.

    Speaking at a news conference on Thursday in Nouméa, the party’s newly-elected executive bureau, now headed by Emmanuel Tjibaou, debriefed the media about the main resolutions made during its congress.

    One of the motions was specifically concerning a timeframe for New Caledonia’s road to independence.

    Tjibaou said UC now envisaged that one of the milestones on this road to sovereignty would be the signing of a “Kanaky Agreement”, at the latest on 24 September 2025 — a highly symbolic date as this was the day of France’s annexation of New Caledonia in 1853.

    ‘Kanaky Agreement’ by 24 September 2025?
    This, he said, would mark the beginning of a five-year “transition period” from “2025 to 2030” that would be concluded by New Caledonia becoming fully sovereign under a status yet to be defined.

    Several wordings have recently been advanced by stakeholders from around the political spectrum.

    Depending on the pro-independence and pro-France sympathies, these have varied from “shared sovereignty”, “independence in partnership”, “independence-association” and, more recently, from the also divided pro-France loyalists camp, an “internal federalism” (Le Rassemblement-LR party) or a “territorial federation” (Les Loyalistes).

    Charismatic pro-independence leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou, Emmanuel’s father who was assassinated in 1989, was known for being an advocate of a relativist approach to the term “independence”, to which he usually preferred to adjunct the pragmatic term “inter-dependence”.

    Jean Marie Tjibaou
    Founding FLNKS leader Jean Marie Tjibaou in Kanaky New Caledonia in 1985 . . . assassinated four years later. Image: David Robie/Café Pacific

    Negotiations between all political parties and the French State are expected to begin in the next few weeks.

    The talks (between pro-independence, anti-independence parties and the French State) are scheduled in such a way that all parties manage to reach a comprehensive and inclusive political agreement no later than March 2025.

    The talks had completely stalled after the pro-indeoendence riots broke out on 13 May 2024.

    Over the past three years, following three referendums (2018, 2020, 2021, the latter being strongly challenged by the pro-independence side) on the question of independence (all yielding a majority in favour of New Caledonia remaining part of France), there had been several attempts to hold inclusive talks in order to discuss New Caledonia’s political future.

    But UC and other parties (including pro-France and pro-independence) did not manage to sit at the same table.

    Speaking to journalists, Emmanuel Tjibaou confirmed that under its new leadership, UC was now willing to return to the negotiating table.

    He said “May 13 has stopped our advances in those exchanges” but “now is the time to build the road to full sovereignty”.

    Back to the negotiating table
    In the footsteps of those expected negotiations, heavy campaigning will follow to prepare for crucial provincial elections to be held no later than November 2025.

    The five years of “transition” (2025-2030), would be used to transfer the remaining “regal” powers from France as well as putting in place “a political, financial and international” framework, accompanied by the French State, Tjibaou elaborated.

    And after the transitional period, UC’s president said a new phase of talks could start to put in place what he terms “interdependence conventions on some of the ‘regal’ — main — powers” (defence, law and order, foreign affairs, currency).

    Tjibaou said this project could resemble a sort of independence in partnership, a “shared sovereignty”, a concept that was strongly suggested early November 2024 by visiting French Senate President Gérard Larcher.

    But Tjibaou said there was a difference in the sense that those discussions on sharing would only take place once all the powers have been transferred from France.

    “You can only share sovereignty if you have obtained it first”, he told local media.

    One of the other resolutions from its congress held last weekend in the small village of Mia (Canala) was to reiterate its call to liberate Christian Téin, appointed president of the FLNKS (Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front) in absentia late August, even though he is currently imprisoned in Mulhouse (north-east of France) pending his trial.

    Allegations over May riots
    He is alleged to have been involved in the organisation of the demonstrations that degenerated into the May 13 riots, arson, looting and a deadly toll of 13 people, several hundred injured and material damage estimated at some 2.2 billion euros (NZ$3.9 billion).

    Tjibaou also said that within a currently divided pro-independence movement, he hoped that a reunification process and “clarification” would be possible with other components of FLNKS, namely the Progressist Union in Melanesia (UPM) and the Kanak Liberation Party (PALIKA).

    Since August 2024, both UPM and PALIKA have de facto withdrawn with FLNKS’s political bureau, saying they no longer recognised themselves in the way the movement had radicalised.

    In 1988, after half a decade of a quasi civil war, Jean-Marie Tjibaou signed the Matignon-Oudinot agreements with New Caledonia’s pro-France and anti-independence leader Jacques Lafleur.

    The third signatory was the French State.

    One year later, in 1989, Tjibaou was shot dead by a hard-line pro-independence militant.

    His son Emmanuel was aged 13 at the time.

    ‘Common destiny’
    In 1998, a new agreement, the Nouméa Accord, was signed, with a focus on increased autonomy, the notions of “common destiny” and a local “citizenship” and a gradual transfer of powers from France.

    After the three referendums held between 2018 and 2021, the Nouméa Accord prescribed that if there had been three referendums rejecting independence, then political stakeholders should “meet to examine the situation thus generated”.

    On Thursday, Union Calédonienne also stressed that the Nouméa Accord remained the founding document of all future political discussions.

    “We are sticking to the Nouméa Accord because it is this document that brings us to the elements of accession to sovereignty”.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The comity of nations, at least when it comes to international humanitarian law, took a rather curious turn with the announcement by France that it would regard Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s immunity as unimpeachable even before an arrest warrant approved by the International Criminal Court.  This view was expressed despite France claiming to be a strong proponent of the ICC and international law.

    On November 27, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot had mooted the point on Franceinfo radio that France, while being “very committed to international justice and will apply international law based on its obligations to cooperate with the ICC” had to still consider the limits of the Court’s own statute, which “deals with questions of immunities for certain leaders.”  Giving himself room to exit a potential legal tangle, he merely left it up to “the judicial authorities to decide”.

    The central reason for not cooperating with the ICC on this point centres on the play of Articles 27 and 98 of the Rome Statute.  The former makes it clear that, “Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person […] shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction.”  The provisions of the latter prevent the Court from proceeding with a request for surrender or assistance requiring the requested State “to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State” unless cooperation had been obtained from that third state for a waiver of the immunity.

    A statement from France’s Foreign Minister merely served to show that the warrant’s effectualness should be gauged by whether Israel was a member of the Rome Statute, an interpretation as disingenuous as it was inaccurate.  “A state cannot be held to act in a way that is incompatible with its obligations in terms of international law with regards to immunities granted to states which are not party to the ICC.”  It followed that Netanyahu and his ministers had the necessary immunities “and must be taken into consideration should the ICC ask us to arrest them and hand them over.”

    Rather shoddy lip service to a proud legal and political tradition supposedly shared by Israel and France follows.  Both shared a “long-standing friendship”.  Both were “democracies committed to the rule of law”.  Both showed “respect for a professional and independent justice system”.  These were remarkable observations, given the provisional measures and opinions issued by the International Court of Justice about Israel’s operations in the Gaza Strip and, more broadly, the Occupied Territories.

    These include the genuine risk that genocide is taking place in Gaza (the case begun by South Africa is ongoing), the deprivation of necessities, instances of famine and starvation, and the illegal status of the settlements that involve laws and practices of dispossession and separation constituting racial discrimination and apartheid. And what are we to make of Netanyahu’s authoritarian attack on Israel’s judicial system itself, intended to give more free rein to executive power?

    The French approach waters down the effect of the warrants by effectively rejecting ICC jurisdiction over Israel’s officials and commanders, despite the court’s own finding that it had jurisdiction by virtue of Israel’s operations on Palestinian territory and the accession to the Rome Treaty by the Palestinians.  This did not impress the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and its French member organisation, the Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH), which emphasised the importance of Article 27.  Suspicion about the effectiveness of international law, according to Nathalie Tehio, President of the LDH, “dangerously undermines it at a time when it is urgently needed.”

    Relevantly, Tehio noted that no arguments of any equivalent immunity had ever been raised regarding the ICC warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite Russia not being a party to the Rome Statute.  This revealed a “double standard” that damaged France’s reputation, “particularly in relation to the countries of the South.”

    Other countries in the European Union are also flirting with the idea that arresting Netanyahu would simply not be advisable, adopting various slippery arguments.  Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani rather missed the point in suggesting that the warrant was not feasible as the Israeli PM would “never go to a country where he can be arrested.”  (His colleague, Defence Minister Guido Crosetto, disagreed.)  With this muddled reading of international justice, Tajani went on to declare that arresting Netanyahu was “unfeasible, at least as long as he is prime minister.”  A closer reading of the Rome Statute would have put Tajani’s dim doubts to rest.

    The issue of executing warrants for high-ranking leaders and commanders accused of violating international humanitarian law comes down to sometimes tawdry political calculation over diligent legal observance.  France has merely confirmed this state of affairs, following previous approaches taken by Mongolia (towards Putin) and South Africa (towards Omar al-Bashir).  Having been one of the key negotiating parties behind the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah that commenced on November 27, Emmanuel Macron and his diplomatic team will not miss out on posterity’s calling.  As the ministry statement promises, “France intends to continue to work in close collaboration with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli authorities to achieve peace and security in the Middle East.”

    The post Gallic Stubbornness: France, Netanyahu and the ICC Arrest Warrants first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    Figures for violence against women in New Caledonia have increased due to the post-riots crisis, according to local NGO SOS Violences president Anne-Marie Mestre.

    Mestre has told local news media that the recent upsurge was mainly due to the riots over independence that broke out on May 13, which resulted in a rising number of jobless people due to the destruction by arson and looting of more 600 businesses.

    She stressed that all ethnic communities in New Caledonia were affected by domestic violence and that the trend existed even before the riots-triggered crisis.

    New Caledonia’s domestic violence statistics are 2.5 times higher than in mainland France.

    In 2023, 3012 cases were reported in the French Pacific territory, a staggering increase of some 91 percent compared to 2019, the French Auditor-General’s office reported in its latest survey published in April 2024.

    New Caledonia’s curfew extended to December 2
    Meanwhile, New Caledonia’s curfew introduced after the rioting remains in place until December 2, according to the latest advisory from the French High Commission.

    The restrictions still include the curfew per se from midnight to 5am, and most notably the ban on transportation, possession and sale of firearms and ammunition.

    Public meetings remain banned in the Greater Nouméa Area and will be maintained until December 20, when the ban will be re-assessed with a possible relaxation just before Christmas.

    Although opening hours for the sale of alcohol have now returned to normal, the authorised quantity per person per day remains controlled — up to four litres of beer (under 10 percent alcohol), or two litres of wine (10 to 22 percent), or one litre of spirits (above 22 percent).

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Nacanieli Tuilevuka in Suva

    Some police officers are unable to effectively investigate cases of gender-based violence, claims Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre coordinator Shamima Ali.

    Ali said many officers lacked the training and knowledge to properly handle such cases, leading to significant challenges for victims seeking justice.

    “There is a lack of training that used to happen in Fiji before 2006, and we are facing this as a huge challenge,” Ali said.

    While speaking on issues of officers refusing to take statements of domestic violence victims, she said some officers refused to acknowledge cases of gender-based violence, despite the laws in place.

    “There are some officers who do not respond to it, and at times, the justice system does not support the interests of women.”

    She said if authorities did their job, men would be a bit more scared.

    “There’s a reluctance to address domestic violence because of the patriarchal mindset, and this attitude often comes from within the force itself.”

    In response, Police Commissioner Juki Fong Chew said the actions of a few were not representative of the way the organisation perceived cases of gender-based violence.

    “We have disciplinary measures in place to deal with officers as claimed by Ms Ali, and we encourage the sharing of information so that the officers can be dealt with,” he said.

    Fong Chew said these issues could be addressed promptly.

    Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Five days after Orlando Hall was executed in November 2020 in the federal death chamber, Donald Trump appeared in the White House Rose Garden for the annual Thanksgiving turkey pardon ceremony. The enormous white birds, Corn and Cob, stood ridiculously as Trump wished them a “very long, happy, and memorable life.” At the Special Confinement Unit inside the U.S. penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, men on death row watched news coverage on TV.

    It felt like a sick joke. “He could have used his pardon/clemency powers to spare any one of the five human beings facing imminent execution,” one man later wrote to me. But the executions that had started that summer showed no signs of slowing down. Some who had watched their neighbors taken to die over the previous months still dared to hope that the next man, Brandon Bernard, might be spared. “I’m cautiously optimistic,” one of them wrote a week later. “Perhaps President Trump will show an uncharacteristic display of humanity.”

    But there would be no such display. By the time Joe Biden arrived in the Oval Office in 2021, 13 people had been killed in the federal death chamber. It was an unprecedented killing spree – more executions over six months than over the previous 10 presidential administrations combined.

    Collectively, the 12 men and one woman executed in Terre Haute had been convicted of heinous crimes. But they also revealed the ugly face of the federal death penalty, which is wrongly assumed to apply only to terrorists or mass murderers – the ultimate “worst of the worst.” Most were human beings whose lives had been indelibly shaped by childhood abuse and neglect. Many had lawyers who disastrously failed them. Others had an intellectual disability or severe mental illness. More than one swore he was innocent; another was executed despite playing a marginal role in the crime that sent him to die. One man was executed over the loud objections of the victim’s family.

    The executions were pushed through lawlessly, in the first year of the Covid pandemic, long before a vaccine was available. Prison staff, attorneys, journalists, a spiritual adviser, and the condemned men themselves contracted the virus as the executions went on – an emblem of Trump’s recklessness, chaos, and cruelty.

    But in truth, the executions were also the result of a long bipartisan project, much of it led by Biden himself. It was not just that Democrats were responsible for dramatically expanding the federal death penalty, although that is certainly true. Of the 13 people executed by Trump, 10 had previously filed a clemency application to the Obama administration. His refusal to act set them up for execution.

    “We’re dealing with a very different world this time.”

    Now a growing chorus of people is urging Biden not to make the same mistake. “We’re dealing with a very different world this time,” said veteran death penalty lawyer Ruth Friedman, head of the Federal Capital Habeas Project. “People know this is a possibility because they see what has played out.”

    The Cost of Doing Nothing

    With just 54 days before he leaves the White House, Biden’s window for using his clemency power is rapidly closing. A majority of the 40 people on federal death row have filed requests for their death sentences to be commuted to life. While the Justice Department’s Office of the U.S. Pardon Attorney processes applications and makes recommendations, the president can also unilaterally grant clemency to whomever he sees fit.

    Hundreds of advocacy organizations, from the ACLU to the Catholic Mobilizing Network, have called on Biden to grant mass commutations to everyone on federal death row. The abolitionist group Death Penalty Action, which protested each execution in Terre Haute, is urging Biden to demolish the death house as well. The flurry of letters and petitions cite reasons ranging from persistent evidence of racial bias — the majority of those on federal death row are people of color — to a lack of evidence that the death penalty deters crime. Public support for the death penalty has also steadily dropped for years; at the time of Trump’s execution spree, it had reached historic lows. The well-documented risk of executing innocent people is at least one explanation.

    Biden, of course, knows all of this. When he ran for president on an anti-death penalty platform in 2020, his plan for criminal justice reform cited death row exonerations as one reason he would fight to pass legislation to end the federal death penalty. Those under a federal death sentence “should instead serve life sentences without probation or parole,” it said. Many are simply asking Biden to make good on this vow.

    The only way to guarantee that Trump is unable to push through another execution spree is to commute the sentences of those who remain.

    But the most pressing reason for Biden to act is the cost of doing nothing. There is no reason to doubt that Trump will continue what he started on his way out of the White House. Along with his repeated vows to expand the death penalty, the roadmap laid out in Project 2025 includes “finality” for the remaining 40 people on federal death row. The only way to guarantee that Trump is unable to push through another execution spree is to commute the sentences of those who remain.

    Sister Barbara Battista, right, tolls a bell before a minute of silence during the protest of the execution of Orlando Hall on Thursday, Nov. 19, 2020 across the street from the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Ind. At left is attorney Ashley Kincaid-Eve. A federal judge halted the scheduled execution Thursday of Orlando Hall, a man convicted of kidnapping and raping a 16-year-old Texas girl, bludgeoning her with a shovel and burying her alive. ( Joseph C. Garza/The Tribune-Star via AP)
    Sister Barbara Battista, right, tolls a bell before a minute of silence during the protest of the execution of Orlando Hall on Thursday, Nov. 19, 2020, across the street from the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Ind. Photo: Joseph C. Garza/The Tribune-Star via AP

    “You Are Playing a Part in This”

    Four years before the Trump administration executed him around Thanksgiving, Orlando Hall had appealed to President Barack Obama for clemency. When I met his partner Shanyce Matthews weeks after his execution, she told me her family had been thrilled when Obama won the 2008 election. Although he supported the death penalty, she found herself hopeful that Hall might stand a chance to have his sentence commuted.

    She knew it was a long shot. There was no denying that Hall’s crime was horrific. In 1994, he and a group of men abducted, raped, and murdered a 16-year-old girl named Lisa René in Arlington, Texas — part of a botched drug operation that spiraled violently out of control. Hall became one of the first men sentenced to die under the 1994 crime bill.

    Nonetheless, there were serious problems with his case. Hall, who was Black, was convicted and sentenced to die by an all-white jury who remained unaware of critical elements of his life story. Like so many people who end up on death row, Hall had survived harrowing childhood trauma. Case records included sworn declarations from family and neighbors who described alcoholism, domestic violence, and deprivation – a local pastor remembered one of Hall’s siblings asking if he and his wife would be willing to adopt her. Such evidence can make the difference between life and death in a capital trial. But Hall’s attorneys failed to fully investigate and present this side of their client’s life.

    Hall changed during his 25 years on death row. His children described him as a caring and supportive father and grandfather. A longtime pen pal described his love of reading and his expressions of deep remorse. One of his lawyers later wrote that she would have given him a room in her house if she’d ever had the chance.

    Matthews, who had known Hall since they were children, saw the change up close. He forged a strong relationship with their son and supported her work as a community organizer. “He believed in me,” she said.

    Matthews witnessed the execution. Apart from the horror of watching Hall murdered by lethal injection, she was struck by the forced attempt at normalcy by the Bureau of Prison staff, who made polite small talk as they escorted her to watch him die. Matthews refused to play along. “They said, ‘Is there anything we can do for you?’ And I said, ‘You can let him go.’ ‘Oh, unfortunately we’re not the people who make that decision.’”

    Hall’s execution implicated every one of them, she said. “You are playing a part in this… What is going to happen when you have to stand and answer for the things that you participated in?”

    No Time To Waste

    On Monday, Biden stood in the White House Rose Garden as he has for the past three years, accompanied by a pair of turkeys named Peach and Blossom. He recited the names of previous turkeys he’d pardoned — a total of eight overall — then joked about Peach and Blossom’s favorite songs, which ostensibly include Bon Jovi’s “Livin’ on a Prayer.”

    “Well fellas, your prayer’s gonna be answered today,” Biden said. He then “pardoned” the birds “based on your temperament and your commitment to being productive members of society.”

    They are asking for Biden to follow through on what he claimed to believe before he won the presidency.

    In Terre Haute, some of the same men who watched the ceremony on TV in 2020 once again face the prospect of their own execution. They are not asking for a pardon. They are not even asking for forgiveness for their crimes. They are asking to be spared the torture of being strapped to a gurney and killed in front of gawking strangers. They are asking for a chance to spare their loved ones the trauma of their execution. And they are asking for Biden to follow through on what he claimed to believe before he won the presidency.

    There is no time to waste. As Matthews told me four years ago, “I think we have to start yelling about it, because to me what’s happening is we’re waiting until these guys get a date. And then the time moves so fast.”

    The post Biden Has “Pardoned” Eight Turkeys. Will He Spare the Lives of 40 Human Beings? appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Four Insulate Britain supporters have been acquitted at Woolwich Crown Court for actions taken during Insulate Britain’s 2021 campaign of nonviolent civil resistance demanding the UK government insulate Britain’s cold and leaky homes; a campaign that was later called prescient by a number of commentators.

    Insulate Britain: not guilty and speaking truth to power

    Emily Brocklebank, Ruth Cook, Ana Heyatawin and Iain Webb were on trial before Judge Grout for common law public nuisance for participating in a roadblock on 27 September 2021 at M25, J14, near Heathrow.

    After a six day trial, the 12 person jury took only an hour to return a unanimous verdict of not guilty.

    In a marked contrast to earlier Insulate Britain public nuisance trials under Judge Silas Reid, Judge Grout allowed defendants to speak about the climate crisis in their closing speeches.

    They were allowed to describe their motivations for taking action with Insulate Britain, to talk about their concerns for their families in the light of expected climate impacts, the poor state of Britain’s housing stock and the fact that civil resistance is necessary when successive governments have failed to prepare for what is coming.

    In her closing speech, Ruth Cook, a grandmother and director of a small training company from Somerset said:

    You have heard that I am a Quaker. The essential thing about Quakers is that they are known for speaking truth to power.

    She went on to talk about her fears about climate breakdown, her previous experience working for a charity in providing food aid to refugees in Greece and about the recent flooding across England and Wales.

    She posed the question of what will happen to Woolwich and the surrounding areas when the Thames Barrier is no longer sufficient to protect against rising water levels? Ruth had been late to the proceedings on Monday because of travel disruption caused by the extensive flooding across England and Wales, including her hometown.

    Threatening all of us

    In his closing speech, Iain Webb explained that the climate crisis threatens all of humanity and likened the government’s response to that of a fire brigade attending a house fire and doing nothing. He said:

    Throughout history people have taken action knowing that the odds were stacked against them but they did anyway because it was the right thing to do… 2023 was the hottest recorded year in our lives and sadly it will be the coldest year we will know going forward as the crisis only will get worse. This is why we were on the road and we will continue to do the right thing and raise the alarm.

    Following the verdict, Ruth said:

    I am incredibly proud of what Insulate Britain achieved – taking to the streets day after day, knowing we risked being remanded in custody. Our aim was to shame the government into addressing the climate crisis by insulating our homes. The UK has the worst housing stock in Europe, leading to thousands of preventable deaths from cold and damp, as well as forcing people to choose between eating and heating.

    At 72 years old, I was a law-abiding citizen until September 2021. Insulate Britain – its demands, the people I met, and the trust we shared in taking action together—showed me that nonviolent civil resistance was the only way to ensure our voices were heard.

    Ana Heyatawin, a grandmother and Samaritan from Somerset said:

    Truth and reconciliation are the tasks at hand, and the time is now. I have the privilege to speak the truth and honour my conscience. What greater purpose could there be than striving to save our children?

    In the 23 Insulate Britain jury trials for public nuisance charges to date, four trials have resulted in a hung jury, three trials have resulted in acquittals, thirteen have resulted in a guilty verdict and three have been deferred. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has applied for retrials in three cases where the jury failed to reach a majority verdict.

    The CPS has chosen to summon a total of 56 supporters to answer at least 201 charges of public nuisance across some 45 jury trials, with trials planned up to June 2025. These trials have been heard across Inner London, Hove, Lewes, Reading, and Woolwich Crown Courts.

    Featured image via Insulate Britain

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The slow, often grinding machinery of international law has just received a push along with the issuing of three arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court. They are for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, and, rather incongruously, Hamas figure Mohammed Deif.  The last issue is somewhat odd given claims by Israel that he was killed in an airstrike in July, though Hamas has never confirmed nor denied the fate of the man also known as Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri.

    The issue of the warrants was the culmination of a request on May 20 by the ICC prosecutor to a Pre-Trial Chamber of the court to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and three senior Hamas officials.  Two have been withdrawn, given the confirmed killings of both Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh.

    On November 21, the three-judge panel of Pre-Trial Chamber I unanimously rejected Israel’s assertion that the ICC lacked jurisdiction over the Situation in the State of Palestine in general and over Israeli nationals more specifically, “as the Court can exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of the territorial jurisdiction of Palestine.”  The Chamber also rejected Israel’s request that the Prosecution provide a new notification of an initiation of investigation into its authorities under the ICC Statute, given that the parameters of the investigation had not essentially changed.  Nor had Israel pursued a request for deferral of the investigation when given the chance in 2021.

    The arrest warrants, issued in accordance with the law of international armed conflict, remain the most telling aspect of the determinations.  Despite being classified as “secret”, the Chamber deemed it important to release some degree of detail on what they entail.  Accordingly, it found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant bore criminal responsibility as “co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”. There were also reasonable grounds to believe that both figures bore “criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.”

    The ghoulish picture of alleged conduct is sketched with chilling detail.  The alleged crimes against humanity against the civilian population in Gaza were deemed to be widespread and systematic.  It was reasonable to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant had, with intent and knowledge, deprived the population of Gaza of such necessities to survival as food, water, medicine, medical supplies, fuel and electricity “from at least” October 8, 2023 to May 20, 2024.  This finding was easy to reach, largely because humanitarian aid had been impeded and restricted without evident military necessity or justification under international humanitarian law.  When decisions to allow or increase humanitarian aid into Gaza were made, these were conditional.

    The warrant for Deif, as chief commander of the military wing of Hamas (the al-Qassam Brigades) was issued because the chamber found “reasonable grounds” to believe he had allegedly been responsible for various crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence) and traditional war crimes. It remains to be seen whether that can be executed appropriately, given the likelihood that Deif is no longer alive.

    International law remains a curious creature, one of mixed shape and uneven maturity. Being based on the mutual, grudging acknowledgment of conventions between countries, its success, or failure, depends on mutual observance.  ICC warrants to arrest international figures have been issued with varying results, with signatory states of the Rome Statute making their own decisions whether to execute them.  Political interests can rear a nasty head, blowing off legally minded types keen to see judicial proceedings pursued by member states.

    When an ICC warrant was issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2023 over the alleged directing of attacks on civilians in Ukraine and the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children to the Russian Federation, the spectacle of such a figure being hauled off to The Hague was simply too much for countries keen to engage with the Kremlin.  Putin, for instance, was assured by Mongolia on a state visit this year that he would not be arrested, despite the country being a party to the ICC.

    More caution was exercised by Putin regarding the BRICS meeting in Johannesburg in 2023, probably due to such experiences as those of former Sudanese president, Omar Al-Bashir.  Despite being the subject of ICC arrest warrants in 2009 and 2010, the defiant leader, wanted for a string of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity against civilians in Darfur, tested the waters by visiting South Africa in 2015 for an African Union summit.  His presence, however, interested the judicial authorities, who ordered him to stay in South Africa while consideration was given to his potential arrest.

    Bashir’s exit was prompt, leading to a ruling the following year by the South African Court of Appeal that the failure by the authorities to arrest him was unlawful.  A Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC also found that the warrant should have been executed as part of South Africa’s obligations, and the Sudanese leader could not rightly have claimed immunity from arrest during his visit.

    The warrants against the Israeli figures will have some practical effects.  Gallant and Netanyahu will think twice before travelling to member states of the Rome Statute, though such states will naturally reach their own decisions on the issue.  But while it is hard to see these men being carted off to proceedings in The Hague bar exceptional circumstances, the warrants have provided a fillip for civil society groups in Israel.

    The indomitable efforts of the non-profit B’Tselem organisation called the ICC efforts “a chance for us, Israelis, to realize what we should have understood long ago: that upholding a regime of supremacy, violence and oppression necessarily involves crimes and severe violation of human rights.”  Unfortunately for the starving and dying in Gaza, the pity of war will not, at least at this time, halt before any stern judicial eye, especially one cast from an international court.

    The post Arrest Warrants from The Hague first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Most regulations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration go unnoticed, but this one caught the public’s attention. 

    As the Northern Hemisphere suffered through another hottest summer on record, OSHA issued draft rules meant to protect workers from extreme heat.

    The rules are three years in the making, so far, but are likely to stall out within days after January 20. Worker advocates expect the rule to be placed in cold storage once Donald Trump takes power. 

    “OSHA doesn’t have many friends on the Hill these days. Nobody goes to bat for them.”

    It will be another example of how, in the face of hostile courts, ambivalence within their own party, and a rulemaking process designed to fail, Democratic administrations claiming the mantle of worker rights have fallen short on rebuilding worker power.

    Time and again, said James Goodwin, policy director at the Center for Progressive Reform, sympathetic administrations have nonetheless taken years to issue new worker safety rules.

    “OSHA is just such a politically reviled agency that you can hardly fault them for being just this cautious,” Goodwin said. “With unions being so weak, OSHA doesn’t have many friends on the Hill these days. Nobody goes to bat for them.”

    Dying From Heat

    Twenty years ago, a worker named Asunción Valdivia collapsed in a California field after more than 10 hours of picking grapes in the heat. His death later that day was a sign of things to come.

    Reliable statistics are elusive, but dozens to perhaps hundreds or thousands of American workers die every year from exposure to excessive heat.

    Aware that human-caused climate change is making the situation worse, the Biden administration followed state worker protection agencies in floating a heat protection rule in August 2021.

    For employers in certain sectors such as construction, maritime, and agriculture, the rule would require employers to craft plans for extreme heat, including providing drinking water and break areas, and above a 90-degree heat index, mandatory rest breaks.

    “If ever there was an OSHA rule to really capture the public’s attention, this is it.”

    The rule had rare public appeal, Goodwin said. More and more people are aware of companies exposing workers to brutal temperatures — like the Amazon warehouse a decade ago that had a private ambulance on standby during a heat wave.

    “If ever there was an OSHA rule to really capture the public’s attention, this is it,” he said. “We’re all familiar with these huge Amazon warehouses and stuff. It’s easy to appeal to the public’s moral imagination with this rule.”

    The rule could protect the millions of workers in private industry who do not have protection at the state level. In creating the rule, however, the Biden administration had to follow a labyrinthine federal process.

    “Record Time”

    To put the regulation into effect, the Biden administration had to shepherd the rule through an advance notice of rulemaking, a comment period, a virtual stakeholder meeting, a working group, a small business review panel, and an advisory committee.

    Some steps apply to all federal agencies, while others such as the small business panel have been applied only to agencies like OSHA that are particularly reviled by Republican-majority Congresses. 

    In the case of the heat rule, the process consumed nearly three years.

    In July, OSHA published a more than 1,000-page draft version of the rule. Comments on the proposed rule are due by the end of December, which normally would lead to another round of public hearings before a final rule.

    “They could probably have had a final rule out by 2026, if an administration was very focused on doing that,” said Rebecca Reindel, director of occupational safety and health for the labor federation AFL-CIO.

    Instead, the U.S. is getting Trump. Most likely, the next administration will simply halt work on the heat rule, according to Jordan Barab, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of labor for OSHA under Barack Obama.

    “The easiest thing and probably most likely thing to happen is they won’t work on it for four years,” Barab said.

    Barab spoke before Trump announced his selection of Lori Chavez-DeRemer as the next secretary of labor, a position that oversees OSHA. The Republican representative from Oregon was one of the few Republicans in Congress to support efforts to make union organizing easier. Labor advocates believe she represents a wild card in the traditional Republican tendency to roll back worker safety rules, as Trump did in his first term.

    Goodwin, however, said he expects little progress to be made on worker safety rules.

    “Chavez-DeRemer — like every other Trump nominee — has been brought in to serve as a transmission belt for translating conservative ideology into on-the-ground reality — not to bring her independent judgment to bear,” Goodwin said in an email. “And that means the heat rule would go.”

    Republican administrations have generally tried to slash OSHA’s budget even further below the current level, which hypothetically would allow OSHA to visit every workplace in the U.S. once every 186 years, according to the AFL-CIO.

    The staffing declines hit not only inspections, but also the offices responsible for crafting new rules such as the heat exposure standard.

    If a more worker-friendly administration takes power in 2029, it could take the heat rule off the shelf and continue work, Reindel said. If that happens, it would continue a pattern of major worker safety rules grinding through the process for at least two Democratic administrations.

    One major rule, on silica dust, took 45 years to go into effect. Barab said that compared to other rules, the heat standard was actually proceeding quickly.

    “Had we had another Democratic administration to work on it, it might have been finished a couple years from now,” Barab said. “So five years, to do a major standard like that would have been pretty much record time for OSHA these days.”

    “I don’t know what the hell OSHA can do right now that would survive judicial review.”

    Goodwin said he believes that Democratic administrations are cautious about passing OSHA rules too quickly because they could be tossed out by a judiciary increasingly hostile to worker rights on the slimmest pretext.

    For that reason, he saw little reason for OSHA to try and pass a final heat exposure rule in the few weeks before Trump takes office.

    “I don’t know what the hell OSHA can do right now that would survive judicial review, with this current judiciary,” Goodwin said. “Maybe there’s an argument to be made for just ‘flood the zone,’ but the huge disparity in advocacy power between those who are fighting on behalf of workers and those who are fighting on behalf of management, I am not sure that flooding the zone even works.”

    Reforms Go Nowhere

    The glacial progress on the heat rule took place against a larger backdrop of a Biden administration that was friendly toward labor unions, but failed to get some of their highest priorities through Congress.

    Without unions, advocates say, workers are far less likely to report safety violations. Senate Democrats never fully coalesced around labor’s top goal, a bill that would have made organizing labor unions easier. That meant that while the bill passed the House when Democrats controlled the lower chamber in 2021, it never got past the Senate filibuster.

    Another bill more narrowly targeted at improving OSHA’s ability to crack down on safety violations got less momentum than the organizing bill, even under a fully Democratic Congress.

    Stymied at the federal level, workers have turned to labor agencies in Democratic states to protect them. Five states have passed rules guaranteeing workers to water, rest, and shade. 

    For the next four years, the states may be the only place where workers can find relief, Reindel said.

    “Big business and corporate interests and billionaires have really pushed back on OSHA trying to protect workers and workplaces,” Reindel said. “We need to be very concerned about what that means for the state of this agency and for its ability to protect workers from dangerous working conditions.”

    The post Biden Made “Record Time” on Worker Protections for Heat. Trump Could Quickly Stamp Them Out. appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • This week the Undercover Policing Inquiry – the so-called Spycops Inquiry – will hear shocking, long-awaited, evidence from three women who were targeted for relationships by two of the most notorious undercover police officers from the Special Demonstration Squad. It will be a test of the inquiry process – showing whether it can regain any credibility.

    Spycops Inquiry: a week of damning evidence

    On Tuesday 26 November, Belinda Harvey will give her evidence – primarily about how she was targeted for a long-term relationship by notorious Spycop Bob Lambert (cover name Bob Robinson). Belinda had no connection to activism, yet will talk about how the direction of her life was steered and de-railed by Lambert, whose ‘exit’ strategy from his deployment, and his relationship with Belinda was cruel – severely damaging Belinda in the process:

    On Wednesday 27 November, Helen Steel will give her account of how she was targeted for years of intrusive reporting by Bob Lambert. In the past weeks evidence has been accumulating that Lambert fabricated and embellished his reports. Helen’s evidence will be crucial to exposing fabrications in his ‘intelligence’ reporting, highlighting how the Inquiry is treading dangerous ground if it takes the officers’ accounts at face value.

    Helen was also targeted for a two-year relationship by officer John Dines (cover name John Barker) at a time when she was embroiled in the longest libel trial in British legal history – known as the McLibel trial. Dines did all he could to damage Helen’s reputation and her personally, and has refused to give live evidence to the Inquiry.

    Disappointingly, the Inquiry refuses to compel Dines, even refusing to read his witness statement into evidence.

    On Thursday 28 November we will hear evidence from ‘Jacqui’ about how Bob Lambert targeted her for a relationship that ended with the birth of their child. Lambert abandoned them both when his deployment ended. It was only when his child, known publicly as ‘TBS,’ was 26 years of age that he found out who his father really was.

    Lambert giving evidence

    Lambert himself will give evidence between 2-5 December 2024. This will be a decisive moment for the Inquiry in how they handle evidence from an officer who has been thoroughly discredited by the ‘targets’ of his infiltration.

    Of course, the stories of the abuse these women suffered at the hands of Lambert have been some of the most shocking of the entire Spycops revelations. So, the week will be a test of the inquiry – to see whether it can pull itself back from so far being unfit for purpose, to being something meaningful.

    Featured image via Police Spies Out Of Lives

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • At Westminster Magistrates Court, eight more Palestine Action activists have been remanded to prison – after being raided and arrested after an action against Israel’s Elbit arms factory in Filton, Bristol, on 6 August. In an appeal at the Crown Court they will apply for bail – ahead of a trial in November 2025.

    All eight, as with ten others charged in August, face criminal – not terror – charges, despite having been arrested and interrogated under Terrorism Act powers deployed to deny them their rights.

    Palestine Action: more Elbit Filton activist remanded to prison

    People came out and rallied in support of the Palestine Action Filton activists:

    Palestine Action Filton Elbit

    All eighteen are political prisoners, subjected to abuses of power and process by Counter Terrorism Policing South East and other police forces – for alleged acts of resistance against complicity in genocide. In August, activists drove a van into and dismantled the Filton, Bristol research hub of Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms company, causing £1m in damages against products including quadcopters.

    Despite their repression, they are said to be faring well, smiling in the court in front of a packed public gallery – steadfast in the knowledge that they have been imprisoned by a state acting out of its deep complicity in Israel’s genocidal campaign.

    They have all been charged with aggravated burglary and criminal damage, while six have also been charged with violent disorder – none charged under the terror laws which police have abused against them.

    They continue to be investigated through Counter-Terrorism Policing investigatory powers, with rights experts having expressed alarm over these powers being deprive Palestine Action activists of the legal protections that should be afforded to them.

    Severe restrictions

    Those imprisoned for over a hundred days so far have been subjected to arbitrary and severe restrictions, including being denied reading materials, religious practice, medical privacy, and being prohibited to communicate with other prisoners:

    From 5am on Tuesday 19 November, police raids broke down doors and detained the eight, along with others detained and not charged. The individuals and their families had property destroyed in police raids, with many family members unable to return to their homes since Monday.

    At Westminster Magistrates Court and at the Hammersmith and Newbury police stations where activists were being held, hundreds have mobilised in solidarity with the Palestine Action political prisoners:

    Featured image and additional images via Guy Smallman

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Wx gallant netanyahu

    We speak with the celebrated Palestinian human rights lawyer Raji Sourani after the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over the war in Gaza. Israel called it “an antisemitic decision,” and the Biden administration said it rejects the charges on the grounds that the ICC does not have jurisdiction. But many other countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy and the Netherlands, have vowed to comply with the court’s decision, which obligates states party to the Rome Statute that established the court to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they enter their territory. Sourani, now in Cairo after fleeing Gaza when his house was bombed by Israel, applauds the ICC for withstanding intense pressure from Israel and the United States to carry out its mandate. “They feel they are fully immune, they are free to do whatever they can, they will never be held accountable, and why their appetite for crimes [is] growing like a snowball every day,” Sourani says of the Israeli government.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Earlier this month, voters in California rolled back a number of criminal justice reforms on the ballot. Los Angeles ousted District Attorney George Gascón, who had been elected on pledges to end cash bail and prioritize violent crime. San Francisco reelected District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, who oversaw a spike in crime in her first year in office after replacing Chesa Boudin after his 2022 recall.

    The conventional wisdom came together quickly: “Public safety” had won the day. Crime was up, and reforms were out. Initial takeaways from the results concluded that voters were getting “serious on crime” and proclaimed that the reform push was dead.

    In Alameda County, California, the local prosecutor, Pamela Price, who had also pledged to end cash bail and let low-level offenses go uncharged, was ousted in her race — but not because of a huge spike in crime. Oakland, the most populous city in Alameda County, saw a 33 percent drop in homicides this year.

    Contrary to the prevailing narrative, the fate of criminal justice reforms throughout the state is more complicated than it seems. California is experiencing historically low levels of crime statewide. Apart from the homicide spike that affected cities and rural areas around the country during the Covid-19 pandemic, crime in California has been relatively steady since the late 1990s.

    It was a major shift. In recent years, California had been a bastion of reform. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the closure of death row at San Quentin State Prison. Legislators passed the Racial Justice Act in 2020, a landmark bill that made it easier to challenge criminal convictions based on evidence of racial bias. And, that same year, Los Angeles voters approved a ballot measure to radically transform the jail system and allocate funding to alternatives to incarceration.

    So what changed? Voters had certainly been primed with sensational coverage of shoplifting sprees and horror stories blaming reform-minded DAs for letting offenders off the hook. And outsized spending from corporations, real estate interests, and tech investors helped opponents of reform get their message out.

    Money, though, wasn’t the only factor in ousting Price and Gascón or leading voters to oppose abolishing slave labor in prisons, said Anne Irwin, founder and director of the criminal justice policy advocacy group Smart Justice California.

    “And the question now is, how should we respond? How can we make voters feel safe and actually be safe?”

    “What’s really happening here is the housing crisis and the prevalence of unhoused people on the streets up and down California is creating for people a psychological sense of disorder, which will absolutely, inevitably make them feel unsafe,” Irwin said. “And unless and until we begin to really meaningfully solve our housing crisis and our homelessness crisis, it will be very hard to make Californians feel safe.”

    “And the question now is, how should we respond? How can we make voters feel safe and actually be safe?” she said. “We have to meet voters where they are and first and foremost, acknowledge their feelings, especially fear.”

    People’s fears, whether rooted in personal experience or influences like news media and ad campaigns, can’t be explained away with data, Irwin said. Whether unfounded or not, people need those feelings validated.

    “If we ignore or downplay those feelings, we will lose voters. And we have lost voters because we have downplayed their feelings.”

    Price of Fear

    In Alameda County, voters who had elected reformer Price as district attorney just two years earlier chose to recall her, an effort that began taking root before Price was elected.

    Shortly after Price won her election in 2022, some of the same donors who funded Boudin’s recall shifted their sights to Alameda. They launched a recall campaign just seven months after she took office. In an April interview with The Intercept, Price said wealthy investors funding the recall got involved to protect real estate interests in downtown Oakland.

    On Monday, Price conceded the recall results and released a statement listing her accomplishments in office. She touted her prosecutions of murders and violent crimes, which she said came at a higher rate than her predecessor, as well as charges she brought against police for homicide. (The campaign against the recall declined the comment and pointed to Price’s statement.) Those accomplishments, however, hadn’t been enough.

    The opposite tack — taking “tough-on-crime” positions — has failed too. The mainstream of the Democratic Party has tried to assuage voters’ fears around crime and safety, but the strategy served to boost opponents of reform, who tend to repeat the same claims sensationalizing crime whether it’s up or down.

    Now, just as national Democrats are wrestling with their messaging failures, criminal justice policy advocates are grappling with the fact that plying people with facts isn’t enough to win elections.

    Acknowledging where reformers can learn from their mistakes is not the same as capitulating to people who want to bring back the failed strategies of mass incarceration, said Jessica Brand, a strategist who works with reform DAs around the country, including Gascón, the Los Angeles DA who lost his reelection bid by more than 20 points.

    “That solution is not mass incarceration — it’s supportive housing and actual treatment beds and economic support.”

    “We as a progressive movement need to work harder to implement the robust solutions that actually respond to people’s fears and concerns. These are also, by the way, solutions that we morally need,” Brand said. “That solution is not mass incarceration — it’s supportive housing and actual treatment beds and economic support.”

    People turn to the solutions that are readily available even if they no longer work, Brand added, “but we can’t just say those things in places where the problems are prevalent — we have to actually address them or else many people will resort to what they know, and that’s jail and prisons.”

    Lessons of “Warm to Reform”

    Trends in other parts of the country show that people are still open to reform, as long as it’s packaged in a way that gives people a sense of accountability for crime when it does occur, said Irwin of Smart Justice California. The dynamic was apparent in the campaigns of Proposition 36, which increased sentences for low-level crimes, and Nathan Hochman’s successful bid to unseat Gascón.

    “When the proponents of Proposition 36 or Nathan Hochman began to run their races, they pretty quickly realized that while voters want accountability and they want things to change, they do not actually want a wholesale return to mass incarceration,” Irwin said. “That is why Proposition 36 proponents pivoted from their early messaging, which focused on a real tough-on-crime framework, to a ‘mass treatment’ rhetoric.”

    Hochman ran as a candidate who was “‘warm to reform,’” Irwin said, adding, “This is a person who had been a lifelong, ‘tough-on-crime’ Republican until just weeks before he filed to run in the attorneys race.” (Hochman’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

    Irwin noted that the election was not a clean sweep for “tough-on-crime” opponents of reform.

    “That actually didn’t play out at all in the legislative races,” she said.  “The legislature, which is ground zero for policy and budget investment in public safety, is going to play an important role in the coming years in vetting proposed responses to the public sense of lack of safety.”

    Election results in other parts of the country belie claims that the push for criminal justice reform has died. Reform-minded prosecutors and sheriffs in Texas, Colorado, Ohio, Georgia, Illinois, and Florida won their races in the face of similar attacks on reform.

    California plays an outsized role in the debates about crime and justice reform, but the state is unique in important ways. State laws make it easy to get a recall on the ballot, so reform candidates are more vulnerable to being removed that way.

    And the housing crisis and fentanyl boom in California have created an unavoidable sense of disorder and chaos despite steady or decreasing levels of crime. Third, the massive amount of money spent on proxy wars over criminal justice reform in California dwarf similar efforts in other states.

    California billionaire and former Republican Los Angeles mayoral candidate Rick Caruso spent more than $100 million on his mayoral campaign, which relied heavily on efforts to attack candidate Karen Bass’s ties to Gascón, the LA district attorney, said Irwin.

    “A giant share of that $100 million he spent telling Angelenos that they are not safe, and the reason they are not safe is because of DA Gascón,” she said. “That supercharged the narrative around both safety and DA Gascón in Los Angeles. And even though Rick Caruso failed in his efforts to become LA mayor, he succeeded in his efforts to take down DA Gascón.”

    In Alameda County, officials are already making preparations to appoint Price’s replacement. The appointee will hold the office until at least 2026, the next time Alameda voters will have the chance to elect their own DA.

    The post Oakland Homicides Dropped 30 Percent. The County Still Recalled Its Prosecutor. appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    A national New Zealand solidarity movement for Palestine has welcomed the International Criminal Court’s move to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, saying it is a “wake up call” for the coalition government.

    “The warrants mean for the first time Israeli leaders face accountability for war crimes which have been live-streamed on social media for the past 13 months” said national chair John Minto of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).

    “We are waiting for our government to announce it will arrest Netanyahu and Gallant immediately if they set foot in Aotearoa New Zealand.”

    Many countries among the 124 members of the ICC have been quick to declare that they would honour the arrest obligations, among them Canada, France and Italy. Also the European Union’s foreign policy chief said all EU countries should abide by the ruling.

    “These decisions are binding on all states party to the Rome Statute, which includes all EU member states,” said Joseph Borrell.

    Both Israel and its key backer, United States, refuse to recognise the ICC jurisdiction.

    PSNA’s Minto said in a statement today: “It’s a breath of fresh air from the stultifying refusal of New Zealand and other Western governments to act against the perpetrators of industrial-scale slaughter of Palestinian civilians.

    “This ICC decision is a wake-up call for our government which can no longer stay silent.

    “New Zealand has been a staunch ally of the US/Israel throughout the past 13 months when it should have been a staunch defender of international law.

    “Unbelievably, our government still refuses to call for an immediate, permanent ceasefire and while it has condemned every act of Palestinian resistance, it has refused to condemn any of the egregious Israeli war crimes which are the subject of the arrest warrants.”

    In response to the ICC decision, New Zealand should immediately end support for Israel to continue its war crimes such as:

    • Suspend all satellite launches by Rocket lab for BlackSky Technology, Capella Space, and HawkEye 360. These companies provide imaging data used by Israeli for its targeting of civilian infrastructure in Gaza and Lebanon.
    • Suspend and independently investigate the export of crystal oscillators from Rakon Industries which end up in bombs used for war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon, and
    • Impose sanctions against Israel — they are also essential and the ICC decision can be the trigger.

    “New Zealand needs to act as we did when the ICC issued arrest warrants against Russian leader Vladimir Putin for the invasion of Ukraine” said Minto.

    “New Zealand imposed immediate and wide-ranging sanctions against Russia and must follow through with Israel.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Democracy Now!

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: In The Hague, the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during Israel’s assault on Gaza.

    In a statement, the ICC said the Israeli leaders had, “intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity.”

    The ICC also issued an arrest warrant for Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, although Israel’s military claims it killed Deif in a July airstrike.

    The ICC arrest warrants come a week after a UN special committee found Israel’s actions in Gaza since October 2023 are, “consistent with genocide,” including using starvation as a weapon of war and recklessly inflicting civilian casualties.

    AMY GOODMAN: In related news, on Wednesday, the United States vetoed a Gaza ceasefire resolution at the UN Security Council for the fourth time, and the US Senate rejected a resolution brought by Senator Bernie Sanders that sought to block the sale of US tank rounds, bomb kits and other lethal weapons to Israel. Nineteen senators supported blocking the arms.

    For more on all of this, we’re joined by Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent for HuffPost. His latest piece is “Exclusive: White House Says Democrats Who Oppose Weapons to Israel Are Aiding Hamas.”

    Ahmed, thank you so much for being with us. As you write your book on the Biden administration in Gaza called Crossing the Red Line, clearly the ICC has ruled that today by issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as the former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

    Can you talk about the significance of this move?

    AKBAR SHAHID AHMED: Yeah, Amy. This is just an absolutely huge development, and it’s significant for a number of reasons. It’s significant because the ICC has come out and amplified and affirmed the allegations of crimes against humanity, of war crimes. This is one more international body.

    These are . . . international charges with a great deal of respect. This is a court that most of the world is a member of. And they’re coming out and saying, “Look, we think there are reasonable grounds to believe that these major international red lines have been crossed by the Israelis.”

    What’s really important to remember is that this isn’t just a decision about Israel. By extension, it fundamentally is a decision about the United States, which has been the ultimate enabler of Israel’s offensives in Gaza and Lebanon, which are under consideration by the ICC.

    And even in this ICC statement today, they point out that in the situations where Israel has addressed concerns over what it describes as starvation as a method of warfare — right? — depriving civilians, Palestinians, of food, water and medical equipment, Israel has really only done so in an extremely arbitrary and, what the ICC judges call, conditional way in response to the US. So, fundamentally, Amy, what we’re seeing is the ICC is saying yet again that Israel and the US, as its major enabler and backer, are in the dark and will continue to be in the dark for years to come.

    This kind of adds to a broader picture in which there are now ICC warrants for the sitting Israeli prime minister and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, who remains a significant politician in Israel. Simultaneously, there’s the genocide case at the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, which is ongoing and will be ongoing for years to come.

    And there’s the Geneva Conventions conference underway next year regarding kind of similar issues — right? — violations of international law, laws of war and the Israeli grave abuses that are alleged. So, the US and Israel will be kind of on trial on the international stage for years to come.


    ‘Wanted for war crimes in Gaza.’        Video: Democracy Now!

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Akbar, would you say that this move is mostly a symbolic one? Because, as you pointed out, of course, most countries are members of the International Criminal Court, but in this instance, perhaps most importantly, neither Israel nor the US are.

    AKBAR SHAHID AHMED: Right, Nermeen. And that’s something that the ICC judges did get into today — right? — because Israel said, “Look, the International Criminal Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over us.” That said, the state of Palestine is a member of the court, and that’s why this becomes a relevant and interesting thing, because you’ve seen European nations recognise Palestine as a state. You’ve seen Palestine join the United Nations General Assembly over just last year.

    So, yes, while the US and Israel continue to reject international scrutiny by the ICC, by the ICJ, of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the occupied West Bank and Lebanon, there’s a growing international push to kind of challenge that, right?

    And I think you will see the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration assertively push back against the ICC. The Trump administration did actually target the ICC directly when President Trump was last in office, threatening to put sanctions on ICC officials. And we also know from reporting that the Israelis have spied on and threatened the ICC themselves, according to reporting by The Guardian. So, yes, there will be increased pressure.

    But I think we’re really in a place that no one thought we would be even a few months ago, right? I think even the prospect of the ICC prosecutor successfully getting these warrants issued, it was initially thought that would be quite quick. It’s taken a long time. The fact that judges were able to issue those warrants suggests that even though it’s an uphill battle to get this international scrutiny, there’s a real determination and clear will.

    And we’ve seen a lot of states turn around and say over 13 months, right? Since the October 7 attack by Hamas within Israel that did spark this current round of fighting, there have been calls to say, “We don’t want this to escalate,” right?

    The US’s allies, Western countries have said, “We want to resolve this. We don’t want you on trial. Can the US and Israel please change course?” And what you’ve seen is a defiance from Tel Aviv and from Washington to say, “Actually, no, we’re continuing these wars.”

    So, that does take it to a different forum to kind of change the policy.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Akbar, could you also — while we’re looking at the way in which international organisations, multilateral ones, are responding to this, what about the latest vote at the Security Council and the fact that the US blocked it for the fourth time, a ceasefire vote?

    AKBAR SHAHID AHMED: It’s really striking at this point — right? — to see the Biden administration totally alone. And you see how this develops over the course of the war. Initially, the US was able to get Britain, even France, kind of abstaining, standing with them.

    And now, 13 months in, where conduct hasn’t changed, and you still have daily strikes that are killing dozens, sometimes over a hundred civilians, you have a mounting death toll of mostly women and children, the US is totally alone, where it’s shielding Israel on the world stage diplomatically.

    And this is really important to see in the context of the Biden administration as an outlier even among American presidents and administrations. When President Barack Obama was in office, after he was in the lame-duck period that Biden is in now, he actually did abstain at the UN Security Council and said, “You know what? Go ahead and pass a resolution that Israel doesn’t like,” because tacitly the US acknowledged there was a basis, there were credible grounds for that resolution, which in that instance was about Israeli settlement activity.

    Here, what you’re seeing from the Biden administration, even in their dying days — right? — two months to go, there’s an obstinacy, a defiance, and a real commitment to shielding Israel, even if they are totally alone against now their closest allies — Britain, France and everyone else on the Security Council.

    So, I think the context of that veto kind of presages whatever may come in the next two months in terms of the Biden administration allowing any UN scrutiny of the wars.

    AMY GOODMAN: Akbar, I want to play Palestine’s envoy to the United Nations, Majed Bamya, speaking yesterday.

    MAJED BAMYA: There is no right to mass killing of civilians. There is no right to starve an entire civilian population. There is no right to forcibly displace a people. And there is no right to annexation. This is what Israel is doing in Gaza. …

    Maybe for some, we have the wrong nationality, the wrong faith, the wrong skin color. But we are humans! And we should be treated as such. Is there a UN Charter for Israel that is different from the charter we all have? Tell us. Is there an international law for them, an international law for us? Do they have the right to kill, and the only right we have is to die?

    Republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • In 2002, President George W. Bush signed a bill into law that gave the U.S. president the power to invade the Netherlands — or anywhere else on earth — in order to liberate an American citizen or citizen of a U.S. ally being detained for war crimes at the International Criminal Court, based in the Dutch city of The Hague. Among the lawmakers who voted in favor of the bill: then-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden. 

    While the president has yet to make good on this military threat, the law, which is still on the books, serves as good shorthand for the U.S. relationship to the international institution of justice. The bill was meant to fend off the specter of American troops standing trial for atrocities committed during the fledgling “war on terror,” but the U.S. horror of The Hague has its roots in the longstanding policy of unconditional support for Israel. 

    That same year Bush and his Israeli counterpart, Ariel Sharon, withdrew the U.S. and Israeli signatures from the Rome Statute, the treaty that formed the ICC. U.S.-Israel opposition to any attempt by the court to hold Israel accountable for possible international law violations has been ironclad ever since.

    The ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant on Thursday, alleging that the leaders intentionally blocked humanitarian aid from entering Gaza in order to target Palestinian civilians and targeted civilians with military strikes on Gaza. They also issued a warrant for Hamas leader Muhammad Deif, while also rescinding warrants for Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar, two Hamas leaders killed by Israel. Israel has also claimed to have killed Deif.  

    The warrants, issued by a panel of three judges, require the 124 member nations of the Rome Statute to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant and turn them over to Hague officials for trial the moment that either wanted man steps onto their soil. The ranks of member nations includes many U.S. allies, such as Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, along with most of the rest of the world. 

    Although the Biden administration has yet to comment on the arrest warrants, when ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan first applied for warrants in May, the president called the idea “outrageous.”

    “Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas,” Biden continued during a White House event to celebrate Jewish Heritage Month. “We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.” 

    Biden has kept his word in the months since, continuing to send arms to Israel and vote down all international measures that criticize Israeli conduct — or even call for a ceasefire — in the United Nations. In September, the United States voted against a U.N. resolution that called for the end of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, with 124 of the 181 U.N. General Assembly nations voting in favor of the measure.

    On Wednesday, the Biden administration vetoed yet another ceasefire resolution in the U.N. Security Council — the fourth such resolution it has voted down. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Robert Woods claimed that the resolution did not include calls for an immediate release of hostages taken by Hamas on October 7, despite the fact that the document called for an unconditional release of the hostages. Among the 15 nations on the council, the U.S. was the lone dissenting vote. 

    “I think we’re heading for a significant showdown on international law between the United States and the rest of the world,” said Michael Lynk, an international law expert who served as the U.N.’s special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. “I think this is going to open up an even wider breach between the U.S. on the one hand, in international law, and most of the rest of the world on the other.”

    “I think we’re heading for a significant showdown on international law between the United States and the rest of the world.”

    The ICC arrest warrants place U.S. and Israel allies in an awkward position: maintain U.S. partnership or respect its obligations to The Hague and international law. So far, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government would “stand up for international law” and “abide by all the regulations and rulings of the international courts.” France and the U.K. have expressed similar support, but Germany, which also provides military aid to Israel, has yet to issue any official statement on how it plans to respond.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, who also faces an ICC arrest warrant, has had to alter his travel plans to avoid arrest. In September, however, he was able to travel to and from Mongolia, a Rome Statute signatory, without incident. 

    In addition to the ICC warrants, next September is the expiration of the U.N. deadline for Israel to cease its occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem. Also, the U.N.’s top court, the International Court of Justice, is continuing to oversee the genocide trial South Africa has brought against Israel, but that process will likely take several more years. 

    “This alliance the United States has with Israel has really stained the image of the United States to the rest of the world,” said Lynk. He celebrated the ICC’s warrant announcement and said the measure is a rare form of accountability missing from the international community amid Israel’s war on Gaza and its occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967. 

    “There has been virtually no red line drawn for Israel that it hasn’t crossed and that it understands in crossing all these lines, the international community doesn’t have the political will to demand accountability and the end of impunity,” he said. 

    But Lynk noted that such lack of accountability to Israel is longstanding. He said that among the reasons the U.S. opposed the Rome Statute and formation of The Hague’s criminal court had been concerned that the court’s statutes criminalize Israel’s settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank. Israel also cited the statute, which outlaws the forcible movement of civilian populations by an occupying military power, as among its reasons for opposing the treaty.   

    Since then, the U.S. has opposed other investigations into alleged Israeli atrocities, as well as the court’s attempts to hold American military members accountable for alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. The Trump administration also sanctioned the ICC officials involved in past investigations into Israeli conduct, freezing their assets and banning their travel to the U.S. Biden overturned the measure but has continued to voice his support of Israel in the face of further ICC pressure. In June, a Republican-led House bill, supported by 42 Democrats, called for a new round of sanctions on the ICC. 

    While condemning the court’s due process when applied to Israel, the U.S. has cheered on some of the court’s other actions, including the ICC’s issuing of arrest warrants for Russian officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, over atrocities committed in its war in Ukraine. 

    “We either hate this institution, or we’ll cooperate on cases we like,” said Jennifer Trahan, an international law and human rights professor at New York University. “Initially Biden called these warrants ‘outrageous’ — but it’s the same institution that has issued warrants against Russian nationals and received praise for doing so. Ultimately you don’t want to have politics involved in a judicial institution — it should be allowed to do its work.”

    She also referenced the U.S. support for other ICC investigations, such as the 2012 case against Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony, founder of the Lord’s Resistance Army. Biden’s State Department in 2021 put out a $5 million reward for information that leads to finding Kony, who remains a fugitive. The Obama administration also threw its support behind the ICC case against al-Bashir, the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the court.

    “Keep in mind, this is the first time that arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court have been issued against any ally of the West — they’ve almost exclusively been in Africa,” Lynk said. 

    While human rights groups also praised the ICC warrants, some wondered whether Biden himself would be held accountable for complicity in Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza. The Biden administration has given more than $20 billion in military aid to Israel, fueling its military aggression in Gaza, where more than 44,000 Palestinians have been killed, more than half of which are women and children, and more than 3,500 in Lebanon. And last week, the State Department said it would continue to arm Israel, even after the country failed to meet most of the administration’s demands to improve the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. 

    There is legal precedent for similar cases against arms suppliers, such as the case of Frans van Anraat, a Dutch businessman who was convicted by The Hague in 2005 for complicity in war crimes due to his role in selling materials to Saddam Hussein’s government, which were used to create chemical weapons. 

    Lynk said that both the ICJ and ICC have legal standing to pursue a case against U.S. officials for aiding Israel’s atrocities, but due to limited judicial resources, such charges would be unlikely.

    The post War Crimes Have Never Stopped the U.S. Before appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • We speak with the celebrated Palestinian human rights lawyer Raji Sourani after the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. “This is a great day for justice,” says Sourani. “It’s a great day for the rule of law.” Sourani is now Cairo, where he fled with his family after his home in Gaza was bombed by Israel last year.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! Audio and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • When Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva took office in January 2023, he inherited environmental protection agencies in shambles and deforestation at a 15-year high. His predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, had dismantled regulations and gutted institutions tasked with enforcing environmental laws. Lula set out to reverse these policies and to put Brazil on a path to end deforestation by 2030. 

    Environmental protection agencies have been allowed to resume their work. Between January and November of 2023, the government issued 40 percent more infractions against illegal deforestation in the Amazon when compared to the same period in 2022, when Bolsonaro was still in office. Lula’s government has confiscated and destroyed heavy equipment used by illegal loggers and miners, and placed embargoes on production on illegally cleared land. Lula also reestablished the Amazon Fund, an international pool of money used to support conservation efforts in the rainforest. Just this week, at the G20 Summit, outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden pledged $50 million to the fund.  

    Indeed, almost two years into Lula’s administration, the upward trend in deforestation has been reversed. In 2023, deforestation rates fell by 62 percent in the Amazon and 12 percent in Brazil overall (though deforestation in the Cerrado, Brazil’s tropical savannahs, increased). So far in 2024, deforestation in the Amazon has fallen by another 32 percent.      

    Throughout this year, Brazilians also bore witness to the effects of climate change in a new way. In May, unprecedented floods in the south of the country impacted over 2 million people, displacing hundreds of thousands and leaving at least 183 dead. Other regions are now into their second year of extreme drought, which led to yet another intense wildfire season. In September, São Paulo and Brasília were shrouded in smoke coming from fires in the Amazon and the Cerrado.  

    And yet, despite the government’s actions, environmental protections and Indigenous rights are still under threat. Lula is governing alongside the most pro-agribusiness congress in Brazilian history, which renders his ability to protect Brazil’s forests and Indigenous peoples in the long-term severely constrained. 

    “I do believe that the Lula administration really cares about climate change,” said Belen Fernandez Milmanda, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Trinity College and author of Agrarian Elites and Democracy in Latin America. “But on the other side, part of their governing coalition is also the agribusiness, and so far I feel like the agribusiness is winning.”

    Brazilian politics has always been fragmented, with weak parties. The current Chamber of Deputies, Brazil’s equivalent to the House of Representatives, is made up of politicians from 19 different parties. “It makes it really difficult to govern without some kind of coordination device,” said Fernandez Milmanda. Weak party cohesion makes it easier for interest groups to step into the vacuum and act as this coordination device. 

    Agribusiness has long been one of the most powerful interest groups in Brazilian politics, but its influence has grown steadily over the past decade as the electorate shifted to the right and the sector developed more sophisticated strategies to affect politics. In Congress, agribusiness is represented by the bancada ruralista, or agrarian caucus, a well-organized, multi-party coalition of landowning and agribusiness-linked legislators that controls a majority in both houses of congress. Of the 513 representatives in the Chamber of Deputies, 290 are members of the agrarian caucus. In the senate, they make up 50 of 81 legislators. 

    Today, the agrarian caucus is larger than any single party in the Brazilian legislature. “Members of the agrarian caucus vote together. They have high discipline and most Brazilian parties don’t,” said Fernandez Milmanda. “This gives them immense leverage towards any president.” 

    Much of the coordination around the legislative agenda takes place away from congress, at the headquarters of Instituto Pensar Agropecuária (IPA), a think tank founded in 2011 and financed largely by major agribusiness corporations, including some in the US and the European Union. Among IPA’s main backers are Brazilian beef giant JBS, German pesticide producer BASF, and the US-based corporation Cargill, the world’s largest agribusiness. Core members of the agrarian caucus reportedly meet weekly at IPA headquarters in Brasilia’s embassy row to discuss the week’s legislative agenda. 

    “IPA is really important because they are the ones doing all the work, all the technical work,” says Milmanda. “They are drafting the bills that they then give to the legislators, and the legislators will present it as their own.” 

    The agrarian caucus has tallied several long-awaited victories in the current congress, which took office alongside Lula in January 2023. Late last year, they overhauled Brazil’s main law governing the use of pesticides. The new legislation, which Human Rights Watch called a “serious threat to the environment and the right to health,” removes barriers for previously banned substances and reduces the regulatory oversight of the health and environment agencies. Instead, the Ministry of Agriculture, which has traditionally been led by a member of the agrarian caucus, now has the final say in determining which pesticides are cleared for use. Lula attempted to veto parts of the bill, but was overruled by congress. In the Brazilian system, an absolute majority in each chamber is enough to overrule a presidential veto.

    Another recent victory for the agrarian caucus came as a major blow to Indigenous rights. Agribusiness has long been fighting in the courts for a legal theory called marco temporal (“time frame,” in English), which posits that Indigenous groups can only claim their traditional lands if they were occupying it in 1988, the year the current Brazilian constitution was drafted. Opponents of the theory argue it disregards the fact that many Indigenous groups were expelled from their native lands long before that date. It has dire implications for the hundreds of Indigenous territories in Brazil currently awaiting demarcation, and could even impact territories that have already been recognized by law. 

    The theory had been making its way through the Brazilian justice system for 16 years, until it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court last year. Blatantly flouting the court’s ruling, congress passed a bill codifying marco temporal into law. Lula tried to veto the bill, but he was overruled by the agrarian caucus again. The bill is currently being discussed in conciliation hearings overseen by the Supreme Court, which is tasked with figuring out how the new law will work in light of the court’s 2023 decision. The legal grey area in which many Indigenous groups occupying disputed lands now find themselves has contributed to a wave of attacks by land-grabbers and farmers in recent months. 

    These are only two examples of legislation that are part of what environmentalists have come to call the “destruction package,” a group of at least 20 bills and three constitutional amendments currently proposed in congress that take aim at Indigenous rights and environmental protections. 

    “The executive has to put a stop to this, because otherwise the tendency will be towards very serious setbacks,” said Suely Araújo, Public Policy Coordinator at Observatório do Clima, a coalition of climate-focused civil society organizations. 

    But the government has limited tools at its disposal to block anti-environmental legislation. In the past, the executive branch had greater control over discretionary spending and was able to use this to its advantage while negotiating with congress. The past decade has seen a major power shift in Brazilian politics. Congress has managed through a series of legislative maneuvers to capture a significant portion of the federal budget, weakening the hand of the executive. 

    Among projects which have a high likelihood of passing, according to analysis by Observatório do Clima, are bills that weaken Brazil’s Forest Code, the key piece of legislation governing the use and management of forests. “It would make control much more difficult because illegal forms of deforestation would become legal,” said Araújo. 

    One such bill reduces the amount of land farmers in the Amazon must preserve within their property from 80 to 50 percent. The move could open almost 18 million hectares of forest to agricultural development, according to a recent analysis that the deforestation mapping organization MapBiomas conducted for the Brazilian magazine Piauí. That is an area roughly the size of New York state, New Jersey, and Massachusetts combined.

    In a similar vein, another bill in the package removes protections for native grasslands, including large parts of the Cerrado and the Pantanal (the world’s largest tropical wetland). In theory this would affect 48 millions hectares of native vegetation. Yet another bill, which has already been approved in the Chamber of Deputies, overhauls the process of environmental licensing, essentially reducing it to a rubber stamp. “It does away with 40 years of environmental licensing in Brazil,” said Araújo. “You might as well not have licensing legislation.” 

    Part of the reason many of these bills have a chance of passing is the Lula government’s limited leverage. With little support in congress and less control over the budget, bargaining with the agricultural caucus becomes a necessary tool to pass even legislation unrelated to the environment, such as economic reforms. During these negotiations, some environmentalists believe concerns over Brazil’s forests fall by the wayside. 

    “Perhaps there is a lack of leadership from the president himself, with a stronger stance in response to the demands of the ruralistas,” said Araújo. “There are political agreements and negotiations that must be made. The bargaining chip cannot be environmental legislation.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Can Lula still save the Amazon? on Nov 21, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Counter-terror cops have raided the homes, and then arrested, another 10 people in connection to Palestine Action’s action against Israel weapons company Elbit Systems. It shows that the British state continues to abuse counter-terrorism powers against activists in order to protect the interests of Israel’s genocidal campaign.

    Palestine Action: the state yet again abusing counter terror powers

    On 19 November, counter-terrorism police raided and arrested 10 more people in relation to an action taken by Palestine Action against Elbit’s Filton-based research and development hub on 6 August 2024.

    Reports of the raids undertaken today, include family members and roommates being expelled from their own homes by counter terrorism police for up to three days. The mother and younger brother of one arrested today were also cuffed during the initial raid, despite not being accused of any offence.

    These arrests were made in relation to the case of the ‘Filton10’ – ten individuals who have been detained since August, following an action which cost Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms company, over £1million in damages.

    As the Canary reported at the time, during the early hours of the morning of Tuesday 6 August, Palestine Action activists were arrested after they broke inside and damaged weaponry inside the highly secured Bristol manufacturing hub of Israel’s largest weapons company, Elbit Systems.

    A larger group from Palestine Action used a prison van to smash through the outer perimeter and the roller shutters into the building. Once six were inside, they began damaging the contents inside, including machinery and Israeli quadcopter drones.

    Elbit: actively enabling genocide

    Elbit’s Horizon facility at Belvedere Close in Filton is a key premises for the arms company, described as a research, development, and manufacturing hub for electronic warfare, land vehicle, simulation, and vision technologies. Freedom of Information disclosures show Filton’s ‘Elbit Systems UK’ has existent export licenses for the sale of weaponry to Israel.

    The Filton site was opened in July of last year, with Israeli Ambassador Tzipi Hotevely in attendance to show off the Bristol produced-weapons technologies of the “Israeli defence company”. Also in attendance was Elbit’s CEO Bezalel Machlis, who recently boasted, too, of Elbit’s crucial role in supporting the ongoing genocide and of the gratitude received by Elbit from the Israeli military for their services.

    Products seen inside the factory are the same as those used in the Gaza genocide, including Elbit’s ‘Torch-X Command and Control’ systems, Thor quadcopter drones and its nv33 Night Vision technologies.

    Elbit Systems, more broadly, supplies up to 85% of Israel’s military drones and land-based equipment, while its British exports to Israel mostly concern drone and aircraft components, military electronics, and target and acquisition systems.

    Palestine Action are not the terrorists, here

    Despite being arrested under the Terrorism Act, the Filton10 were all charged with non-terror offences including aggravated burglary, criminal damage and violent disorder. However, the police have continued to use counter terror powers to deploy authoritarian powers against further people in relation to the case.

    Amnesty International UK has issued alarm that British police are using these Terrorism Act powers to “circumvent normal legal protections”. The Filton10 are being held on remand ahead of a November 2025 trial, and are subjected to arbitrary and severe restrictions.

    A Palestine Action spokesperson said of the counter terror raids and arrests:

    The British state are wielding counter-terrorism powers against those they accused of being engaged in direct action against Israel’s weapons trade. They are acting to protect the interests of a foreign genocidal regime, over the rights and freedoms of it’s own citizens.

    The only ‘terrorists’ here are those assisting and arming Israel’s genocide. Palestine Action will not bow to this repression.

    Featured image via Palestine Action

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In December, Bridget Rochios, a nurse practitioner and midwife at the University of California, San Francisco, showed up to work wearing a keffiyeh. 

    Later, she and other co-workers started coming to work wearing “Free Palestine” pins, as well as hospital ID badges shaped like a watermelon, a pro-Palestine symbol. 

    Rochios, whose work includes addressing health disparities within reproductive health care, had been moved by reports of Israel’s targeting and destruction of Gaza’s hospitals and health care system, and started wearing the items as a show of solidarity with Palestinian women and babies, as well as her medical colleagues in Gaza. 

    Supervisors ordered Rochios and her colleagues to remove the pins, threatening them with suspension or termination. Most complied, but Rochios refused. 

    In April, she traveled to Gaza where she spent a month delivering babies at a maternity hospital in Rafah and the al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah. She saw some of the many delivering mothers who have suffered under dire conditions in Gaza.

    “The people who are really ‘unsafe’ are the women who I was supporting in labor as literally bombs were dropping.”

    A week after she returned to the U.S., her supervisors at the UCSF Mission Bay campus, one of the graduate school and hospital system’s 10 campuses, placed Rochios on a three-month paid administrative leave for “insubordination.” Her suspension was renewed in September after she again refused to remove her watermelon pin. She may still face further sanctions, including termination. University representatives have told her that several colleagues and patients said the pin made them feel “unsafe.”

    “The people who are really ‘unsafe’ are the women who I was supporting in labor as literally bombs were dropping and shaking the walls of our hospital,” Rochios told The Intercept, recalling moments during Israel’s invasion of Rafah. “Women who have not had prenatal care at all; women who went to walk to the hospital in labor and have a baby, and then two hours later, walk back home to their tent where they did not have running water, where they don’t have enough food or hydration to breastfeed, no clean water, or money to buy formula for their kids.”

    Medical professionals, especially those who have treated patients in Gaza’s and Lebanon’s hospitals over the past year, have spoken out about atrocities carried out by the Israeli military. Doing so at UCSF, one of the country’s most elite medical institutions, may come at a price. 

    Rochios is one of nine health care workers at UCSF who spoke with The Intercept about their experiences of censorship and punishment after speaking out about human rights for Palestinians as a part of their research and medical work.

    UCSF declined to comment or respond to a detailed list of questions or multiple phone calls over the course of a week. A UCSF spokesperson said they were concerned that the accounts of UCSF employees were being “taken out of context.”

    Rupa Marya, an internal medicine physician and lecturer at UCSF, is perhaps the most notable and vocal among those who have received pushback. In her social media posts in January, Marya, an expert in decolonial theory, questioned the impacts of Zionism as “a supremacist, racist ideology” on health care and drew immediate criticism from pro-Israel colleagues and Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener.

    The university then published a statement across its social media accounts addressing the posts without naming Marya, disavowing her statements as “antisemitic attacks.” Wiener thanked UCSF for the statement. A flurry of online attacks against Marya followed, including racist and sexist attacks and threats of death and sexual violence. Wiener has continued to single out Marya on social media.

    In September, Marya wrote a new post on social media that UCSF students were concerned that a first-year student from Israel may have served in the Israeli military in the prior year, then asked, “How do we address this in our professional ranks?”

    The following month, the university placed her on paid leave and suspended her ability to practice medicine pending an investigation into the post. The university has since reinstated her ability to give clinical care, but she remains banned from campus, including the hospital where she worked.

    “I wanted to protect people who have lost family members,” Marya said. “People are being murdered, doctors are being disappeared, hospitals are being bombed — you have this traumatized community in UCSF. I’ve been trying to give voice to the experience of the Muslim, Indigenous, Black, SWANA” — Southwest Asian and North African — “students who are afraid, like deeply afraid.” 

    The Center for Protest Law and Litigation, a First Amendment group, is assisting Marya in obtaining public records of possible communications about her social media posts between UCSF, Wiener, and the Helen Diller Family Foundation, the school’s largest donor that has in the past donated to pro-Israel propaganda groups. The center filed suit for the records after the university failed to produce documents after nine months of back and forth, during which the school claimed such records are exempt from freedom of information laws. 

    In a statement sent to The Intercept, Wiener said Marya’s social media posts “crossed a line,” accusing her of using “an antisemitic conspiracy theory targeting Jewish doctors” and an Israeli medical student. He said concerned UCSF faculty and students brought the January and October posts to his attention. “I then called out those posts as antisemitic, just as I have called out homophobic, transphobic, racist, and Islamophobic statements by various individuals,” he wrote. 

    Wiener, as a part of the legislature’s Jewish Caucus, previously targeted K-12 school districts for teaching history lessons that were critical of Israel, dismissing them as “bigoted, inaccurate, discriminatory, and deeply offensive anti-Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda,” according to a January letter to state lawmakers. He decried the online threats against Marya, calling for an investigation. 

    Exterior view of the UCSF Medical Center at Mount Zion under a clear blue sky, San Francisco, California, April 8, 2024. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)
    People walk towards a devastated building at Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City on June 11, 2024. Israeli troops conducted raids in November and March on Al-Shifa hospital, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Hamas militant group. The medical facility, the largest in the Gaza Strip, was reduced to rubble after an Israeli operation in March, the WHO said. (Photo by Omar AL-QATTAA / AFP) (Photo by OMAR AL-QATTAA/AFP via Getty Images)
    UCSF Medical Center at Mount Zion in San Francisco on April 8, 2024, left, and a devastated building at Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City in the Gaza Strip on June 11, 2024. Photos: Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images and Omar Al-Qatta/AFP via Getty Images

    The school’s crackdown has been broad, targeting professors, doctors, and medical staff.

    Doctors have had their lectures mentioning Gaza scrubbed from the internet or canceled outright. They have been accused of antisemitism and creating an unsafe work environment, and banned from lecturing entirely. Staffers, nurses, and students have been suspended for speaking out in solidarity or for acts as simple as wearing a watermelon pin or hanging a pro-Palestine symbol in their offices. Dozens of employees have criticized the ongoing silence from UCSF and its failure to condemn Israel’s war on Gaza, accusing the school of favoring pro-Israel views.

    “This is really unprecedented where this university in particular has stepped in and taken such a strong stand in support of some speech and opposition to other speech,” said Dan Siegel, a longtime Bay Area civil rights attorney who is representing several UCSF employees facing discipline. “It’s really remarkable to me that there is so much content-based discrimination here.” 

    For the past 30 years, Siegel has represented faculty and staff across the UC system in employment and workplace issues. Before October 7, he had never seen such a widespread effort to punish employees for speaking out about a specific issue.

    “Look, I don’t want to make people feel uncomfortable, but aren’t people made uncomfortable by 40,000 dead in Gaza?”

    “Among the supporters of the Israeli government, this is a cynical and manipulative effort to limit debate,” he said. “They’ve promoted an atmosphere where you’re a student at the university or a patient at the hospital, and it becomes perfectly normalized for you to say or for someone to champion your saying, ‘I feel uncomfortable as a Jew because of people saying these things,” said Siegel, who is Jewish. 

    “Look, I don’t want to make people feel uncomfortable, but aren’t people made uncomfortable by 40,000 dead in Gaza or the efforts taking place in the West Bank to steal Palestinian land?” Siegel asked. “Those things make me feel uncomfortable — so now we’re all going to be censoring each other’s speech because it makes us uncomfortable, and that really can’t be the criteria for limiting speech.”

    In late July, a group of House Republicans, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., told UCSF they would investigate allegations of antisemitism made by employees and patients at the institution. The members of Congress threatened to withhold all federal funding, including Medicare and Medicaid payments, from the school and health care system. Their investigation is a part of a larger partisan effort, led by House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., targeting universities whose students and faculty have been vocal critics of Israel. 

    Three UCSF physicians have been banned from giving lectures after mentioning the negative health impacts of Israel’s war on Gaza or the apartheid health system in the Occupied Territories. 

    Jess Ghannam had received pushback for his scholarship in the past. In 2012, an attendee of one of his lectures about Gaza at UCSF called the police on him, saying they didn’t feel safe with him on campus, Ghannam recalled. Later that year, a student burst into tears and ran out of a lecture Ghannam was delivering at UC Davis and later filed a complaint alleging that Ghannam had created an unsafe learning environment. (UC Davis launched a formal investigation, which eventually saw the complaint dismissed.)

    In his 25 years at the university, Ghannam never had any of his lectures canceled outright. He is a well-known speaker who has shared his research on the consequences of war on displaced communities, such as Palestinians, in many venues over the past two decades. And he helped establish mental health and medical clinics for Palestinians, interviewing Palestinian torture survivors who were incarcerated in Israeli prisons. 

    In September, he was scheduled to speak to first-year medical students, after a group of medical students had met with the university’s deans to push for more education around Palestine. 

    Student protest calling on the UC system to divest from its investments in Israeli companies while gathering outside of UC San Francisco's Rutter Center, where a meeting of the UC Board of Regents was held at the University of California, San Francisco, Wednesday, July 17, 2024. (Thomas Sawano/San Francisco Chronicle via AP)
    Student protesters outside of UC San Francisco’s Rutter Center call for the UC system to divest from investments in Israeli companies as the UC Board of Regents holds meetings inside the university, in San Francisco, on July 17, 2024. Photo: Thomas Sawano/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

    Then, four days before the scheduled talk, Ghannam heard from the course instructor that his lecture was being canceled. The instructor said there wasn’t enough time to provide “wraparound services” for students, or peer support or support services, for those who may be distressed by the topic, Ghannam said. 

    Students responded with outrage. Ninety-five medical students signed a letter addressed to school officials, calling the cancellation “an act of intentional erasure of historical harms that continue to affect our communities and our profession” and alleging that it was part of “a pattern of suppression that seemingly targets any element of acknowledgement or advocacy for the health of Palestinians, despite UCSF’s claimed position as a bastion of social justice.” The students went on to host Ghannam independently, allowing him to give his lecture in front of about 100 people.

    “That’s the clear message: You can’t talk about Palestine, you can’t talk about genocide.”

    “If you talk about Palestine,” Ghannam said of his critics’ perspective, “if you talk about the health consequences of genocide, and the negative impact of genocide and settler colonialism, it’s OK to talk about it in any other people except Palestinians — and then if you do try to talk about it in the Palestinian context, we’re going to shut you down.”

    “I mean, that’s the clear message: You can’t talk about Palestine, you can’t talk about genocide.” 

    Leigh Kimberg had a similar experience. Kimberg, a medical school professor, primary care doctor, and leader in the field of violence prevention and trauma-informed care, had lectured at UCSF’s continuing education program several times in the past decade.

    In April, she gave a 50-minute lecture and dedicated six of those minutes to a discussion of the health of Palestinians in Gaza. She argued that you cannot speak on trauma-informed care without mentioning the genocide in Gaza and described the connections between the liberation of Black, Palestinian, and Jewish people. She also decried antisemitism during her lecture.

    Still, the following month, administrators told Kimberg that they had received complaints from attendees who called her speech “biased and antisemitic,” which prompted the school to remove the recording of her talk from the school’s website. When she protested the video’s removal, she said the school barred her from giving lectures at the program.

    The ban was lifted after multiple emails from Kimberg and Siegel, who is representing her, but she was told that her future talks must comply with the program’s rules. She also received pushback from her division at the school of medicine, where colleagues have referred to her as “inflammatory” or “not trauma-informed.”

    Healthcare workers in San Francisco on Jan. 14, 2024, at the March for Gaza, part of a national day of action against the war. Photo: Leigh Kimberg

    Kimberg began to speak out about Palestine publicly last October, and her Palestinian colleagues welcomed her perspective as a person of Jewish ancestry. Her grandparents had fled antisemitic violence in Poland and Lithuania, and three of her relatives died in the Holocaust. But her colleagues also cautioned her of the backlash to come. 

    “We do want to warn you that the second you advocate for Palestine, you will be called ‘antisemitic,’” Kimberg recalled from earlier conversations with Palestinian colleagues. “It doesn’t matter that you’re Jewish — in some ways, it will be worse — but you will definitely be called ‘antisemitic’ if you say anything to value Palestinian life.”

    “And that has been my experience.”

    Such discrimination is what led Keith Hansen, a former chief resident of surgery at UCSF, to conceal his Palestinian heritage throughout his career. As chief resident in the fall of 2023, Hansen would send daily emails to his co-workers at the trauma surgery department at San Francisco General Hospital, highlighting updates across their field. In one of those emails in October, as reports of Israeli strikes on hospitals in Gaza began to compile, he skipped the updates and instead asked his colleagues “to take a moment to acknowledge that doctors and surgeons and patients, just like us, were being bombed by the Israeli government.”

    Hansen received positive feedback for the email from his co-workers, but in his monthly review to assess his performance as a resident, an attending physician referred to Hansen as “a polarizing figure” because of the email. 

    In May, as student activists continued to occupy a protest encampment at the school’s Parnassus Heights campus, Hansen gave a lecture as chief resident about his work in organ transplantation along with health inequities of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank under Israeli occupation. 

    During the talk, he also disclosed his Palestinian heritage, something he had never done in his career. He shared that he was born in Jordan to Palestinian refugees, his mother from Ramallah and his father from Jenin. After running through data showing health disparities between Palestinians living under occupation and Israeli citizens, as well as the targeting of physicians in Gaza, he called on the university to do more to address such issues. He referenced other UCSF initiatives, such as fundraising to protect doctors and scholars in Afghanistan and Ukraine. He went on to call for an academic boycott of institutions “complicit in the genocide and medical apartheid.” 

    Following his talk, several colleagues lodged complaints against him that he was creating an unsafe working environment. The chair of his department also directed him and other speakers not to mention “anything political or anything that didn’t have to do with graduation.” At graduation, he said people he had previously gotten along with avoided him. 

    “Everyone kind of shows their true colors once they find out your background.”

    “There’s that term — ‘liberal except for Palestine’ or ‘humanitarian except for Palestine’ — and a lot of people as soon as they hear you’re Palestinian just change their entire view of you,” Hansen said. “And it has changed my relationship — I mean, there were people at graduation who didn’t talk to me, who I had known for years and always got along with really well. Everyone kind of shows their true colors once they find out your background.” 

    At the same time, pro-Israel speakers have been invited to campus while Palestinian voices have been opposed. Among those speakers were Elan Carr, a U.S. Army veteran and CEO of the Israeli American Council, an influential pro-Israel lobbying and advocacy group. UCSF’s Office of Diversity and Outreach invited him to speak during May’s Jewish American Heritage Month.

    Nearly 100 faculty, medical workers, and students wrote to the diversity office, protesting Carr’s talk, citing his role at a counterprotest against student encampments at UCLA that turned violent a month earlier, as well as his endorsement of transphobic comments on social media. Carr’s speech on “the persistence of anti-Zionism, anti-Israel discrimination, and campus antisemitism” went on as planned.

    The same office declined to sponsor and publicize an official screening of documentary “Israelism,” which was hosted by the school’s chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace. The film centers on the advocacy of anti-Zionist Jewish activists. 

    Some staffers have been disciplined for a speech act as quiet as wearing a pin. 

    Shortly after October 7, Rosita, a nurse at UCSF who gave only her first name out of fear of being doxxed by pro-Israel activists, started hand-making watermelon pins for her co-workers to attach to their hospital ID cards, green glittery resin disks with a small rubber watermelon glued on top.

    A slice of the fruit has been a symbol of Palestinian liberation since the 1980s, when Palestinian artists started to use the depictions of the watermelon, with its red flesh, green rind, and black seeds, as a way to circumvent an Israeli ban on public displays of the Palestinian flag in Gaza and the West Bank. Rosita passed her pins out to interested colleagues at work and to others during pro-Palestine protests.

    A watermelon pin attached to a UCSF employee ID card. Photo: Bridget Rochios

    In a relatively uniform work environment such as a hospital floor or clinic, custom badge pins are typical ways for medical workers to express themselves. At UCSF, such displays are often political, with many wearing pins that advocate for LGBTQ rights or the Black Lives Matter movement. In the past, UCSF even gave away its own uterus pins meant to affirm reproductive rights, said Rosita, who also helped found the school’s faculty and staff pro-Palestinian group. 

    “I can tell what type of person you are by the pins that you have on your badge,” she said. “So it’s a sense of pride and solidarity and acknowledgment.”

    In all, Rosita said she has made and given away 500 pins. And while many workers received compliments from colleagues and patients, those who wore the pins started to get approached by their managers, telling them the pins were antisemitic and ordering them to remove them under threat of suspension or termination. 

    In September, Rosita’s manager called her in for a “counseling” session where she was told to remove the pin because a staff member said it made them feel “uncomfortable.” She refused and responded with an email, calling the manager’s request “discrimination and denial of the Palestinian people.”

    Related

    “Man-Made Hell On Earth”: A Canadian Doctor on His Medical Mission to Gaza

    “My niece is Palestinian,” she wrote in the email. “She is 10 years old. She enjoys collecting Polly Pockets and does jujitsu on Saturdays, studies Arabic on Sundays.”

    “She exists!” Rosita added. “I wear the watermelon because she exists!”

    Rosita, who is Rochios’s union steward and has been representing her in disciplinary hearings, said she worried she would be met with similar punishment. 

    Another staff member faced similar pushback for displaying pro-Palestine symbols. A researcher at UCSF, who declined to give their name due to fear of workplace retaliation, was told by supervisors to remove a sign from their office that said “Queer as in Free Palestine” with a red and pink triangle. The staff member, who is queer, said the sign was meant to express solidarity between the LGBTQ community and Palestinians. They noted that their Mexican LGBTQ flag had been accepted. Leading up to the ban, the researcher had received an online death threat for displaying the symbol, and one community member confronted them inside their office, accusing them of supporting Hamas. 

    The school told them the red triangle was a Nazi symbol that is being used to promote violence against Jewish people. The ban remains on the staff member’s employee file. Since reporting the death threat, the school has yet to offer a safety plan for the staff member, who as a result has been working remotely since September.

    “It’s been really tough. I’ve had to take time off, my mental and physical health is just shot at this point from the stress and anxiety, not knowing whether I’m going to lose my job,” they said.

    “My mental and physical health is just shot at this point from the stress and anxiety, not knowing whether I’m going to lose my job.”

    Another staffer received a notice of intent to fire her just for discussing accusations lodged against them with colleagues. In January, UCSF therapist Denise Caramagno quote tweeted, to her modest following of 500 users on X, the school’s public rebuke of Marya with the following: “@UCSF is coordinating an attack on its own faculty of color who are asking legitimate questions about social determinants of health. This is a violation of academic speech. How are we to achieve health equity if we cannot ask important questions about systems of supremacy?” 

    Several months later in May, Caramagno’s supervisor sent an email, flagging that a physician at UCSF sent a complaint about Caramagno’s post to school officials and a complaint officer in the diversity office, calling the tweet antisemitic and questioning Caramagno’s ability to “offer psychological support to Jewish and Israeli faculty and staff.” 

    Medical workers stage a die-in at San Francisco city hall on January 8, 2024. Photo: John Avalos

    Over the past decade, Caramagno helped build the school’s CARE program, which provides resources and support to those on campus who have experienced discrimination, harassment, or abuse. As the co-director, she had remained the point of contact for students to reach out to confidentially and become a trusted source of support to students during difficult moments, including amid protests during the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements. She’s regularly called out systemic racism as a part of her role. 

    “When I see what’s happening in Palestine, it just looks like the most extreme form of racism,” Caramagno said, referring to the genocide in Gaza. “We’re a public health care system, so when we see the dismantling of the public health care system [in Gaza], we have an obligation to call that out.”

    While the complaint did not lead to any discipline, she was barred from serving as a point of contact for individuals with reports of antisemitism.

    In June, her supervisors caught wind that Caramagno had shared the email from her supervisor that included the complaint with close friends and colleagues, seeking guidance and support on how to proceed. Supervisors told her that she was not allowed to share the email, which they considered confidential. Caramagno and her attorney, Siegel, insist the email was not confidential, which she dismissed as “defamatory.” Even so, by August she was suspended and then received notice of the school’s intent to fire her. She is barred from campus and from contacting her clients. 

    “I’m a trained clinician in this; I know the laws about confidentiality,” Caramagno said. “I know I had never breached confidentiality, and I never will.”

    Last week, a group of faculty staff and students, including Kimberg and Ghannam, gathered for the first session of the UC People’s Tribunal, a group that aims to hold UC leaders accountable for the school system’s complicity with Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza and the ongoing displacement of Palestinians.

    In addition to the violent crackdown on student encampments across the UC system last spring, school leaders have long shown a pro-Israel bias in their longstanding opposition to attempts by student and faculty groups to join academic boycotts of institutions with ties to Israel. The tactic is part of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which aims to achieve Palestinian statehood.

    The People’s group, which presented the tribunal charges at La Peña Cultural Center in Berkeley, focused on the UC’s investments in Israeli companies and the other activities of UCSF’s largest private donor, the Diller family. A collection of foundations created by the Bay Area real estate billionaire Sanford Diller, who died in 2018, gave a massive $1 billion to the school in 2017 and 2018, after giving $150 million over the previous 15 years. 

    Facade of UCSF Helen Diller Medical Center at night with illuminated windows, located at 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, California, April 28, 2023. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)
    Facade of the UCSF Helen Diller Medical Center in San Francisco on April 28, 2023. Photo: Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

    The foundations, named for Diller’s late wife Helen, also donated $100,000 in 2016 to the Canary Mission, a group that aims to blacklist students and professors at universities who are found to be critical of Israel. Once an individual is listed on the Canary Mission site, a flood of cyberbullying messages often follow in an attempt to ruin the person’s reputation. The site has a profile for Ghannam and Marya, accusing both of supporting terrorism and antisemitism. Ghannam jokingly called himself one of the site’s “inaugural” members, or a “first-gen Canary Mission.” The group also recently celebrated Marya’s suspension on social media.

    In 2016, the Diller Foundation also donated $25,000 to Regavim, an Israeli NGO that sues Palestinians who try to build homes in the occupied West Bank; $100,000 to Reservists on Duty, a group that pays for Israeli reserve soldiers to travel to U.S. universities to work with students on projects that challenge BDS; and $25,000 to Turning Point USA “for US campus efforts against BDS.” And the foundation has donated to Islamophobic groups American Freedom Law Center and Stop Islamization of America, along with American right-wing conservative groups, Project Veritas and the David Horowitz Freedom Center.   

    Jackie Safier, Sanford Diller’s daughter, who now runs the Diller Foundation, has dismissed connections between the foundation and the far-right Zionist and conservative groups in the U.S. and Israel. Given the foundation’s close ties with UCSF, however, faculty and staff who have faced punishment for their pro-Palestine speech have questioned whether the relationship was a factor. 

    “You can’t walk anywhere at UCSF without seeing Helen Diller’s name somewhere,” Ghannam said. “The foundation’s name is in the front of UCSF, the main entrance, they’ve endowed chairs and faculty positions.”

    Ghannam had hoped to travel to Gaza to assist patients there during this past year, but has been barred due to Israeli travel restrictions into the territory for individuals with Palestinian ancestry. He instead has been forced to watch the conflict from afar, doing what he can with organizing at UCSF, while Israeli strikes kill people he’s close with.

    “There’s this awesomeness of feeling the solidarity; people are finally understanding Palestine in ways that they never understood before,” Ghannam said. “But at the same time, the amount of fucking grief and pain that I feel every day with knowing that my colleagues have been killed, that all clinics that we helped build and all the programs we help build and all of the people whose kids I’ve seen grown up over the years and get married — they’re all dead, so there’s this profound sense of grief and guilt.”

    Rochios speaking with Al Jazeera for an interview aired on May 26, 2024. Screenshot: Al Jazeera

    Rochios’s advocacy on the health inequality experienced by Palestinians in Gaza began by speaking out at home, both at the workplace and at rallies in the Bay Area. When Rochios, who was allowed to travel to Gaza, was working in Rafah in April, she began to share what she was witnessing on television news for outlets such as Al Jazeera

    “While the West seems to not give any weight or validation to Palestinian reporters on the ground, these health care workers have become the journalists, the storytellers, all this information, and it became very clear to me to that it was my duty to try and be a voice to that,” she said.

    UCSF escalated its punishment against Rochios this week, moving her from a paid suspension to three days unpaid. She will be allowed to return to work for the first time since June on November 21, but was again ordered not to wear her keffiyeh or watermelon badge. If she continues to wear the items, the school said, she would be in violation of UCSF’s PRIDE policies and Principles of Community, which are among several codes meant to reinforce diversity and inclusion within the institution. She expects to be fired, given the climate of repression she and her colleagues have experienced at UCSF.

    Through conversations with colleagues in the OBGYN department at the nearby city-run San Francisco General Hospital, Rochios knows that this outcome is not the norm in her profession, even within the same city. Unlike at UCSF, the hospital workers have been able to display their support for Palestine, with some openly wearing sweatshirts that read “Healthcare workers for Palestine.” 

    “I’ve become such a pariah in this way within UCSF,” she said. “Whereas it exists without issue in a sister hospital in the same city.” 

    The post UCSF Medical Workers Reveal Efforts to Censor Pro-Palestine Speech appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • In December, Bridget Rochios, a nurse practitioner and midwife at the University of California, San Francisco, showed up to work wearing a keffiyeh. 

    Later, she and other co-workers started coming to work wearing “Free Palestine” pins, as well as hospital ID badges shaped like a watermelon, a pro-Palestine symbol. 

    Rochios, whose work includes addressing health disparities within reproductive health care, had been moved by reports of Israel’s targeting and destruction of Gaza’s hospitals and health care system, and started wearing the items as a show of solidarity with Palestinian women and babies, as well as her medical colleagues in Gaza. 

    Supervisors ordered Rochios and her colleagues to remove the pins, threatening them with suspension or termination. Most complied, but Rochios refused. 

    In April, she traveled to Gaza where she spent a month delivering babies at a maternity hospital in Rafah and the al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah. She saw some of the many delivering mothers who have suffered under dire conditions in Gaza.

    “The people who are really ‘unsafe’ are the women who I was supporting in labor as literally bombs were dropping.”

    A week after she returned to the U.S., her supervisors at the UCSF Mission Bay campus, one of the graduate school and hospital system’s 10 campuses, placed Rochios on a three-month paid administrative leave for “insubordination.” Her suspension was renewed in September after she again refused to remove her watermelon pin. She may still face further sanctions, including termination. University representatives have told her that several colleagues and patients said the pin made them feel “unsafe.”

    “The people who are really ‘unsafe’ are the women who I was supporting in labor as literally bombs were dropping and shaking the walls of our hospital,” Rochios told The Intercept, recalling moments during Israel’s invasion of Rafah. “Women who have not had prenatal care at all; women who went to walk to the hospital in labor and have a baby, and then two hours later, walk back home to their tent where they did not have running water, where they don’t have enough food or hydration to breastfeed, no clean water, or money to buy formula for their kids.”

    Medical professionals, especially those who have treated patients in Gaza’s and Lebanon’s hospitals over the past year, have spoken out about atrocities carried out by the Israeli military. Doing so at UCSF, one of the country’s most elite medical institutions, may come at a price. 

    Rochios is one of nine health care workers at UCSF who spoke with The Intercept about their experiences of censorship and punishment after speaking out about human rights for Palestinians as a part of their research and medical work.

    UCSF declined to comment or respond to a detailed list of questions or multiple phone calls over the course of a week. A UCSF spokesperson said they were concerned that the accounts of UCSF employees were being “taken out of context.”

    Rupa Marya, an internal medicine physician and professor at UCSF, is perhaps the most notable and vocal among those who have received pushback. In her social media posts in January, Marya, an expert in decolonial theory, questioned the impacts of Zionism as “a supremacist, racist ideology” on health care and drew immediate criticism from pro-Israel colleagues and Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener.

    The university then published a statement across its social media accounts addressing the posts without naming Marya, disavowing her statements as “antisemitic attacks.” Wiener thanked UCSF for the statement. A flurry of online attacks against Marya followed, including racist and sexist attacks and threats of death and sexual violence. Wiener has continued to single out Marya on social media.

    In September, Marya wrote a new post on social media that UCSF students were concerned that a first-year student from Israel may have served in the Israeli military in the prior year, then asked, “How do we address this in our professional ranks?”

    The following month, the university placed her on paid leave and suspended her ability to practice medicine pending an investigation into the post. The university has since reinstated her ability to give clinical care, but she remains banned from campus, including the hospital where she worked.

    “I wanted to protect people who have lost family members,” Marya said. “People are being murdered, doctors are being disappeared, hospitals are being bombed — you have this traumatized community in UCSF. I’ve been trying to give voice to the experience of the Muslim, Indigenous, Black, SWANA” — Southwest Asian and North African — “students who are afraid, like deeply afraid.” 

    The Center for Protest Law and Litigation, a First Amendment group, is assisting Marya in obtaining public records of possible communications about her social media posts between UCSF, Wiener, and the Helen Diller Family Foundation, the school’s largest donor that has in the past donated to pro-Israel propaganda groups. The center filed suit for the records after the university failed to produce documents after nine months of back and forth, during which the school claimed such records are exempt from freedom of information laws. 

    In a statement sent to The Intercept, Wiener said Marya’s social media posts “crossed a line,” accusing her of using “an antisemitic conspiracy theory targeting Jewish doctors” and an Israeli medical student. He said concerned UCSF faculty and students brought the January and October posts to his attention. “I then called out those posts as antisemitic, just as I have called out homophobic, transphobic, racist, and Islamophobic statements by various individuals,” he wrote. 

    Wiener, as a part of the legislature’s Jewish Caucus, previously targeted K-12 school districts for teaching history lessons that were critical of Israel, dismissing them as “bigoted, inaccurate, discriminatory, and deeply offensive anti-Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda,” according to a January letter to state lawmakers. He decried the online threats against Marya, calling for an investigation. 

    Exterior view of the UCSF Medical Center at Mount Zion under a clear blue sky, San Francisco, California, April 8, 2024. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)
    People walk towards a devastated building at Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City on June 11, 2024. Israeli troops conducted raids in November and March on Al-Shifa hospital, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Hamas militant group. The medical facility, the largest in the Gaza Strip, was reduced to rubble after an Israeli operation in March, the WHO said. (Photo by Omar AL-QATTAA / AFP) (Photo by OMAR AL-QATTAA/AFP via Getty Images)
    UCSF Medical Center at Mount Zion in San Francisco on April 8, 2024, left, and a devastated building at Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City in the Gaza Strip on June 11, 2024. Photos: Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images and Omar Al-Qatta/AFP via Getty Images

    The school’s crackdown has been broad, targeting professors, doctors, and medical staff.

    Doctors have had their lectures mentioning Gaza scrubbed from the internet or canceled outright. They have been accused of antisemitism and creating an unsafe work environment, and banned from lecturing entirely. Staffers, nurses, and students have been suspended for speaking out in solidarity or for acts as simple as wearing a watermelon pin or hanging a pro-Palestine symbol in their offices. Dozens of employees have criticized the ongoing silence from UCSF and its failure to condemn Israel’s war on Gaza, accusing the school of favoring pro-Israel views.

    “This is really unprecedented where this university in particular has stepped in and taken such a strong stand in support of some speech and opposition to other speech,” said Dan Siegel, a longtime Bay Area civil rights attorney who is representing several UCSF employees facing discipline. “It’s really remarkable to me that there is so much content-based discrimination here.” 

    For the past 30 years, Siegel has represented faculty and staff across the UC system in employment and workplace issues. Before October 7, he had never seen such a widespread effort to punish employees for speaking out about a specific issue.

    “Look, I don’t want to make people feel uncomfortable, but aren’t people made uncomfortable by 40,000 dead in Gaza?”

    “Among the supporters of the Israeli government, this is a cynical and manipulative effort to limit debate,” he said. “They’ve promoted an atmosphere where you’re a student at the university or a patient at the hospital, and it becomes perfectly normalized for you to say or for someone to champion your saying, ‘I feel uncomfortable as a Jew because of people saying these things,” said Siegel, who is Jewish. 

    “Look, I don’t want to make people feel uncomfortable, but aren’t people made uncomfortable by 40,000 dead in Gaza or the efforts taking place in the West Bank to steal Palestinian land?” Siegel asked. “Those things make me feel uncomfortable — so now we’re all going to be censoring each other’s speech because it makes us uncomfortable, and that really can’t be the criteria for limiting speech.”

    In late July, a group of House Republicans, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., told UCSF they would investigate allegations of antisemitism made by employees and patients at the institution. The members of Congress threatened to withhold all federal funding, including Medicare and Medicaid payments, from the school and health care system. Their investigation is a part of a larger partisan effort, led by House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., targeting universities whose students and faculty have been vocal critics of Israel. 

    Three UCSF physicians have been banned from giving lectures after mentioning the negative health impacts of Israel’s war on Gaza or the apartheid health system in the Occupied Territories. 

    Jess Ghannam had received pushback for his scholarship in the past. In 2012, an attendee of one of his lectures about Gaza at UCSF called the police on him, saying they didn’t feel safe with him on campus, Ghannam recalled. Later that year, a student burst into tears and ran out of a lecture Ghannam was delivering at UC Davis and later filed a complaint alleging that Ghannam had created an unsafe learning environment. (UC Davis launched a formal investigation, which eventually saw the complaint dismissed.)

    In his 25 years at the university, Ghannam never had any of his lectures canceled outright. He is a well-known speaker who has shared his research on the consequences of war on displaced communities, such as Palestinians, in many venues over the past two decades. And he helped establish mental health and medical clinics for Palestinians, interviewing Palestinian torture survivors who were incarcerated in Israeli prisons. 

    In September, he was scheduled to speak to first-year medical students, after a group of medical students had met with the university’s deans to push for more education around Palestine. 

    Student protest calling on the UC system to divest from its investments in Israeli companies while gathering outside of UC San Francisco's Rutter Center, where a meeting of the UC Board of Regents was held at the University of California, San Francisco, Wednesday, July 17, 2024. (Thomas Sawano/San Francisco Chronicle via AP)
    Student protesters outside of UC San Francisco’s Rutter Center call for the UC system to divest from investments in Israeli companies as the UC Board of Regents holds meetings inside the university, in San Francisco, on July 17, 2024. Photo: Thomas Sawano/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

    Then, four days before the scheduled talk, Ghannam heard from the course instructor that his lecture was being canceled. The instructor said there wasn’t enough time to provide “wraparound services” for students, or peer support or support services, for those who may be distressed by the topic, Ghannam said. 

    Students responded with outrage. Ninety-five medical students signed a letter addressed to school officials, calling the cancellation “an act of intentional erasure of historical harms that continue to affect our communities and our profession” and alleging that it was part of “a pattern of suppression that seemingly targets any element of acknowledgement or advocacy for the health of Palestinians, despite UCSF’s claimed position as a bastion of social justice.” The students went on to host Ghannam independently, allowing him to give his lecture in front of about 100 people.

    “That’s the clear message: You can’t talk about Palestine, you can’t talk about genocide.”

    “If you talk about Palestine,” Ghannam said of his critics’ perspective, “if you talk about the health consequences of genocide, and the negative impact of genocide and settler colonialism, it’s OK to talk about it in any other people except Palestinians — and then if you do try to talk about it in the Palestinian context, we’re going to shut you down.”

    “I mean, that’s the clear message: You can’t talk about Palestine, you can’t talk about genocide.” 

    Leigh Kimberg had a similar experience. Kimberg, a medical school professor, primary care doctor, and leader in the field of violence prevention and trauma-informed care, had lectured at UCSF’s continuing education program several times in the past decade.

    In April, she gave a 50-minute lecture and dedicated six of those minutes to a discussion of the health of Palestinians in Gaza. She argued that you cannot speak on trauma-informed care without mentioning the genocide in Gaza and described the connections between the liberation of Black, Palestinian, and Jewish people. She also decried antisemitism during her lecture.

    Still, the following month, administrators told Kimberg that they had received complaints from attendees who called her speech “biased and antisemitic,” which prompted the school to remove the recording of her talk from the school’s website. When she protested the video’s removal, she said the school barred her from giving lectures at the program.

    The ban was lifted after multiple emails from Kimberg and Siegel, who is representing her, but she was told that her future talks must comply with the program’s rules. She also received pushback from her division at the school of medicine, where colleagues have referred to her as “inflammatory” or “not trauma-informed.”

    Healthcare workers in San Francisco on Jan. 14, 2024, at the March for Gaza, part of a national day of action against the war. Photo: Leigh Kimberg

    Kimberg began to speak out about Palestine publicly last October, and her Palestinian colleagues welcomed her perspective as a person of Jewish ancestry. Her grandparents had fled antisemitic violence in Poland and Lithuania, and three of her relatives died in the Holocaust. But her colleagues also cautioned her of the backlash to come. 

    “We do want to warn you that the second you advocate for Palestine, you will be called ‘antisemitic,’” Kimberg recalled from earlier conversations with Palestinian colleagues. “It doesn’t matter that you’re Jewish — in some ways, it will be worse — but you will definitely be called ‘antisemitic’ if you say anything to value Palestinian life.”

    “And that has been my experience.”

    Such discrimination is what led Keith Hansen, a former chief resident of surgery at UCSF, to conceal his Palestinian heritage throughout his career. As chief resident in the fall of 2023, Hansen would send daily emails to his co-workers at the trauma surgery department at San Francisco General Hospital, highlighting updates across their field. In one of those emails in October, as reports of Israeli strikes on hospitals in Gaza began to compile, he skipped the updates and instead asked his colleagues “to take a moment to acknowledge that doctors and surgeons and patients, just like us, were being bombed by the Israeli government.”

    Hansen received positive feedback for the email from his co-workers, but in his monthly review to assess his performance as a resident, an attending physician referred to Hansen as “a polarizing figure” because of the email. 

    In May, as student activists continued to occupy a protest encampment at the school’s Parnassus Heights campus, Hansen gave a lecture as chief resident about his work in organ transplantation along with health inequities of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank under Israeli occupation. 

    During the talk, he also disclosed his Palestinian heritage, something he had never done in his career. He shared that he was born in Jordan to Palestinian refugees, his mother from Ramallah and his father from Jenin. After running through data showing health disparities between Palestinians living under occupation and Israeli citizens, as well as the targeting of physicians in Gaza, he called on the university to do more to address such issues. He referenced other UCSF initiatives, such as fundraising to protect doctors and scholars in Afghanistan and Ukraine. He went on to call for an academic boycott of institutions “complicit in the genocide and medical apartheid.” 

    Following his talk, several colleagues lodged complaints against him that he was creating an unsafe working environment. The chair of his department also directed him and other speakers not to mention “anything political or anything that didn’t have to do with graduation.” At graduation, he said people he had previously gotten along with avoided him. 

    “Everyone kind of shows their true colors once they find out your background.”

    “There’s that term — ‘liberal except for Palestine’ or ‘humanitarian except for Palestine’ — and a lot of people as soon as they hear you’re Palestinian just change their entire view of you,” Hansen said. “And it has changed my relationship — I mean, there were people at graduation who didn’t talk to me, who I had known for years and always got along with really well. Everyone kind of shows their true colors once they find out your background.” 

    At the same time, pro-Israel speakers have been invited to campus while Palestinian voices have been opposed. Among those speakers were Elan Carr, a U.S. Army veteran and CEO of the Israeli American Council, an influential pro-Israel lobbying and advocacy group. UCSF’s Office of Diversity and Outreach invited him to speak during May’s Jewish American Heritage Month.

    Nearly 100 faculty, medical workers, and students wrote to the diversity office, protesting Carr’s talk, citing his role at a counterprotest against student encampments at UCLA that turned violent a month earlier, as well as his endorsement of transphobic comments on social media. Carr’s speech on “the persistence of anti-Zionism, anti-Israel discrimination, and campus antisemitism” went on as planned.

    The same office declined to sponsor and publicize an official screening of documentary “Israelism,” which was hosted by the school’s chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace. The film centers on the advocacy of anti-Zionist Jewish activists. 

    Some staffers have been disciplined for a speech act as quiet as wearing a pin. 

    Shortly after October 7, Rosita, a nurse at UCSF who gave only her first name out of fear of being doxxed by pro-Israel activists, started hand-making watermelon pins for her co-workers to attach to their hospital ID cards, green glittery resin disks with a small rubber watermelon glued on top.

    A slice of the fruit has been a symbol of Palestinian liberation since the 1980s, when Palestinian artists started to use the depictions of the watermelon, with its red flesh, green rind, and black seeds, as a way to circumvent an Israeli ban on public displays of the Palestinian flag in Gaza and the West Bank. Rosita passed her pins out to interested colleagues at work and to others during pro-Palestine protests.

    A watermelon pin attached to a UCSF employee ID card. Photo: Bridget Rochios

    In a relatively uniform work environment such as a hospital floor or clinic, custom badge pins are typical ways for medical workers to express themselves. At UCSF, such displays are often political, with many wearing pins that advocate for LGBTQ rights or the Black Lives Matter movement. In the past, UCSF even gave away its own uterus pins meant to affirm reproductive rights, said Rosita, who also helped found the school’s faculty and staff pro-Palestinian group. 

    “I can tell what type of person you are by the pins that you have on your badge,” she said. “So it’s a sense of pride and solidarity and acknowledgment.”

    In all, Rosita said she has made and given away 500 pins. And while many workers received compliments from colleagues and patients, those who wore the pins started to get approached by their managers, telling them the pins were antisemitic and ordering them to remove them under threat of suspension or termination. 

    In September, Rosita’s manager called her in for a “counseling” session where she was told to remove the pin because a staff member said it made them feel “uncomfortable.” She refused and responded with an email, calling the manager’s request “discrimination and denial of the Palestinian people.”

    Related

    “Man-Made Hell On Earth”: A Canadian Doctor on His Medical Mission to Gaza

    “My niece is Palestinian,” she wrote in the email. “She is 10 years old. She enjoys collecting Polly Pockets and does jujitsu on Saturdays, studies Arabic on Sundays.”

    “She exists!” Rosita added. “I wear the watermelon because she exists!”

    Rosita, who is Rochios’s union steward and has been representing her in disciplinary hearings, said she worried she would be met with similar punishment. 

    Another staff member faced similar pushback for displaying pro-Palestine symbols. A researcher at UCSF, who declined to give their name due to fear of workplace retaliation, was told by supervisors to remove a sign from their office that said “Queer as in Free Palestine” with a red and pink triangle. The staff member, who is queer, said the sign was meant to express solidarity between the LGBTQ community and Palestinians. They noted that their Mexican LGBTQ flag had been accepted. Leading up to the ban, the researcher had received an online death threat for displaying the symbol, and one community member confronted them inside their office, accusing them of supporting Hamas. 

    The school told them the red triangle was a Nazi symbol that is being used to promote violence against Jewish people. The ban remains on the staff member’s employee file. Since reporting the death threat, the school has yet to offer a safety plan for the staff member, who as a result has been working remotely since September.

    “It’s been really tough. I’ve had to take time off, my mental and physical health is just shot at this point from the stress and anxiety, not knowing whether I’m going to lose my job,” they said.

    “My mental and physical health is just shot at this point from the stress and anxiety, not knowing whether I’m going to lose my job.”

    Another staffer received a notice of intent to fire her just for discussing accusations lodged against them with colleagues. In January, UCSF therapist Denise Caramagno quote tweeted, to her modest following of 500 users on X, the school’s public rebuke of Marya with the following: “@UCSF is coordinating an attack on its own faculty of color who are asking legitimate questions about social determinants of health. This is a violation of academic speech. How are we to achieve health equity if we cannot ask important questions about systems of supremacy?” 

    Several months later in May, Caramagno’s supervisor sent an email, flagging that a physician at UCSF sent a complaint about Caramagno’s post to school officials and a complaint officer in the diversity office, calling the tweet antisemitic and questioning Caramagno’s ability to “offer psychological support to Jewish and Israeli faculty and staff.” 

    Medical workers stage a die-in at San Francisco city hall on January 8, 2024. Photo: John Avalos

    Over the past decade, Caramagno helped build the school’s CARE program, which provides resources and support to those on campus who have experienced discrimination, harassment, or abuse. As the co-director, she had remained the point of contact for students to reach out to confidentially and become a trusted source of support to students during difficult moments, including amid protests during the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements. She’s regularly called out systemic racism as a part of her role. 

    “When I see what’s happening in Palestine, it just looks like the most extreme form of racism,” Caramagno said, referring to the genocide in Gaza. “We’re a public health care system, so when we see the dismantling of the public health care system [in Gaza], we have an obligation to call that out.”

    While the complaint did not lead to any discipline, she was barred from serving as a point of contact for individuals with reports of antisemitism.

    In June, her supervisors caught wind that Caramagno had shared the email from her supervisor that included the complaint with close friends and colleagues, seeking guidance and support on how to proceed. Supervisors told her that she was not allowed to share the email, which they considered confidential. Caramagno and her attorney, Siegel, insist the email was not confidential, which she dismissed as “defamatory.” Even so, by August she was suspended and then received notice of the school’s intent to fire her. She is barred from campus and from contacting her clients. 

    “I’m a trained clinician in this; I know the laws about confidentiality,” Caramagno said. “I know I had never breached confidentiality, and I never will.”

    Last week, a group of faculty staff and students, including Kimberg and Ghannam, gathered for the first session of the UC People’s Tribunal, a group that aims to hold UC leaders accountable for the school system’s complicity with Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza and the ongoing displacement of Palestinians.

    In addition to the violent crackdown on student encampments across the UC system last spring, school leaders have long shown a pro-Israel bias in their longstanding opposition to attempts by student and faculty groups to join academic boycotts of institutions with ties to Israel. The tactic is part of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which aims to achieve Palestinian statehood.

    The People’s group, which presented the tribunal charges at La Peña Cultural Center in Berkeley, focused on the UC’s investments in Israeli companies and the other activities of UCSF’s largest private donor, the Diller family. A collection of foundations created by the Bay Area real estate billionaire Sanford Diller, who died in 2018, gave a massive $1 billion to the school in 2017 and 2018, after giving $150 million over the previous 15 years. 

    Facade of UCSF Helen Diller Medical Center at night with illuminated windows, located at 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, California, April 28, 2023. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)
    Facade of the UCSF Helen Diller Medical Center in San Francisco on April 28, 2023. Photo: Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

    The foundations, named for Diller’s late wife Helen, also donated $100,000 in 2016 to the Canary Mission, a group that aims to blacklist students and professors at universities who are found to be critical of Israel. Once an individual is listed on the Canary Mission site, a flood of cyberbullying messages often follow in an attempt to ruin the person’s reputation. The site has a profile for Ghannam and Marya, accusing both of supporting terrorism and antisemitism. Ghannam jokingly called himself one of the site’s “inaugural” members, or a “first-gen Canary Mission.” The group also recently celebrated Marya’s suspension on social media.

    In 2016, the Diller Foundation also donated $25,000 to Regavim, an Israeli NGO that sues Palestinians who try to build homes in the occupied West Bank; $100,000 to Reservists on Duty, a group that pays for Israeli reserve soldiers to travel to U.S. universities to work with students on projects that challenge BDS; and $25,000 to Turning Point USA “for US campus efforts against BDS.” And the foundation has donated to Islamophobic groups American Freedom Law Center and Stop Islamization of America, along with American right-wing conservative groups, Project Veritas and the David Horowitz Freedom Center.   

    Jackie Safier, Sanford Diller’s daughter, who now runs the Diller Foundation, has dismissed connections between the foundation and the far-right Zionist and conservative groups in the U.S. and Israel. Given the foundation’s close ties with UCSF, however, faculty and staff who have faced punishment for their pro-Palestine speech have questioned whether the relationship was a factor. 

    “You can’t walk anywhere at UCSF without seeing Helen Diller’s name somewhere,” Ghannam said. “The foundation’s name is in the front of UCSF, the main entrance, they’ve endowed chairs and faculty positions.”

    Ghannam had hoped to travel to Gaza to assist patients there during this past year, but has been barred due to Israeli travel restrictions into the territory for individuals with Palestinian ancestry. He instead has been forced to watch the conflict from afar, doing what he can with organizing at UCSF, while Israeli strikes kill people he’s close with.

    “There’s this awesomeness of feeling the solidarity; people are finally understanding Palestine in ways that they never understood before,” Ghannam said. “But at the same time, the amount of fucking grief and pain that I feel every day with knowing that my colleagues have been killed, that all clinics that we helped build and all the programs we help build and all of the people whose kids I’ve seen grown up over the years and get married — they’re all dead, so there’s this profound sense of grief and guilt.”

    Rochios speaking with Al Jazeera for an interview aired on May 26, 2024. Screenshot: Al Jazeera

    Rochios’s advocacy on the health inequality experienced by Palestinians in Gaza began by speaking out at home, both at the workplace and at rallies in the Bay Area. When Rochios, who was allowed to travel to Gaza, was working in Rafah in April, she began to share what she was witnessing on television news for outlets such as Al Jazeera

    “While the West seems to not give any weight or validation to Palestinian reporters on the ground, these health care workers have become the journalists, the storytellers, all this information, and it became very clear to me to that it was my duty to try and be a voice to that,” she said.

    UCSF escalated its punishment against Rochios this week, moving her from a paid suspension to three days unpaid. She will be allowed to return to work for the first time since June on November 21, but was again ordered not to wear her keffiyeh or watermelon badge. If she continues to wear the items, the school said, she would be in violation of UCSF’s PRIDE policies and Principles of Community, which are among several codes meant to reinforce diversity and inclusion within the institution. She expects to be fired, given the climate of repression she and her colleagues have experienced at UCSF.

    Through conversations with colleagues in the OBGYN department at the nearby city-run San Francisco General Hospital, Rochios knows that this outcome is not the norm in her profession, even within the same city. Unlike at UCSF, the hospital workers have been able to display their support for Palestine, with some openly wearing sweatshirts that read “Healthcare workers for Palestine.” 

    “I’ve become such a pariah in this way within UCSF,” she said. “Whereas it exists without issue in a sister hospital in the same city.” 

    Correction: November 19, 2024, 11:23 a.m. ET
    This article originally referred to Rupa Marya as a lecturer at UCSF. She is a professor of medicine.

    The post San Francisco’s Biggest Hospital System: Don’t Talk About Palestine appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • LAST WEEK, police at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland arrested four students on felony vandalism charges in relation to protests against Israel’s war on Gaza. The students were transferred to the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, jail, a detention facility subject to calls for closure over inhumane conditions, abuse by jail staff, and the use of solitary confinement. All four students were released from jail over the weekend.

    The arrests are part of the long arm of the crackdowns on campus protests that started in the spring and kept pace this fall. School officials had described the spray paint as “antisemitic.”

    A local news clip shows a wall spray-painted with the names of Palestine, Sudan, Congo, and Haiti. A building entrance was also splashed with red paint, including handprints, with posted signs that say, “Your school funds genocide.”

    The protest and its aftermath came as Case Western was facing a federal civil rights complaint alleging bias against protesters and Palestinian students. On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Education opened a Title VI investigation at Case Western.

    The latest arrests were part of an expansive crackdown: The school spent more than $300,000 on public safety staffing, equipment, and remediation after tearing down protest encampments, including removing signs and painting over murals on a campus “spirit wall,” according to documents reviewed by The Intercept.  (The school said it could not comment on the criminal investigation.)

    Case Western issued notices of interim suspension or other warnings to students after protests in the spring and barred some graduating students from campus. Only one student, however, was suspended for the fall semester: Yousef Khalaf, president of the school’s undergraduate chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.

    Among seven violations referenced in the notices, Khalaf faces school disciplinary allegations for engaging in intimidating behavior, including using the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” He is barred from campus until the spring of 2026.

    Khalaf said he was treated differently than other protesters. His was the only case for which the school hired an outside firm, BakerHostetler, he said. He said SJP students have been contacted by school administrators for posting flyers or attending group events. (BakerHostetler and Case Western did not respond to a request for comment.)

    “They don’t treat any other club this way,” Khalaf said. “We see very clearly the ‘Palestine exception’ being applied here.”

    With Israel’s war on Gaza entering its second year, Khalaf is among thousands of students and faculty members still being targeted in universities’ battles over harsh protest crackdowns, free speech, academic independence, and discrimination.

    The fights are playing out online, in campus quads, internal disciplinary proceedings, and in the courts. Organizers among the students and faculty say universities are retaliating against them for their activism and restricting their civil liberties and freedom of expression while claiming to uphold both.

    “The university is threatening us with sanctions that could jeopardize our academic careers if we choose to speak out again.”

    As campus protests reached their height in May, Dahlia Saba, a second-year Palestinian American graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, wrote an op-ed supporting the demonstrators’ demands. She called on the school to address calls to divest from industries that profit from Israel’s war. She and her co-author Vignesh Ramachandran, another graduate student, were met with student nonacademic disciplinary investigations that relied solely on the op-ed for evidence.

    “The university is threatening us with sanctions that could jeopardize our academic careers if we choose to speak out again,” Saba said. “They’re low-level sanctions to begin with, but the university is pursuing sanctions against many people on very little evidence.”

    The issue is not so much the severity of the sanctions, Saba said, but using punishments to chill students’ speech. The disciplinary actions become a tool, she said, to help universities keep track of people involved in protests for Palestine.

    “They are basically trying to get any sort of sanction on people’s records,” Saba said, “so that if they speak up again, if they do anything that criticizes the university’s investment policy, or if they in any way speak out in support of Palestine or in solidarity with Palestine, that students could be scared that the university could bring further charges against them that could then enact harsher consequences.”

    Irvine, CA, Wednesday, May 15, 2024 - Police grab a protester as they move forward to break up a demonstration at UC Irvine. Scores of law enforcement personnel from various agencies move hundreds of demonstrating students, faculty and supporters protesting the treatment of Palestinians and the UC system's investments in Isreali interests. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
    Police grab a protester as they move forward to break up a demonstration at the University of California at Irvine, in Irvine, Calif., on May 15, 2024. Photo: Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    Last month, 13 police officers stormed the home of student organizers at the University of Pennsylvania to conduct a raid on suspicion of a month-old incident of vandalism in connection to Gaza protests. Pomona College unilaterally suspended 10 students for the remainder of the academic year for allegedly participating in protests for divestment.

    Schools across the country spent this summer preparing to preempt pro-Palestinian activism come fall. At a campus safety conference, more than 450 people working on the issue discussed, among other topics, “preparing for, responding to, and recovering from on-campus protests.”  

    That preparation was evident as schools readied themselves last month for protests planned around the October 7 anniversary. Ahead of planned walkouts and protests across New York City, administrators at Columbia University warned the community to prepare for potential violence. The night before the walkout, Columbia University Law School told professors to call campus police on protesters.

    Meanwhile, students and advocacy groups are pushing back on university administrators for their responses to protests and battling new policies governing protests and freedom of expression that they say show an anti-Palestinian bias.

    The crackdown on student protests has led to a raft of court cases and federal complaints. Students at the University of California, Irvine sued the school chancellor and regents in July, saying the school had suspended protesters without due process. The school is arguing that an upcoming December court date is unnecessary because the suspensions have ended, said attorney Thomas Harvey, who is representing students. 

    “The university and the state are using whatever tools they have to stop people from protesting war crimes and genocide paid for by tax dollars and invested in by their university,” Harvey said. “Their argument is effectively about the required decorum while protesting mass death and human suffering.”

    Last month, prosecutors charged at least 49 people, including Irvine students and faculty, with misdemeanors for failing to vacate encampments this spring. Arraignments will continue through mid-December, and cases that go to trial won’t do so until January or February.

    The San Diego City Attorney’s Office dismissed all charges against student protesters at University of California, San Diego earlier this month. Prosecutors in Irvine, however, have shown no indication that they’ll dismiss their charges, even amid pleas from Irvine Mayor Farrah N. Khan.

    Harvey, the students’ attorney, said the school is fearful of losing donors.

    “It’s to their benefit financially to publicly show that they are, in quotes, cracking down,” he said. Students and faculty are facing criminal charges and disciplinary conduct hearings from the school, including suspensions and probation, he said. “It’s just a climate of real crackdown on pro-Palestinian voices.” 

    Similar complaints alleging discrimination against protesters and Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students were filed against Case Western and Rutgers University in New Jersey, which is under a federal civil rights investigation. (I co-teach a class at Rutgers’s New Brunswick campus.)

    In September, the University of Maryland moved to cancel a protest organized by SJP and Jewish Voice for Peace after receiving complaints about the event. The group Palestine Legal and the Council on American-Islamic Relations then filed suit over the protest cancellation. (The school declined to comment and pointed to a statement from the university president.)

    Last month, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction to allow the demonstration to go ahead. The suit, which claims that the university violated students’ First Amendment rights by canceling the protest, is still pending in court.

    Shatha Shahin, a third-year law student at Case Western and the president of the law school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, said the university tried to make an example of Khalaf, the undergraduate SJP president.

    “There is definitely a hostility in the way they’ve treated and used Yousef as this mastermind for everything that went on behind the scenes for all the Palestine advocacy,” Shahin said.

    In August, Case Western began enforcing new rules governing speech and protest activity. Administrators prohibited encampments and the use of projected images, microphones, or bullhorns. Protests larger than 20 people now require approval from a committee.

    “They speak with Hillel, they talk to Hillel, but they won’t even talk to these kids.”

    “It’s very deliberate, and it’s very calculated,” said Maryam Assar, an Ohio attorney working with student protesters who is herself an alumnus of the School of Law at Case Western. “That’s why it’s really problematic that they’re going through all of these steps to silence them.”

    Assar said the contrast between the treatment of pro-Palestinian organizers and other groups was stark.

    “They speak with Hillel, they talk to Hillel,” she said, referring to the avowedly pro-Israel campus Jewish organization, “but they won’t even talk to these kids.”

    Students are protesting to reinstate the ''Students For Justice In Palestine'' group at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States, on December 14, 2023. The group was suspended by the Rutgers University-New Brunswick administration, and the protesters are demanding that the administration unsuspend the group. (Photo by Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto via AP)
    Students protest to reinstate Students for Justice in Palestine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., on Dec. 14, 2023. Photo: Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto via AP

    While some student protesters face retaliation from administrators, others say they’ve also faced discrimination on campus. A New Jersey man was charged in April with vandalizing the Center for Islamic Life at Rutgers University–New Brunswick on Eid al-Fitr. That same month, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the New Jersey chapter of CAIR filed a federal Title VI complaint against Rutgers alleging that the school had demonstrated a pattern of bias against Muslim and Arab students.

    In a statement to The Intercept, Megan Schumann, the head of public relations at Rutgers, said the school was fully cooperating with the civil rights investigation and that the university takes seriously every claim of bias.

    At the school’s protest encampment in May, a counterprotester was filmed hitting a pro-Palestine student. Schumann said Rutgers University Police Department charged the man with bias intimidation, harassment, and simple assault and that the case was pending in court.

    The school negotiated with students to disband campus encampments later that month. In December 2023, Rutgers–New Brunswick had suspended its chapter of SJP for a year. The club was reinstated in January, but in August, the school slapped SJP with another suspension that is expected to last until July 2025.

    “The professor clearly targeted students who were evidently Muslim and violated our personal space.”

    Rutgers students have also filed dozens of complaints of bias toward Arab and Muslim students from professors and other faculty. In November, student protesters disrupted a Rutgers event with Bruce Hoffman, a self-described Zionist who works as a counterterrorism expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. A group of four Muslim students wearing hijabs who were not part of the disruption said that, after they left the event, a professor approached them. According to the student and her friends, who confirmed the story, the professor filmed them, telling them to “smile” for the camera, and accused them of ruining the event.

    “She was pointing her finger in my face,” said the student, who, like her friends, asked for anonymity for fear of retaliation by the school. At least two of the students filed bias reports against the professor; a copy of one was provided to The Intercept. “The professor clearly targeted students who were evidently Muslim and violated our personal space while instigating this incident outside of the classroom which we had already left from,” she wrote. (Schumann, the Rutgers spokesperson, declined to comment on questions about specific allegations against faculty or staff.)

    “This is a falsified account of the events that occurred and printing these comments about me would not only be considered defamation, but also likely rise to the level of slander,” the professor said in a statement to The Intercept. They declined to comment further.

    The professor also filed a bias complaint against the students. While none of the students were found guilty of conduct violations as a result of the complaint, one was told that they were no longer eligible for a resident assistant position because of an outstanding complaint against them.

    Universities have demonstrated a willingness to cave to the demands of donors to try to control free speech among students. At Case Western, Assar, the Ohio attorney, suggested such pressure was brought to bear.

    “They’re really freaked out because donors are upset that this is happening,” Assar said of school administrators, “and they imagine that they can control these kids.”

    When pro-Palestine students at the University of Maryland began planning their October 7 anniversary protest, the school president and other administrators initially said they would protect the group’s right to hold the protest, said Abel Amene, a fourth-year student and a board member of the school’s SJP chapter who helped organize the protest. (He is also a member of the University of Maryland student government and an elected volunteer member of D.C’s Advisory Neighborhood Commission, but did not speak in either capacity.)

    “Then they began indicating that they were getting pressure through emails, through various Zionist organizations on campus and off campus, pressuring them to cancel our event,” he said.

    Shortly after expressing their support for free speech, administrators proceeded to cancel the event. They said there had been “overwhelming outreach” about the protest, even while acknowledging that it posed no threat.

    After the federal court order forced the school to allow the protest to proceed, Abel said, the school still took actions that restricted the demonstration. The grounds were staffed with police and non-police security, metal detectors installed, and a drone deployed over the event all day. Fencing put up by the university virtually cut the protest space in half. (In response to questions about the protest, Hafsa Siddiqi, the media relations manager for the university, pointed to an October 1 statement from school President Darryll Pines after the court ruled to let the protest proceed.)

    COLLEGE PARK, MD - NOVEMBER 9: Hundreds of University of Maryland students gather on Hornbake Plaza for a pro-Palestine walk-out and protest on Thursday, November 9, 2023. (Julia Nikhinson/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
    Hundreds of University of Maryland students gather for a pro-Palestine protest in College Park, Md., on Nov. 9, 2023. Photo: Julia Nikhinson/Washington Post via Getty Images

    The debacle over the protest showed the school’s bias against activists for Palestine, Abel said, and for pro-war forces, noting that University of Maryland touts its strategic partnerships with weapons manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

    “This is just part of a pattern we’ve seen,” he said, “where we are treated as threats and presumed to be a danger to students and a danger to the university.”

    The repression of pro-Palestine activism on campus started well before October 7, Assar pointed out — including at her own alma mater. When Assar was a law student in 2022, Case Western President Eric Kaler denounced a student government vote to divest from companies that harm Palestinians as “naive” and antisemitic.

    “He really created this atmosphere,” Assar said, “where speaking up in support of Palestinians and their right to be free from occupation or not have their homes stolen — he made that basically into, ‘You’re a problem if you speak up.’”

    Years earlier, in 2017, the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison condemned a vote by the student government to pass legislation calling on the school to divest from corporations involved in human rights violations, including in Israel.

    “We have seen the universities respond to these demands for more democratic institutions by reacting in exactly the opposite way.”

    “We have seen the universities respond to these demands for more democratic institutions by reacting in exactly the opposite way,” said Saba, the Madison graduate student, “by restricting the rights that students have on campus and by increasing how much they can punish students.”

    Saba said she’s felt alienated on campus as a Palestinian American student. The school used her membership in the school’s SJP chapter as a piece of evidence in the charges against her.

    “There’s been a sense on this campus for a long time that Palestinian voices are not supposed to be heard,” Saba said. “These disciplinary investigations, by punishing or penalizing students for having any affiliation with student groups that speak in solidarity with Palestinians, they’re essentially telling Palestinian students that they can’t find community on this campus.”

    “Because when the environment is so oppressive, when our institutions are invested in genocide, and when our taxpayer dollars are invested in genocide, the only rational response would be to try to organize against that. But these schools are criminalizing that organizing.”

    The post From Campus to the Courts, the “Palestine Exception” Rules University Crackdowns appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • LAST WEEK, police at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland arrested four students on felony vandalism charges in relation to protests against Israel’s war on Gaza. The students were transferred to the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, jail, a detention facility subject to calls for closure over inhumane conditions, abuse by jail staff, and the use of solitary confinement. All four students were released from jail over the weekend.

    The arrests are part of the long arm of the crackdowns on campus protests that started in the spring and kept pace this fall. School officials had described the spray paint as “antisemitic.”

    A local news clip shows a wall spray-painted with the names of Palestine, Sudan, Congo, and Haiti. A building entrance was also splashed with red paint, including handprints, with posted signs that say, “Your school funds genocide.”

    The protest and its aftermath came as Case Western was facing a federal civil rights complaint alleging bias against protesters and Palestinian students. On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Education opened a Title VI investigation at Case Western.

    The latest arrests were part of an expansive crackdown: The school spent more than $250,000 on public safety staffing, equipment, and remediation after tearing down protest encampments, including removing signs and painting over murals on a campus “spirit wall,” according to documents reviewed by The Intercept.  (The school said it could not comment on the criminal investigation.)

    Case Western issued notices of interim suspension or other warnings to students after protests in the spring and barred some graduating students from campus. Only one student, however, was suspended for the fall semester: Yousef Khalaf, president of the school’s undergraduate chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.

    Among seven violations referenced in the notices, Khalaf faces school disciplinary allegations for engaging in intimidating behavior, including using the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” He is barred from campus until the spring of 2026.

    Khalaf said he was treated differently than other protesters. His was the only case for which the school hired an outside firm, BakerHostetler, he said. He said SJP students have been contacted by school administrators for posting flyers or attending group events. (BakerHostetler and Case Western did not respond to a request for comment.)

    “They don’t treat any other club this way,” Khalaf said. “We see very clearly the ‘Palestine exception’ being applied here.”

    With Israel’s war on Gaza entering its second year, Khalaf is among thousands of students and faculty members still being targeted in universities’ battles over harsh protest crackdowns, free speech, academic independence, and discrimination.

    The fights are playing out online, in campus quads, internal disciplinary proceedings, and in the courts. Organizers among the students and faculty say universities are retaliating against them for their activism and restricting their civil liberties and freedom of expression while claiming to uphold both.

    “The university is threatening us with sanctions that could jeopardize our academic careers if we choose to speak out again.”

    As campus protests reached their height in May, Dahlia Saba, a second-year Palestinian American graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, wrote an op-ed supporting the demonstrators’ demands. She called on the school to address calls to divest from industries that profit from Israel’s war. She and her co-author Vignesh Ramachandran, another graduate student, were met with student nonacademic disciplinary investigations that relied solely on the op-ed for evidence.

    “The university is threatening us with sanctions that could jeopardize our academic careers if we choose to speak out again,” Saba said. “They’re low-level sanctions to begin with, but the university is pursuing sanctions against many people on very little evidence.”

    The issue is not so much the severity of the sanctions, Saba said, but using punishments to chill students’ speech. The disciplinary actions become a tool, she said, to help universities keep track of people involved in protests for Palestine.

    “They are basically trying to get any sort of sanction on people’s records,” Saba said, “so that if they speak up again, if they do anything that criticizes the university’s investment policy, or if they in any way speak out in support of Palestine or in solidarity with Palestine, that students could be scared that the university could bring further charges against them that could then enact harsher consequences.”

    Irvine, CA, Wednesday, May 15, 2024 - Police grab a protester as they move forward to break up a demonstration at UC Irvine. Scores of law enforcement personnel from various agencies move hundreds of demonstrating students, faculty and supporters protesting the treatment of Palestinians and the UC system's investments in Isreali interests. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
    Police grab a protester as they move forward to break up a demonstration at the University of California at Irvine, in Irvine, Calif., on May 15, 2024. Photo: Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    Last month, 13 police officers stormed the home of student organizers at the University of Pennsylvania to conduct a raid on suspicion of a month-old incident of vandalism in connection to Gaza protests. Pomona College unilaterally suspended 10 students for the remainder of the academic year for allegedly participating in protests for divestment.

    Schools across the country spent this summer preparing to preempt pro-Palestinian activism come fall. At a campus safety conference, more than 450 people working on the issue discussed, among other topics, “preparing for, responding to, and recovering from on-campus protests.”  

    That preparation was evident as schools readied themselves last month for protests planned around the October 7 anniversary. Ahead of planned walkouts and protests across New York City, administrators at Columbia University warned the community to prepare for potential violence. The night before the walkout, Columbia University Law School told professors to call campus police on protesters.

    Meanwhile, students and advocacy groups are pushing back on university administrators for their responses to protests and battling new policies governing protests and freedom of expression that they say show an anti-Palestinian bias.

    The crackdown on student protests has led to a raft of court cases and federal complaints. Students at the University of California, Irvine sued the school chancellor and regents in July, saying the school had suspended protesters without due process. The school is arguing that an upcoming December court date is unnecessary because the suspensions have ended, said attorney Thomas Harvey, who is representing students. 

    “The university and the state are using whatever tools they have to stop people from protesting war crimes and genocide paid for by tax dollars and invested in by their university,” Harvey said. “Their argument is effectively about the required decorum while protesting mass death and human suffering.”

    Last month, prosecutors charged at least 49 people, including Irvine students and faculty, with misdemeanors for failing to vacate encampments this spring. Arraignments will continue through mid-December, and cases that go to trial won’t do so until January or February.

    The San Diego City Attorney’s Office dismissed all charges against student protesters at University of California, San Diego earlier this month. Prosecutors in Irvine, however, have shown no indication that they’ll dismiss their charges, even amid pleas from Irvine Mayor Farrah N. Khan.

    Harvey, the students’ attorney, said the school is fearful of losing donors.

    “It’s to their benefit financially to publicly show that they are, in quotes, cracking down,” he said. Students and faculty are facing criminal charges and disciplinary conduct hearings from the school, including suspensions and probation, he said. “It’s just a climate of real crackdown on pro-Palestinian voices.” 

    Similar complaints alleging discrimination against protesters and Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students were filed against Case Western and Rutgers University in New Jersey, which is under a federal civil rights investigation. (I co-teach a class at Rutgers’s New Brunswick campus.)

    In September, the University of Maryland moved to cancel a protest organized by SJP and Jewish Voice for Peace after receiving complaints about the event. The group Palestine Legal and the Council on American-Islamic Relations then filed suit over the protest cancellation. (The school declined to comment and pointed to a statement from the university president.)

    Last month, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction to allow the demonstration to go ahead. The suit, which claims that the university violated students’ First Amendment rights by canceling the protest, is still pending in court.

    Shatha Shahin, a third-year law student at Case Western and the president of the law school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, said the university tried to make an example of Khalaf, the undergraduate SJP president.

    “There is definitely a hostility in the way they’ve treated and used Yousef as this mastermind for everything that went on behind the scenes for all the Palestine advocacy,” Shahin said.

    In August, Case Western began enforcing new rules governing speech and protest activity. Administrators prohibited encampments and the use of projected images, microphones, or bullhorns. Protests larger than 20 people now require approval from a committee.

    “They speak with Hillel, they talk to Hillel, but they won’t even talk to these kids.”

    “It’s very deliberate, and it’s very calculated,” said Maryam Assar, an Ohio attorney working with student protesters who is herself an alumnus of the School of Law at Case Western. “That’s why it’s really problematic that they’re going through all of these steps to silence them.”

    Assar said the contrast between the treatment of pro-Palestinian organizers and other groups was stark.

    “They speak with Hillel, they talk to Hillel,” she said, referring to the avowedly pro-Israel campus Jewish organization, “but they won’t even talk to these kids.”

    Students are protesting to reinstate the ''Students For Justice In Palestine'' group at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States, on December 14, 2023. The group was suspended by the Rutgers University-New Brunswick administration, and the protesters are demanding that the administration unsuspend the group. (Photo by Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto via AP)
    Students protest to reinstate Students for Justice in Palestine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., on Dec. 14, 2023. Photo: Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto via AP

    While some student protesters face retaliation from administrators, others say they’ve also faced discrimination on campus. A New Jersey man was charged in April with vandalizing the Center for Islamic Life at Rutgers University–New Brunswick on Eid al-Fitr. That same month, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the New Jersey chapter of CAIR filed a federal Title VI complaint against Rutgers alleging that the school had demonstrated a pattern of bias against Muslim and Arab students.

    In a statement to The Intercept, Megan Schumann, the head of public relations at Rutgers, said the school was fully cooperating with the civil rights investigation and that the university takes seriously every claim of bias.

    At the school’s protest encampment in May, a counterprotester was filmed hitting a pro-Palestine student. Schumann said Rutgers University Police Department charged the man with bias intimidation, harassment, and simple assault and that the case was pending in court.

    The school negotiated with students to disband campus encampments later that month. In December 2023, Rutgers–New Brunswick had suspended its chapter of SJP for a year. The club was reinstated in January, but in August, the school slapped SJP with another suspension that is expected to last until July 2025.

    “The professor clearly targeted students who were evidently Muslim and violated our personal space.”

    Rutgers students have also filed dozens of complaints of bias toward Arab and Muslim students from professors and other faculty. In November, student protesters disrupted a Rutgers event with Bruce Hoffman, a self-described Zionist who works as a counterterrorism expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. A group of four Muslim students wearing hijabs who were not part of the disruption said that, after they left the event, a professor approached them. According to the student and her friends, who confirmed the story, the professor filmed them, telling them to “smile” for the camera, and accused them of ruining the event.

    “She was pointing her finger in my face,” said the student, who, like her friends, asked for anonymity for fear of retaliation by the school. At least two of the students filed bias reports against the professor; a copy of one was provided to The Intercept. “The professor clearly targeted students who were evidently Muslim and violated our personal space while instigating this incident outside of the classroom which we had already left from,” she wrote. (Schumann, the Rutgers spokesperson, declined to comment on questions about specific allegations against faculty or staff.)

    “This is a falsified account of the events that occurred and printing these comments about me would not only be considered defamation, but also likely rise to the level of slander,” the professor said in a statement to The Intercept. They declined to comment further.

    The professor also filed a bias complaint against the students. While none of the students were found guilty of conduct violations as a result of the complaint, one was told that they were no longer eligible for a resident assistant position because of an outstanding complaint against them.

    Universities have demonstrated a willingness to cave to the demands of donors to try to control free speech among students. At Case Western, Assar, the Ohio attorney, suggested such pressure was brought to bear.

    “They’re really freaked out because donors are upset that this is happening,” Assar said of school administrators, “and they imagine that they can control these kids.”

    When pro-Palestine students at the University of Maryland began planning their October 7 anniversary protest, the school president and other administrators initially said they would protect the group’s right to hold the protest, said Abel Amene, a fourth-year student and a board member of the school’s SJP chapter who helped organize the protest. (He is also a member of the University of Maryland student government and an elected volunteer member of D.C’s Advisory Neighborhood Commission, but did not speak in either capacity.)

    “Then they began indicating that they were getting pressure through emails, through various Zionist organizations on campus and off campus, pressuring them to cancel our event,” he said.

    Shortly after expressing their support for free speech, administrators proceeded to cancel the event. They said there had been “overwhelming outreach” about the protest, even while acknowledging that it posed no threat.

    After the federal court order forced the school to allow the protest to proceed, Abel said, the school still took actions that restricted the demonstration. The grounds were staffed with police and non-police security, metal detectors installed, and a drone deployed over the event all day. Fencing put up by the university virtually cut the protest space in half. (In response to questions about the protest, Hafsa Siddiqi, the media relations manager for the university, pointed to an October 1 statement from school President Darryll Pines after the court ruled to let the protest proceed.)

    COLLEGE PARK, MD - NOVEMBER 9: Hundreds of University of Maryland students gather on Hornbake Plaza for a pro-Palestine walk-out and protest on Thursday, November 9, 2023. (Julia Nikhinson/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
    Hundreds of University of Maryland students gather for a pro-Palestine protest in College Park, Md., on Nov. 9, 2023. Photo: Julia Nikhinson/Washington Post via Getty Images

    The debacle over the protest showed the school’s bias against activists for Palestine, Abel said, and for pro-war forces, noting that University of Maryland touts its strategic partnerships with weapons manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

    “This is just part of a pattern we’ve seen,” he said, “where we are treated as threats and presumed to be a danger to students and a danger to the university.”

    The repression of pro-Palestine activism on campus started well before October 7, Assar pointed out — including at her own alma mater. When Assar was a law student in 2022, Case Western President Eric Kaler denounced a student government vote to divest from companies that harm Palestinians as “naive” and antisemitic.

    “He really created this atmosphere,” Assar said, “where speaking up in support of Palestinians and their right to be free from occupation or not have their homes stolen — he made that basically into, ‘You’re a problem if you speak up.’”

    Years earlier, in 2017, the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison condemned a vote by the student government to pass legislation calling on the school to divest from corporations involved in human rights violations, including in Israel.

    “We have seen the universities respond to these demands for more democratic institutions by reacting in exactly the opposite way.”

    “We have seen the universities respond to these demands for more democratic institutions by reacting in exactly the opposite way,” said Saba, the Madison graduate student, “by restricting the rights that students have on campus and by increasing how much they can punish students.”

    Saba said she’s felt alienated on campus as a Palestinian American student. The school used her membership in the school’s SJP chapter as a piece of evidence in the charges against her.

    “There’s been a sense on this campus for a long time that Palestinian voices are not supposed to be heard,” Saba said. “These disciplinary investigations, by punishing or penalizing students for having any affiliation with student groups that speak in solidarity with Palestinians, they’re essentially telling Palestinian students that they can’t find community on this campus.”

    “Because when the environment is so oppressive, when our institutions are invested in genocide, and when our taxpayer dollars are invested in genocide, the only rational response would be to try to organize against that. But these schools are criminalizing that organizing.”

    The post From Campus to the Courts, the “Palestine Exception” Rules University Crackdowns appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Yulia Skripal communicated from her bedside at Salisbury District Hospital on March 8, 2018, four days after she and her father Sergei Skripal collapsed from a poison attack, that the attacker used a spray; and that the attack took place when she and her father were eating at a restaurant just minutes before their collapse on a bench outside.

    The implication of the Skripal evidence, revealed for the first time on Thursday, is that the attack on the Skripals was not perpetrated by Russian military agents who were photographed elsewhere in Salisbury town at the time; that the attacker or attackers were British agents; and that if their weapon was a nerve agent called Novichok, it came, not from Moscow, but from the UK Ministry of Defence chemical warfare laboratory at Porton Down.

    Porton Down’s subsequent evidence of Novichok contamination in blood samples, clothing, car, and home of the Skripals may therefore be interpreted as British in source, not Russian.

    This evidence was revealed by a police witness testifying at the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry in London on November 14. The police officer, retired Detective Inspector Keith Asman was in 2018, and he remains today  the chief of forensics for the Counter Terrorism Policing (CTPSE) group which combines the Metropolitan and regional police forces with the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Security Service (MI5).

    According to Asman’s new disclosure, Yulia Skripal had woken from a coma and confirmed to the doctor at her bedside that she remembered the circumstances of the attack on March 4. What she remembered, she signalled,  was not (repeat not) the official British Government narrative that Russian agents had tried to kill them by poisoning the front door-handle of the family home.

    The new evidence was immediately dismissed by the Sturgess Inquiry lawyer assisting Anthony Hughes (titled Lord Hughes of Ombersley), the judge directing the Inquiry. “We see there,” the lawyer put to Asman as a leading question, “the suggestion, which we now know not to be right, of course”.   — page 72.

    Hughes then interrupted to tell the witness to disregard what Skripal had communicated. “If the record that you were given there is right, someone suggested to her ‘Had you been sprayed’. She didn’t come up with it herself.” — page 73. Hughes continued to direct the forensics chief to disregard the hearsay of Skripal. “Anyway the suggestion that she had been sprayed in the restaurant didn’t fit with your investigations?  A. [Asman] No, sir. LORD HUGHES:  Thank you.”

    So far in in the Inquiry which began public sessions on October 14, this is the first direct sign of suppression of evidence by Hughes.

    Hearsay, he indicates, should be disregarded if it comes from the target of attack, Yulia Skripal. However, hearsay from British Government officials, policemen, and chemical warfare agents at Porton Down must be accepted instead. Hughes has also banned Yulia and Sergei Skripal from testifying at the Inquiry.

    The lawyer appointed and paid by the Government to represent the Skripals in the inquiry hearings said nothing to acknowledge the new disclosure nor to challenge Hughes’s efforts to suppress it.

    Asman described his career and credentials in his witness statement to the Inquiry, dated October 23, 2024. His rank when he retired from the regular police forces in 2009 was detective inspector. He was then promoted to higher ranking posts at the operations coordinating group known as Counter Terrorism Policing for the Southeast Region (CTPSE). By 2018 Asman says he was “head of the National Counter Terrorism Forensics Working Group since 2012, and was the UK Counter Terrorism Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) forensic lead.” In June 2015 Asman was awarded the Order of the British Empire (MBE) “for services to Policing.”

    At page 19 of his recent witness statement, this is what Asman has recorded for the evening of March 8, 2018:

    Source: Dawn Sturgess Inquiry — page 19.

    Asman’s went on to claim in this statement: “At this point Yulia Skripal was described as being emotional and fell unconscious. I made notes of my conversation with DI [Detective Inspector] VN104 in one of my notebooks, and in addition this information was confirmed to me in writing the next morning. The information she provided about being sprayed at the restaurant [Zizzi] was seemingly inconsistent with the presence of novichok at the Mill public house and 47 Christie Miller Road. On hearing this, I personally wondered whether Yulia Skripal knew more about it than she had alluded to and therefore whilst being fully cognisant of the SIO’s [Senior Investigative Officer] hypothesis and the need to be open-minded continued to prioritise her property.”

    The Scene of the Novichol Crime

    Source: Dailymail.co.uk

    The Evidence the Crime Was British

    Left: Yulia Skripal in May 2018, the scar of forced intubation still visible; read more here. Centre; Dr Stephen Cockroft who recorded the exchange with Skripal at her bedside on March 8, 2018; that was followed, Cockroft has also testified, by forced sedation and tracheostomy – read more. Right: read the only book on the case evidence.  

    Open-minded was not what the judge and his lawyers wanted from Asman when he appeared in public for the first time on Thursday, November 14. Referring precisely to the excerpt of Skripal’s hospital evidence, Francesca Whitelaw KC for the Inquiry asked Asman: “We can take that [witness statement excerpt] down, but this information as well, was it consistent or inconsistent with what you  had found out in terms of forensic about the presence of  Novichok at The Mill and 47 Christie Miller Road?  A. [Asman] It, I would say, was inconsistent on the basis that she said she was sprayed in the restaurant.” — page 73.

    Asman was then asked by Whitelaw to comment on Yulia Skripal’s exchange with Cockroft. “My question for you is: how, if at all, this impacted on your investigations?  A. It only very slightly impacted on it…It was information to have but not necessarily going to change my approach on anything.” — page 73.

    In the Inquiry record  of hearings and exhibits since the commencement of the open sessions on October 14, there have been eleven separate exhibits of documents purporting to record what Yulia and Sergei Skripal have said; they include interviews with police and witness statements for the Inquiry; they are dated from April 2018 through October 2024. Most of them have been heavily redacted. None of them is signed by either Skripal.

    Neither Yulia nor Sergei Skripal has been asked by the police, by the Inquiry lawyers, or by Hughes to confirm or deny whether Yulia’s recollection of March 8, 2018, of the spray attack in Zizzi’s Restaurant is still their evidence of what happened to them.

    The post Yulia Skripal Reveals the Biggest Secret of All at Novichok Show Trial first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Democracy Now!

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

    We turn to Israel’s war on Gaza. A special UN committee has reported Israel’s actions in Gaza are “consistent with the characteristics of genocide”. Another report by Human Rights Watch finds Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity through its mass forced displacement of Gaza’s civilians.

    This comes as the Biden administration has decided to continue arming Israel, even though aid groups say Israel has failed to meet a US-imposed 30-day deadline to increase the flow of food and humanitarian aid into Gaza.

    We go now to Deir al-Balah in Gaza, where we’re joined by Arwa Damon, founder of INARA, a nonprofit currently providing medical and mental healthcare to children in Gaza. She previously spent 18 years at CNN, including time as a senior international correspondent.

    Thanks so much for being with us, Arwa. This is your fourth trip back to Gaza since October 7, 2023. Tell us what you see there:

    ARWA DAMON: You know, Amy, you think you can’t get worse, and then it does. You think people, quite simply, could never cope with these deteriorating conditions, and yet somehow they do. It’s a situation that they have been forced into.

    Arguably, the conditions when it comes to access of humanitarian organisations and our ability to distribute aid, aid actually getting into the strip, we’re talking about the lowest levels yet. And this is exactly during the timeframe that the US had given to Israel to actually improve the situation. We’ve seen it getting significantly worse.

    We’re not just talking about a shortage in things like flour, food, water, fresh vegetables, you know, hygiene kits. We’re also talking about shortages in what’s available on the commercial market. So, even if you somehow had money to be able to go buy what you need, it quite simply isn’t here.

    These hospitals that we keep talking about as being partially functioning, what does that actually mean? It means that if you show up bleeding, someone inside is going to try to stop the bleed, but do they actually have what they need to save your life? No. I was inside visiting some kids here at Al-Aqsa earlier today and over the weekend.

    There’s a little 2-year-old boy here whose brain you can see pulsing through his skin. His skull bone was removed. This little boy was not stabilising properly because the ICU was missing a pediatric-sized tracheostomy tube. Now, luckily, we were able to, you know, source some of them, and he has now stabilised, and he is off the ventilator.


    Palestinians feel they are being ‘slowly exterminated’. Video: Democracy Now!

    But this really gives you an idea of just how serious the situation here is.

    People are gathering to demonstrate for things like flour, for bread, for whatever it is that you can imagine. Winter is coming. The rains are coming. This means flooding is coming.

    And on top of just, you know, water flooding, we’re also anticipating that the sewage sites are going to be flooding, as well. Aid organizations need to be able to have the capacity and the ability to, you know, shift those sites to areas where they’re not going to pose even more of a health hazard to the community.

    So, I mean, it’s a complete and total nightmare. It’s beyond being a nightmare.

    AMY GOODMAN: If you can talk about this latest report? The special UN committee says Israel’s actions in Gaza are “consistent with the characteristics of genocide,” coming at the same time as a Human Rights Watch report, and UNRWA talks about famine being imminent in northern Gaza.

    ARWA DAMON: So, if we’re talking specifically about the north, the northern province of Gaza, this is an area where Israel launched its military operation there nearly four weeks ago. We have seen people repeatedly being forcibly displaced from their homes. There is very little access to medical assistance there.

    There has been absolutely no humanitarian assistance delivered there for about the last month. People are starving. They are dying. And it’s not just bombs that are killing people, it’s also disease.

    ‘Bombs kill quickly, but disease and starvation, they are slow killers. And that is what a lot of people are facing here.’

    — Arwa Damon, founder of INARA,

    So, when we look at the nature of what is happening in Gaza, you can’t spend a day here, Amy, and not come away with the notion that you are witnessing a population that is being slowly exterminated. And I say “slowly” because, yes, bombs kill quickly, but disease and starvation, they are slow killers. And that is what a lot of people are facing here.

    And talk to anybody in Gaza, and there’s absolutely no doubt in their mind that, one, they are living through their own annihilation, and, two, what Israel is doing in the northern part is going to be repeated elsewhere.

    And this is also part of why you see a reluctance among the population to want to evacuate, because Gazans know, Palestinians know that when they leave, they’re not going to be able to go back home. This is what history has taught them.

    And there is this very real, ingrained fear among the population here right now that what they’re going through at this moment is not the end. There is actually a real sense that the worst is yet to come.

    And they feel completely and totally abandoned by the international community, by global leaders, not to mention the United States. And everyone is convinced that right now Israel is going to have even more free rein to do whatever it is that it wants here.

    When you talk to people about what it is that they’re going through, they do feel as if every single aspect of trying to survive here has been carefully orchestrated by Israel so that it is able to sort of meet America’s bare minimum of standards, to allow America sufficient cover to say, “Oh, no, there’s improvement that’s happening.”

    And yet, actually, at the core of it is just another way to continue to kill the population.

    AMY GOODMAN: And as you talk about the United States, which has given tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, they did recently set a 30-day deadline to increase the flow of food and humanitarian aid into Gaza, but the US has decided to keep arming Israel despite this and despite the number of officials in the State Department and other parts of the US government who have quit over this.

    ARWA DAMON: Yeah, and let’s just look at the numbers. Let’s just look at what happened when the US started the clock for that 30-day deadline to improve humanitarian assistance. We saw, very shortly afterwards, the number of trucks accessing Gaza dip significantly, down to 30 a day, keeping in mind that one of the key demands that the US had was that aid be increased to at least 350 trucks.

    So we saw this, you know, decrease consistent of roughly 30 trucks a day for most of the month of October. Now, in November, that number did go up to around 60-70, but we’re still talking about, you know, falling extraordinarily short, providing barely 20% of what it is that the population here needs.

    We saw less access to these besieged areas in the north, where people are effectively trapped or having to basically risk their lives. We’ve had numerous instances where aid has been delivered to the Kamal Adwan Hospital in the north, for example, where, shortly after medical evacuation teams have arrived there, there have been strikes.

    You have this very ingrained fear that exists among people right now, especially in the north, where some of them are saying, “Don’t deliver anything, because right after you’re delivering, strikes are happening.”

    And just to illustrate how it is that we try to move, so if we’re moving from south to north, for example, or even if we’re moving within the northern areas, those movement requests have to be approved by Israel. And aid organisations are increasingly wary of moving around with what we call soft-skin cars, which is basically your normal vehicle that we use to move around in, because of the increasing frequency of instances at Israeli checkpoints where aid convoys have been shot at by IDF troops after receiving the green light.

    The OK to cross through, which means that for a lot of aid organizations, movement is limited to those who have access to armoured vehicles, vehicles that are more secure. And those don’t really exist in Gaza in high numbers at all. And we’re not allowed to bring in more to sort of beef up our capacity to be able to move around safely.

    I mean, no matter which way you look at it, Amy, you’re constantly faced by numerous obstacles that don’t need to be there. It feels very deliberate, not to mention the complete and total breakdown of security. Now we have numerous looting instances of aid trucks.

    We’ve repeatedly asked the Israeli side to be able to use alternative routes, to be able to use secured routes. Those requests are not being met.

    I mean, it’s just — it’s such an impossible situation to operate in. I feel like I keep saying the same thing over and over and over again each time I come in. And the words to demonstrate how much worse it’s getting, quite simply, lack in our vocabulary.

    AMY GOODMAN: You also wrote a piece recently, “The Devastation of Lebanon,” for New Lines. And we had this headline, The Washington Post reporting a close aide to Netanyahu told Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner that Israel is rushing to advance a ceasefire deal in Lebanon as a gift to Trump ahead of his January inauguration. Your response to the significance of Trump’s election and what it means to the people of Lebanon and Gaza?

    ARWA DAMON: You know, first of all, anyone who lives in the Middle East and anyone who’s kind of been focusing on the Middle East knows very well that it really doesn’t matter who’s in the White House. Whether it’s Republican or Democrat, that really is not going to change significantly US policy towards this region.

    But the thing that we’ve been hearing, specifically when it comes to the re-election of Donald Trump, is at least he’s not lying to us. At least whatever America is going to let Israel do, it’s going to be done faster. So, if our end is coming, at least it’s going to come faster.

    Whereas when it comes to, you know, specifically the Biden administration, the sense is that the Democrats are far more willing to allow this slower, more painful death. But the end result, no matter who it is, people are fully convinced, is exactly the same.

    And all people really want right now is for this to end. People are suffocated. They’re crushed. They cannot keep going like this. And they very much feel as if, you know, no matter what it is, no matter who it is, Arabs are viewed by the United States and by the Western world as somehow being less than . . . their lives are not that valuable.

    You constantly hear people in Gaza — and we were hearing the same thing in Lebanon — making comments like, “Well, you know, America, it doesn’t care if we live or die. It doesn’t care how much we suffer. Our lives don’t matter to them.” And that is not really a perspective that changes all that much, no matter who is sitting in Washington.

    AMY GOODMAN: We just have 30 seconds, Arwa. Why did you give up journalism for humanitarian work? What do you think you can accomplish at INARA that you couldn’t do as a journalist?

    ARWA DAMON: There’s a certain sort of privilege of being able to spend extensive periods of time with people and really get to know who they are. And I feel as if, you know, moving around in the humanitarian sphere, I’m getting a different understanding of sort of people’s emotional journeys, what it actually takes to be able to provide them with assistance.

    And it’s provided me a different way of being able to continue to sort of share people’s stories and experiences, but also be able to immediately at least try to provide assistance. You know, the challenge that we have when we’re out in the field as journalists is that you don’t always see the impact.

    But when you’re in the humanitarian space, there’s a certain kind of magic when you’re able to just bring a smile to a child’s face. And I needed that.

    AMY GOODMAN: Arwa Damon, we thank you so much for being with us. Stay safe. An award-winning journalist, she was with CNN for 18 years but now has founded INARA, a nonprofit currently providing medical and mental healthcare to children in Gaza, speaking to us from Deir al-Balah in Gaza outside Al-Aqsa Hospital.

    This article is republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Orange-Osceola State Attorney Monique Worrell ends her press conference with a raised fist outside her former office in the Orange County Courthouse complex on Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2023. (Ricardo Ramirez Buxeda/ Orlando Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)
    Monique Worrell, who won reelection on Nov. 5 after being suspended from her state attorney position by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in August 2023, stands outside her former office in the Orange County Courthouse complex in Orlando, Fla., on Aug. 9, 2023. Photo: Ricardo Ramirez Buxeda/Orlando Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

    Imagine having so much money that you can promise million-dollar bribes to people who’d sign a petition “supporting” the First and Second Amendments. Well, billionaire Elon Musk actually did, flexing his considerable wealth to influence the election.

    Now imagine how strong a movement needs to be to defeat political forces with that level of power and funding.

    In March, Musk, who owns Tesla and supported Donald Trump, poured nearly $700,000 into an under-the-radar election in Austin, Texas. The money funded ads targeting the city’s district attorney, José Garza. A former public defender, Garza has implemented a slate of reform-minded policies like investing in gun violence prevention, expunging the records of people arrested for crimes but not convicted of them, and increasing funding for substance abuse programs.

    The Musk-funded ads were shameless in their fearmongering.

    One featured a bloody teddy bear with the caption: “José Garza is filling Austin’s streets with pedophiles and killers. The next victim could be your loved one.”

    Musk alone outspent the incumbent district attorney 3-to-1, but Garza handily won the primary, receiving 66 percent of the vote.

    No Crumbling Movement

    While it would be easy to depict Garza’s victory as a notable upset against powerful political forces, the win would be better thought of as the continued success of the criminal justice reform movement, a movement whose victories in recent years outnumber its losses.

    Reports of the death of the criminal justice reform movement, in other words, are greatly exaggerated.

    Garza’s win would be better thought of as the continued success of the criminal justice reform movement.

    There have been setbacks. Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón suffered a recent high-profile loss.

    Losses like Gascón, however, should not overshadow wins like that of Columbus, Ohio, District Attorney Shayla Favor, who opposes the death penalty and intends to eliminate cash bail. Or the reelection of Florida State Attorney Monique Worrell, who supports greater police accountability and is reclaiming her office after being removed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Or the victory of Savannah, Georgia, District Attorney Shalena Cook Jones, who started a unit examining wrongful convictions and invested in alternatives to prison.

    This is not the profile of a crumbling movement. These are elected prosecutors across the map winning races by implementing and then running on reform-minded policies.

    Reform Works

    The reason that deep pockets cannot defeat criminal justice reform is simple: The alternative just doesn’t work. People are beginning to realize we can’t incarcerate our way to safety.

    Treating prison as the only solution to crime has given us the highest incarceration rate of any democracy on earth and a system in which three out of four prisoners are rearrested within five years of release.

    Though it’s only been a decade since the criminal justice reform movement really picked up steam following the murder of teenager Michael Brown, our country has elected a record number of district attorneys who promise to shrink the size of the prison system and invest in measures that treat poverty, addiction, and trauma — the true root causes of most crimes.

    Unlike rote incarceration, these reforms are achieving what should be the primary goals of the criminal justice system: improving safety and decreasing recidivism.

    Research from the Vera Institute showed that, when compared to prison sentences, programs that divert defendants away from jail and into therapy or rehabilitation can, over a decade, cut reoffending rates in half and grow employment rates by nearly 50 percent. And New York University researchers found that defendants who were arrested, but not prosecuted, for low-level nonviolent offenses were 58 percent less likely to reoffend than defendants who were prosecuted.

    Decades ago, virtually all elected prosecutors were “law-and-order” candidates, and anything else would have been unthinkable. But times are changing — and our approach to criminal justice must evolve too.

    It’s naive to assume that the criminal justice reform movement will not hit speed bumps. Gascón, the high-profile LA district attorney who refused to charge minors as adults or pursue the death penalty, just lost his primary — by a lot.

    The reasons for Gascón’s loss were not unique. He was unable to overcome the right’s tried-and-true strategy of playing on people’s fears about crime. Someone or something will always serve as the bogeyman that scares people into relying on prison as the only solution for crime.

    Long Arc

    Make no mistake, people have legitimate fears about their safety. And they are frustrated when the government seems unable to address visible signs of disorder like homelessness, substance abuse, or, in some places, retail theft.

    It is no coincidence that the movement suffered losses in places where these issues were conspicuous; Los Angeles; San Francisco; and Portland, Oregon, are prime examples.

    We have centuries of evidence, however, showing that prison is not an effective tool for addressing these issues — or crime in general. A shift is underway, but the movement will need time and resources to expand people’s imagination of what is possible.

    In the same way that one loss in a playoff series does not doom a team, Gascón’s loss or other losses that may follow does not mean that the movement is crumbling. In fact, it is forcing conservative candidates to acknowledge and adopt reforms.

    Even Gascón’s law-and-order opponent, Nathan Hochman, a former prosecutor who won the primary, promised to increase access to rehabilitation and publicly stated that not all crimes deserve jail time.

    We should expect to see Musk and others like him throw money at future races where criminal justice reform is on the ballot. That’s why we need to continue to support, fight for, and invest in criminal justice reform.

    In the words of José Garza, the district attorney who bested Musk: “It’s going to take what it always takes, which is people organizing. It’s going to take consistency.”

    The post Elon Musk Quietly Tried to Oust a Reform DA. Here’s Why He Failed. appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • RNZ News

    A former New Zealand prime minister, Dame Jenny Shipley, has warned the ACT Party is “inviting civil war” with its attempt to define the principles of the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi in law.

    The party’s controversial Treaty Principles Bill passed its first reading in Parliament on Thursday, voted for by ruling coalition members ACT, New Zealand First and National.

    National has said its MPs will vote against it at the second reading, after only backing it through the first as part of the coalition agreement with ACT.

    Voting on the bill was interrupted when Te Pāti Māori’s Hauraki Waikato MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke tore up a copy of the bill and launched into a haka, inspiring other opposition MPs and members of the public gallery to join in.

    Dame Jenny, who led the National Party from 1997 until 2001 and was prime minister for two of those years, threw her support behind Maipi-Clarke.

    “The Treaty, when it’s come under pressure from either side, our voices have been raised,” she told RNZ’s Saturday Morning.

    “I was young enough to remember Bastion Point, and look, the Treaty has helped us navigate. When people have had to raise their voice, it’s brought us back to what it’s been — an enduring relationship where people then try to find their way forward.

    “And I thought the voices of this week were completely and utterly appropriate, and whether they breach standing orders, I’ll put that aside.

    “The voice of Māori, that reminds us that this was an agreement, a contract — and you do not rip up a contract and then just say, ‘Well, I’m happy to rewrite it on my terms, but you don’t count.’

    Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipa-Clarke led a haka in Parliament after the first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill
    Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipa-Clarke led a haka in Parliament and tore up a copy of the Treaty Principles Bill at the first reading in Parliament on Thursday . . . . a haka is traditionally used as an indigenous show of challenge, support or sorrow. Image: RNZ/Samuel Rillstone

    “I would raise my voice. I’m proud that the National Party has said they will not be supporting this, because you cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth.

    “And I think any voice that’s raised, and there are many people — pākeha and Māori who are not necessarily on this hikoi — who believe that a relationship is something you keep working at. You don’t just throw it in the bin and then try and rewrite it as it suits you.”

    Her comments come after Prime Minister Christopher Luxon called the bill “simplistic” and “unhelpful”, and former Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson — who negotiated more settlements than any other — said letting it pass its first reading would do “great damage” to National’s relationship with Māori.


    The Treaty Principles Bill reading vote.    Video: RNZ News

    Dame Jenny said past attempts to codify Treaty principles in law had failed.

    “While there have been principles leaked into individual statutes, we have never attempted to — in a formal sense — put principles in or over top of the Treaty as a collective. And I caution New Zealand — the minute you put the Treaty into a political framework in its totality, you are inviting civil war.

    “I would fight against it. Māori have every reason to fight against it.

    “This is a relationship we committed to where we would try and find a way to govern forward. We would respect each other’s land and interests rights, and we would try and be citizens together — and actually, we are making outstanding progress, and this sort of malicious, politically motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to politicise the Treaty in a new way should raise people’s voices, because it is not in New Zealand’s immediate interest.

    “And you people should be careful what they wish for. If people polarise, we will finish up in a dangerous position. The Treaty is a gift to us to invite us to work together. And look, we’ve been highly successful in doing that, despite the odd ruction on the way.”

    She said New Zealand could be proud of the redress it had made to Māori, “where we accepted we had just made a terrible mess on stolen land and misused the undertakings of the Treaty, and we as a people have tried to put that right”.

    “I just despise people who want to use a treasure — which is what the Treaty is to me — and use it as a political tool that drives people to the left or the right, as opposed to inform us from our history and let it deliver a future that is actually who we are as New Zealanders . . .  I condemn David Seymour for his using this, asking the public for money to fuel a campaign that I think really is going to divide New Zealand in a way that I haven’t lived through in my adult life. There’s been flashpoints, but I view this incredibly seriously.”

    ‘Equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights’
    In response, David Seymour said the bill actually sought to “solve” the problem of “treating New Zealanders based on their ethnicity”.

    “Te Pāti Māori acted in complete disregard for the democratic system of which they are a part during the first reading of the bill, causing disruption, and leading to suspension of the House.

    “The Treaty Principles Bill commits to protecting the rights of everyone, including Māori, and upholding Treaty settlements. It commits to give equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights to every single New Zealander.

    “The challenge for people who oppose this bill is to explain why they are so opposed to those basic principles.”

    On Thursday, following the passing of the bill’s first reading, he said he was looking forward to seeing what New Zealanders had to say about it during the six-month select committee process.

    “The select committee process will finally democratise the debate over the Treaty which has until this point been dominated by a small number of judges, senior public servants, academics, and politicians.

    “Parliament introduced the concept of the Treaty principles into law in 1975 but did not define them. As a result, the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have been able to develop principles that have been used to justify actions that are contrary to the principle of equal rights. Those actions include co-governance in the delivery of public services, ethnic quotas in public institutions, and consultation based on background.

    “The principles of the Treaty are not going away. Either Parliament can define them, or the courts will continue to meddle in this area of critical political and constitutional importance.

    “The purpose of the Treaty Principles Bill is for Parliament to define the principles of the Treaty, provide certainty and clarity, and promote a national conversation about their place in our constitutional arrangements.”

    He said the bill in no way would alter or amend the Treaty itself.

    “I believe all New Zealanders deserve tino rangatiratanga — the right to self-determination. That all human beings are alike in dignity. The Treaty Principles Bill would give all New Zealanders equality before the law, so that we can go forward as one people with one set of rights.”

    The Hīkoi today was in Hastings, on its way to Wellington, where it is expected to arrive on Monday.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Extinction Rebellion activists ‘The Worley Three’ have been given 320 hours of community service today for causing £6,000 in “damages” for their peaceful protest at the offices of multinational corporation Worley – involved in the controversial, planet-wrecking EACOP project.

    EACOP: not as bad as some fake oil and chalk spray – if you’re the judiciary

    The action involved decorating Worley’s Brentford offices with washable fake oil and chalk spray to spotlight the petroengineering company’s key role in constructing the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), a project widely condemned for its devastating environmental and social impacts, and to demand the company sever its ties to the pipeline.

    The sentencing comes on the day that senior figures in the UN climate talks publish an open letter saying that the COP process is no longer fit for purpose and two days after 15 university students in Uganda were remanded to a maximum security prison for peacefully protesting the pipeline outside the Ugandan Parliament.

    Some of them were forced to appear shirtless in front of the magistrate, having lost access to their belongings. Another 20 peaceful Ugandan Stop EACOP demonstrators had their trial adjourned this week to 26 November, in what Human Rights Watch reports is an ongoing crackdown against the project’s critics by the Ugandan government. Meanwhile the beleaguered project has run into fresh funding challenges.

    Sarah Hart, Tom Maidment, and Danielle McHallam were found guilty on 3 October after a chaotic jury trial at Isleworth Crown Court which left the defendants with little opportunity to properly prepare a defence.

    Not fit for purpose

    On the second day of the trial, Judge Hannah Duncan ruled out all defences. The judge then allowed the defendants to speak for ten minutes each before she brought back in the defence of ‘belief in consent’ the following morning.

    Even before any construction has taken place EACOP has been responsible for gross human rights abuses. If it was ever built and operational it would be complicit in locking in irreversible climate change.

    Marijn van de Geer, former company director from West London, and a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion said:

    Our legal system is clearly not fit for purpose if it thinks washable paint is more damaging than the displacement of 100,000 people and locking-in irreversible climate change.

    Defendant Sarah Hart, mother of two, aged 42 of Farnborough said:

    We stand in solidarity with the students who have been unjustly imprisoned this week. We undertook this action in support of the affected communities of East Africa who have suffered intimidation, arrest and police brutality for standing up for their rights to land and clean water and a liveable climate. And also because the climate change it would cause threatens us all.

    The temporary damage we caused stands as nothing in comparison to the widespread and irreparable harm this project has already caused to local communities. Worley is complicit in these crimes. Why are the directors and shareholders of Worley not in the dock?

    EACOP: a disaster in the making

    In 2023 Human Rights Watch reported that tens of thousands of people have already lost their lands and livelihoods in preparation for the project. If the pipeline is ever completed, that number will rise to over 100,000 people across East Africa.

    The European Union voted in a special resolution that condemned EACOP for its human rights abuses in Uganda and Tanzania, abuses that included death threats, intimidation and wrongful imprisonment.

    The East African Crude Oil Pipeline, if completed, would increase global CO2 emissions by 379 million tonnes CO2e over its lifetime [8], making our Paris Agreement targets unachievable and making it likely we will pass critical tipping points in the climate system. As UN General Secretary, António Guterres said in 2022 “Investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure is moral and economic madness”.

    Extinction Rebellion will continue to push back

    Former government lawyer Tim Crosland of Defend Our Juries said:

    Finally today there’s high level recognition of what has been obvious for years – the intergovernmental COP process, the formal mechanism for preventing climate catastrophe is failing and unfit for purpose. In the meantime people are being criminalised and penalised simply for refusing to accept death and disaster for themselves and the people they love.

    How do the responsible judges feel about the abuse of the legal system to protect those causing the destruction and to repress those who resist it? Sure, they are ‘just doing their jobs’ and ‘following orders’. But at some level they must know they embody what Hannah Arendt termed ‘the banality of evil.

    Stop EACOP Coalition Campaign Coordinator, Zaki Mamdoo, said:

    We salute and applaud all the brave defenders who continue to challenge those who are driving our collective destruction and the exploitation and displacement of our communities. The criminalisation of activists fighting for the rights and freedoms of oppressed people across the globe is testament to the fact that the political elite remains married to global capital and continues to serve its interests dutifully. We extend our undying solidarity to the brave StopEACOP activists unjustly sentenced today.

    Widespread opposition to EACOP has caused repeated delays and investment uncertainties since the project was initially proposed in 2013. EACOP was designed to transport Uganda’s oil reserves through Tanzania for export to the world market but under pressure from campaigners, 27 commercial banks and 29 major insurance companies have ruled out involvement in the project. As of now no building work has taken place.

    Earlier this month, Extinction Rebellion targeted EACOP insurers Marsh McLennan as part of its Insure Our Survival week of action.

    Featured image via Extinction Rebellion

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ANALYSIS: By Alexander Gillespie, University of Waikato and Claire Breen, University of Waikato

    With the protest hīkoi from the Far North moving through Rotorua on its way to Wellington, it might be said ACT leader David Seymour has been granted his wish of generating an “important national conversation about the place of the Treaty in our constitutional arrangements”.

    Timed to coincide with the first reading of the contentious Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill yesterday — it passed with a vote of 68-55, the hīkoi and other similar protests are a response to what many perceive as a fundamental threat to New Zealand’s fragile constitutional framework.

    With no upper house, nor a written constitution, important laws can be fast-tracked or repealed by a simple majority of Parliament.

    As constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer has argued about the current government’s legislative style and speed, the country “is in danger of lurching towards constitutional impropriety”.

    Central to this ever-shifting and contested political ground is te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. For decades it has been woven into the laws of the land in an effort to redress colonial wrongs and guarantee a degree of fairness and equity for Māori.

    There is a significant risk the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would undermine these achievements, as it attempts to negate recognised rights within the original document and curtail its application in a modern setting.

    But while the bill is almost guaranteed to fail because of the other coalition parties’ refusal to support it beyond the select committee, there is another danger. Contained in an explanatory note within the bill is the following clause:

    The Bill will come into force if a majority of electors voting in a referendum support it. The Bill will come into force 6 months after the date on which the official result of that referendum is declared.

    Were David Seymour to argue his bill has been thwarted by the standard legislative process and must be advanced by a referendum, the consequences for social cohesion could be significant.

    The referendum option
    While the bill would still need to become law for the referendum to take place, the option of putting it to the wider population — either as a condition of a future coalition agreement or orchestrated via a citizens-initiated referendum — should not be discounted.

    One recent poll showed roughly equal support for and against a referendum on the subject, with around 30 percent undecided. And Seymour has had success in the past with his End of Life Choice Act referendum in 2020.

    He will also have watched the recent example of Australia’s Voice referendum, which aimed to give a non-binding parliamentary voice to Indigenous communities but failed after a heated and divisive public debate.

    The lobby group Hobson’s Pledge, which opposes affirmative action for Māori and is led by former ACT politician Don Brash, has already signalled its intention to push for a citizens-initiated referendum, arguing: “We need to deliver the kind of message that the Voice referendum in Australia delivered.”

    The Treaty and the constitution
    ACT’s bill is not the first such attempt. In 2006, the NZ First Party — then part of a Labour-led coalition government — introduced the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill.

    That bill failed, but the essential argument behind it was that entrenching Treaty principles in law was “undermining race relations in New Zealand”. However, ACT’s current bill does not seek to delete those principles, but rather to define and restrain them in law.

    This would effectively begin to unpick decades of careful legislative work, threaded together from the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, the Treaty settlements process, the courts and Parliament.

    As such, in mid-August the Tribunal found the first iteration of ACT’s bill

    would reduce the constitutional status of the Treaty/te Tiriti, remove its effect in law as currently recognised in Treaty clauses, limit Māori rights and Crown obligations, hinder Māori access to justice, impact Treaty settlements, and undermine social cohesion.

    In early November, the Tribunal added:

    If this Bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti in modern times. If the Bill remained on the statute book for a considerable time or was never repealed, it could mean the end of the Treaty/te Tiriti.

    Social cohesion at risk
    Similar concerns have been raised by the Ministry of Justice in its advice to the government. In particular, the ministry noted the proposal in the bill may negate the rights articulated in Article II of the Treaty, which affirms the continuing exercise of tino rangatiratanga (self-determination):

    Any law which fails to recognise the collective rights given by Article II calls into question the very purpose of the Treaty and its status in our constitutional arrangements.

    The government has also been advised by the Ministry of Justice that the bill may lead to discriminatory outcomes inconsistent with New Zealand’s international legal obligations to eliminate discrimination and implement the rights of Indigenous peoples.

    All of these issues will become heightened if a referendum, essentially about the the removal of rights guaranteed to Māori in 1840, is put to the vote.

    Of course, citizens-initiated referendums are not binding on a government, but they carry much politically persuasive power nonetheless. And this is not to argue against their usefulness, even on difficult issues.

    But the profound constitutional and wider democratic implications of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, and any potential referendum on it, should give everyone pause for thought at this pivotal moment.The Conversation

    Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law, University of Waikato and Claire Breen is professor of Law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • In a powerful move to support older victims of abuse and drive legislative reform, Hourglass has announced its backing of the Willie’s Law campaign in Scotland as part of Safer Ageing Week.

    Willie’s Law: a much-needed change in legislation

    Hourglass, the only UK-wide charity focused on ending the abuse of older people, has partnered with the Johnston family on this vital campaign – named in memory of Willie Johnston. Willie was a Scottish farmer whose tragic experience highlights the need for stronger protections for older individuals at risk of abuse.

    The main thrust of the Willie’s Law campaign focuses on capacity. In Scotland a legal professional can make the sole decision as to someone’s capacity to sign an important and legally binding document without the co-signature of a medical professional. This vital safeguard would ensure that the individual is able to fully consent to the process.

    Perth farmer Willie Johnston was a victim of this legal issue.

    He was terminally ill in hospital in January 2020 and signed over a substantial life insurance policy to his business partner along with documents that devalued his estate costing him hundreds of thousands of pounds. The true cost to Willie’s estate is not yet known. Although his daughters have campaigned for a change in the law, they are still facing barriers and Hourglass is seeking to support their mission.

    Hourglass amplifying the message

    Willie’s Law aims to push for comprehensive changes in Scotland’s adult safeguarding laws, advocating for more rigorous safeguards, better reporting systems, and dedicated resources to prevent abuse. Through this initiative, the campaign seeks to ensure that all older people in Scotland live free from the threat of abuse, harm or exploitation.

    To further amplify this mission, Hourglass have hosted a webinar featuring Willie Johnston’s daughters, Laura Johnston-Brand and Karen Lee, who explain the background to the need for Willie’s Law and why it could not only protect vulnerable people but also add a layer of protection to legal professionals involved in similarly sensitive cases. They also share personal insights into their father’s story and the lasting impact it has had on their lives.

    Laura Johnston-Brand, one of Willie’s daughters said:

    Willie’s Law will provide a level of protection that vulnerable people of Scotland don’t have. Ensuring that medical and legal support work together in a person centred way will ensure vulnerable people’s wishes are carried out while safeguarding them from abuse and coercion.

    We are delighted to be working with Hourglass to see safer ageing in Scotland and to protect Scotland’s vulnerable people. We will all be vulnerable one day and this will protect us all.

    Safer Ageing Week and Willie’s Law

    Veronica Gray, deputy CEO and policy director at Hourglass said of Willie’s Law:

    In our recent manifesto Hourglass asked the government at Holyrood to introduce Willie’s Law and an economic abuse strategy which would require a medical professional to co-sign legal documents of vulnerable people to prove they have legal capacity.

    Hourglass is proud to support Willie’s Law as part of Safer Ageing Week and to give a voice to victims and their families. Our hope is that through this campaign, we can bring about meaningful, lasting change for older people in Scotland.

    The webinar is available below and includes discussions on the current gaps in protection laws, personal accounts, and ways to support the Willie’s Law campaign:

    For more information on the Willie’s Law campaign or to support Hourglass’s efforts in preventing the abuse of older people, please visit www.wearehourglass.org. There is also an opportunity to sign the Willie’s Law petition and Hourglass’s own OATH campaign.

    Featured image via screengrab

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.