Category: Opinion

  • ANALYSIS: By David Robie in Auckland

    The Pacific year has closed with growing tensions over sovereignty and self-determination issues and growing stress over the ravages of covid-19 pandemic in a region that was largely virus-free in 2020.

    Just two days before the year 2021 wrapped up, Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama took the extraordinary statement of denying any involvement by the people or government of the autonomous region of Papua New Guinea being involved in any “secret plot” to overthrow the Manasseh Sogavare government in Solomon Islands.

    Insisting that Bougainville is “neutral” in the conflict in neighbouring Solomon Islands where riots last month were fuelled by anti-Chinese hostilities, Toroama blamed one of PNG’s two daily newspapers for stirring the controversy.

    “Contrary to the sensationalised report in the Post-Courier (Thursday, December 30, 2021) we do not have a vested interest in the conflict and Bougainville has nothing to gain from overthrowing a democratically elected leader of a foreign nation,” Toroama said.

    The frontpage report in the Post-Courier appeared to be a beat-up just at the time Australia was announcing a wind down of the peacekeeping role in the Solomon Islands. A multilateral Pacific force of more than 200 Australian, Fiji, New Zealand and PNG police and military have been deployed since the riots in a bid to ward off further strife.

    PNG Police Commissioner David Manning confirmed to the newspaper having receiving reports of Papua New Guineans allegedly training with Solomon Islanders to overthrow the Sogavare government in the New Year.

    According to the Post-Courier’s Gorethy Kenneth, reports reaching Manning had claimed that Bougainvilleans with connections to Solomon Islanders had “joined forces with an illegal group in Malaita to train them and supply arms”.

    The Bougainvilleans were also accused of “leading this alleged covert operation” in an effort to cause division in Solomon Islands.

    However, Foreign Affairs Minister Soroi Eoe told the newspaper there had been no official information or reports of this alleged operation. The Solomon Islands Foreign Ministry was also cool over the reports.

    Warning over ‘sensationalism’

    PNG Post-Courier 30122021
    How the PNG Post-Courier reported the “secret plot” Bougainville claim on Thursday. Image: Screenshot PNG Post-Courier

    Toroama warned news media against sensationalising national security issues with its Pacific neighbours, saying the Bougainville Peace Agreement “explicitly forbids Bougainville to engage in any foreign relations so it is absurd to assume that Bougainville would jeopardise our own political aspirations by acting in defiance” of these provisions.

    This is a highly sensitive time for Bougainville’s political aspirations as it negotiates a path in response the 98 percent nonbinding vote in support of independence during the 2019 referendum.

    In contrast, another Melanesian territory’s self-determination aspirations received a setback in the third and final referendum on independence in Kanaky New Caledonia on December 12 where a decisive more than 96 percent voted “non”.

    Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama
    Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama … responding to the PNG Post-Courier. Image: Bougainville Today

    However, less than half (43.87 percent) of the electorate voted – far less than the “yes” vote last year – in response to the boycott called by a coalition of seven Kanak independence groups out of respect to the disproportionate number of indigenous people among the 280 who had died in the recent covid-19 outbreak.

    The result was a dramatic reversal of the two previous referendums in 2018 and 2020 where there was a growing vote for independence and the flawed nature of the final plebiscite has been condemned by critics undoing three decades of progress in decolonisation and race relations.

    In 2018, only 57 percent opposed independence and this dropped to 53 percent in 2020 with every indication that the pro-independence “oui” vote would rise further for this third plebiscite in spite of the demographic odds against the indigenous Kanaks who make up just 40 percent of the territory’s population of 280,000.

    The result is now likely in inflame tensions and make it difficult to negotiate a shared future with France which annexed Melanesian territory in 1853 and turned it into a penal colony for political prisoners.

    Kanaky turbulence in 1980s
    A turbulent period in the 1980s – known locally as “Les événements” – culminated in a farcical referendum on independence in 1987 which returned a 98 percent rejection of independence. This was boycotted by the pro-independence groups when then President François Mitterrand broke a promise that short-term French residents would not be able to vote.

    The turnout was 59 percent but skewed by the demographics. The UN Special Committee on Decolonisation declined to send observers as that plebiscite did not honour the process of “decolonisation”.

    A Kanak international advocate of the Confédération Nationale du Travail (CNT) trade union and USTKE member, Rock Haocas, says from Paris that the latest referendum is “a betrayal” of the past three decades of progress and jeopardises negotiations for a future statute on the future of Kanaky New Caledonia.

    The pro-independence parties have refused to negotiate on the future until after the French presidential elections in April this year. A new political arrangement is due in 18 months.

    In the meantime, the result is being challenged in France’s constitutional court.

    “The people have made concessions,” Haocas told Asia Pacific Report, referencing the many occasions indigenous Kanaks have done so, such as:

    • Concessions to the “two colours, one people” agreement with the Union Caledonian party in 1953;
    • Recognition of the “victims of history” in Nainville-Les-Roches in 1983;
    • The Matignon and Oudnot Agreement in 1988;
    • The Nouméa Accord in 1998; and
    • The opening of the electoral body (to the native).

    ‘Getting closer to each other’
    “The period of the agreements allowed the different communities to get to know each other, to get closer to each other, to be together in schools, to work together in companies and development projects, to travel in France, the Pacific, and in other countries,” says Haocas.

    “It’s also the time of the internet. Colonisation is not hidden in Kanaky anymore; it faces the world. People talk about it more easily. The demand for independence has become more explainable, and more exportable. There has been more talk of interdependence, and no longer of a strict break with France.

    “But for the last referendum France banked on the fear of one with the other to preserve its own interests.”

    Is this a return to the dark days of 1987 when France conducted the “sham referendum”?

    “We’re not really in the same context. We are here in the framework of the Nouméa Accord with three consultations — and for which we asked for the postponement of the last one scheduled for December 12,” says Haocas.

    “It was for health reasons with its cultural and societal impacts that made the campaign difficult, it was not fundamentally for political reasons.

    “The French state does not discuss, does not seek consensus — it imposes, even if it means going back on its word.”

    Haocas says it is now time to reflect and analyse the results of the referendum.

    “The result of the ballot box speaks for itself. Note the calm in the pro-independence world. Now there are no longer three actors — the indépendantistes, the anti-independence and the state – but two, the indépendantistes and the state.”


    Rock Haocas in a 2018 interview before the the three referendums on independence. Video: CNT union

    Comparisons between Kanaky and Palestine
    In a devastating critique of the failings of the referendum and of the sincerity of France’s about-turn in its three-decade decolonisation policy, Professor Joseph Massad, a specialist in modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, New York, made comparisons with Israeli occupation and apartheid in Palestine.

    “Its expected result was a defeat for the cause of independence. It seems that European settler-colonies remain beholden to the white colonists, not only in the larger white settler-colonies in the Americas and Oceania, but also in the smaller ones, whether in the South Pacific, Southern Africa, Palestine, or Hawai’i,” wrote Dr Massad in Middle East Eye.

    “Just as Palestine is the only intact European settler-colony in the Arab world after the end of Italian settler-colonialism in Libya in the 1940s and 1950s, the end of French settler-colonialism in Morocco and Tunisia in the 1950s, and the liberation of Algeria in 1962 (some of Algeria’s French colonists left for New Caledonia), Kanaky remains the only major country subject to French settler-colonialism after the independence of most of its island neighbours.

    “As with the colonised Palestinians, who have less rights than those acquired by the Kanaks in the last half century, and who remain subject to the racialised power of their colonisers, the colonised Kanaks remain subject to the racialised power of the white French colonists and their mother country.

    “No wonder [President Emmanuel] Macron is as ebullient and proud as Israel’s leaders.”

    Professor Joseph Massad
    Professor Joseph Massad … “European settler-colonies remain beholden to the white colonists.” Image: Screenshot Middle East Eye

    West Papuan hopes elusive as violence worsens
    Hopes for a new United Nations-supervised referendum for West Papua have remained elusive for the Melanesian region colonised by Indonesia in the 1960s and annexed after a sham plebiscite known euphemistically as the “Act of Free Choice” in 1969 when 1025 men and women hand-picked by the Indonesian military voted unanimously in favour of Indonesian control of their former Dutch colony.

    Two years ago the United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP) was formed to step up the international diplomatic effort for Papuan self-determination and independence. However, at the same time armed resistance has grown and Indonesia has responded with a massive build up of more than 20,000 troops in the two Melanesian provinces of Papua and West Papua and an exponential increase on human rights violations and draconian measures by the Jakarta authorities.

    As 2021 ended, interim West Papuan president-in-exile Benny Wenda distributed a Christmas message thanking the widespread international support – “our solidarity groups, the International Parliamentarians for West Papua, the International Lawyers for West Papua, all those across the world who continue to tirelessly support us.

    “Religious leaders, NGOs, politicians, diplomats, individuals, everyone who has helped us in the Pacific, Caribbean, Africa, America, Europe, UK: thank you.”

    Wenda sounded an optimistic note in his message: “Our goal is getting closer. Please help us keep up the momentum in 2022 with your prayers, your actions and your solidarity.
    You are making history through your support, which will help us achieve independence.”

    But Wenda was also frank about the grave situation facing West Papua, which was “getting worse and worse”.

    “We continue to demand that the Indonesian government release the eight students arrested on December 1 for peacefully calling for their right to self-determination. We also demand that the military operations, which continue in Intan Jaya, Puncak, Nduga and elsewhere, cease,” he said, adding condemnation of Jakarta for using the covid-19 pandemic as an excuse to prevent the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visiting West Papua.

    New covid-19 wave hits Fiji
    Fiji, which had already suffered earlier in 2021 along with Guam and French Polynesia as one of the worst hit Pacific countries hit by the covid-19 pandemic, is now in the grip of a third wave of infection with 780 active cases.

    Fiji’s Health Ministry has reported one death and 309 new cases of covid-19 in the community since Christmas Day — 194 of them confirmed in the 24 hours just prior to New Year’s Eve. This is another blow to the tourism industry just at a time when it was seeking to rebuild.

    Health Secretary Dr Dr Fong is yet to confirm whether these cases were of the delta variant or the more highly contagious omicron mutant. It may just be a resurgence of the endemic delta variant, says Dr Fong, “however we are also working on the assumption that the omicron variant is already here, and is being transmitted within the community.

    “We expect that genomic sequencing results of covid-19 positive samples sent overseas will confirm this in due course.”

    A DevPolicy blog article at Australian National University earlier in 2021 warned against applying Western notions of public health to the Pacific country. Communal living is widespread across squatter settlements, urban villages, and other residential areas in the Lami-Suva-Nausori containment zone.

    “Household sizes are generally bigger than in Western countries, and households often include three generations. This means elderly people are more at risk as they cannot easily isolate. At the same time, identifying a ‘household’ and determining who should be in a ‘bubble’ is difficult.

    “‘Stay home’ is equally difficult to define, because the concept of ‘home’ has a broader meaning in the Fijian context compared to Western societies.”

    While covid pandemic crises are continuing to wreak havoc in some Pacific communities into 2022, the urgency of climate change still remains the critical issue facing the region. After the lacklustre COP26 global climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, in November, Pacific leaders — who were mostly unable to attend due to the covid lockdowns — have stepped up their global advocacy.

    End of ’empty promises’ on climate
    Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown appealed in a powerful article that it was time for the major nations producing global warming emissions to shelve their “empty promises” and finally deliver on climate financing.

    ‘As custodians of these islands, we have a moral duty to protect [them] — for today and the unborn generations of our Pacific anau. Sadly, we are unable to do that because of things beyond our control …

    “Sea level rise is alarming. Our food security is at risk, and our way of life that we have known for generations is slowly disappearing. What were ‘once in a lifetime’ extreme events like category 5 cyclones, marine heatwaves and the like are becoming more severe.

    “Despite our negligible contribution to global emissions, this is the price we pay. We are talking about homes, lands and precious lives; many are being displaced as we speak.”

    Marylou Mahe
    Marylou Mahé … ““As a young Kanak woman, my voice is often silenced, but I want to remind the world that … we are acting for our future. Image: PCF

    Perhaps the most perceptive reflections of the year came from a young Kanak pro-independence and climate change student activist, Marylou Mahé. Saying that as a “decolonial feminist” she wished to put an end to “injustice and humiliation of my people”, Mahé added a message familiar to many Pacific Islanders:

    “As a young Kanak woman, my voice is often silenced, but I want to remind the world that we are here, we are standing, and we are acting for our future. The state’s spoken word may die tomorrow, but our right to recognition and self-determination never will.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Photo credit: peace-justice.org

    This year, 2021, began with a huge sense of relief as Trump left office. We hoped to emerge from the ravages of COVID, pass a hefty Build Back Better (BBB) bill, and make significant cuts to the Pentagon budget. But, alas, we faced a January 6 white nationalist insurrection, two new COVID mutations, a sliced-and-diced BBB bill that didn’t pass, and a Pentagon budget that actually INCREASED!

    It was, indeed, a disastrous year, but we do have some reasons to cheer:

    1. The U.S. survived its first major coup plot on January 6 and key right-wing groups are on the wane. With participants in the insurrection being charged and some facing significant jail time, new efforts to mobilize–including September’s “Justice for J6” rally–fizzled. As for Trump, let’s remember that in early 2021, he was impeached again, he lost his main mouthpiece, Twitter, and his attempt to build a rival social media service seems to have stalled. QAnon is in decline—its major hashtags have evaporated and Twitter shut down some 70,000 Q accounts. We may still see a resurgence (including another Trump attempt to take the White House), but so far the insurrection seems to have peaked and is being rolled back.

    2. Latin America is undergoing a massive shift toward progressive governments. Gabriel Boric, a young Chilean progressive who campaigned for broad reforms, including universal healthcare and a higher minimum wage, won a landslide victory in December. His victory follows the victories of Xiomara Castro in Honduras in November, Pedro Castillo in Peru in June, and Luis Arce in Bolivia in October 2020. In Brazil, former president Lula da Silva may soon return to the presidency via next year’s elections. All of this bodes well for policies that benefit the people of Latin America and for greater solidarity with Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and other nations in the U.S. crosshairs.

    3. The struggle for racial justice and accountability saw some major wins in 2021. Former police officer Derek Chauvin was found guilty on all 3 charges related to the murder of George Floyd and has pled guilty in the federal civil rights version of the case. The three Georgia men who killed Ahmaud Arbery for the crime of going out for a jog were also convicted. Progressive District Attorneys in cities and counties across this country are fighting to end cash bail and no-knock warrants, mass incarceration, and mandatory sentencing minimums. We see a backlash against these DAs, such as in Los Angeles and San Francisco, but they have strong community support.

    4. U.S. troops left Afghanistan, winding down a deadly 20-year intervention. Some of us were against this U.S. invasion to begin with, and pushed for 20 years for our troops to leave. The exit was carried out in the same shameful, chaotic way as the 20 years of war, and the U.S. is once again targeting the Afghan people by freezing the billions of dollars of Afghan money held in overseas banks. That’s why we have joined the effort to #UnfreezeAfghanistan. But we do recognize that the U.S. troop withdrawal was necessary to give Afghans the chance to shape their own future, to stop spending $300 million a day on a failed war, and to roll back U.S. militarism.

    5. COVID has returned with a vengeance, but we have been winning battles against other deadly diseases. Malaria, which kills half a million people a year, mostly in Africa, might be vanquished thanks to a groundbreaking vaccine, the first ever for a parasitic disease. On the HIV front, a new vaccine has shown a 97% response rate in Phase I clinical trials. Almost 40 million people were living with HIV in 2020, and hundreds of thousands of people die from AIDS-related illnesses each year. While the vaccine is still in Phase I trials, it is an extremely hopeful sign for 2022.

    6. The U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted in 2017, went into effect this year after fulfilling the requirement that it be ratified by at least 50 countries. The U.S. and the world’s other nuclear powers have not signed the treaty and it has no enforcement mechanism but, for the first time in history, nuclear weapons are illegal under international law. With 86 signatories so far, the treaty helps to delegitimize nuclear weapons and reinforce global norms against their use. At a time when the outcome of the nuclear talks with Iran are uncertain, and when conflicts with Russia and China regarding Ukraine and Taiwan are intensifying, such a reminder is critical.

    7. In the U.S., workers are actually gaining power amidst the ravages of COVID. Wages are going up and unions are starting to re-emerge. With millions of workers quitting their jobs from burnout or re-evaluation of life goals (dubbed the “Great Resignation”), the resulting labor shortage has given workers more space to push for better wages, benefits and working conditions. There were over 300 strikes from hospitals to coal plants to universities—many of them successful. Starbucks workers in Buffalo, New York, succeeded in forming the first union at a Starbucks store in the US. Amazon workers in Bessemer, Alabama, lost their attempt to form the first Amazon union, but the National Labor Relations Board has ordered a new election due to management’s improper conduct. So 2022 may well be a banner year for worker’s rights and unions.

    8. While not nearly enough, there were some key environmental gains, with Biden starting his term by re-entering the Paris Climate Accords. The COP26 meeting put a spotlight on the urgent need for revved up environmental action, with environmental activists worldwide pressuring their own governments to step up. Some 44 nations are now committed to ending the use of coal, and the G7 countries vowed not to fund coal plants any more. Here in the U.S., thanks to sustained environmental activism, the Keystone XL and PennEast pipelines were officially canceled and the Biden administration nixed oil and gas drilling on federal land. Renewable energy installations are at an all-time high and wind farms are planned along the entire U.S. coastline. Another major polluter, China, is building the largest energy installation in history, a whopping 100 gigawatts of wind and solar power (the entire capacity, as of 2021, of U.S. solar energy), and plans to plant a Belgium-sized area of forest every year going forward.

    9. Yes, there have actually been some advances for women’s choice this year. When we look beyond the outrageous anti-abortion law in Texas that empowers private citizens to sue abortion providers, we see that many countries in the rest of the world are moving in the opposite direction. In 2021, abortion was legalized in South Korea, Thailand, and Argentina, while safe access increased in New Zealand, Ecuador, and Uruguay. A major victory in a very Catholic country came in September, when Mexico’s Supreme Court decriminalized it. Isn’t it ironic that, prior to Roe v. Wade, thousands of women from U.S. states along the Mexican border would cross into Mexico to get (illegal) abortions? Now, they might again be going, and this time for legal abortions.

    10. Another reason to celebrate: 2021 is over. And 2022 may actually be the year we conquer COVID and move forward on a full agenda of pressing issues, including pushing Congress to pass a version of the Build Back Better bill; pressing for passage of the voting rights legislation that will stop the outrageous statewide voter suppression; mobilizing against the far right—and a return of Trump or Trump-lite; stopping the Cold War with China; preventing a military conflict with Russia in Ukraine; and cutting the outrageous Pentagon budget to invest in the health of our people and planet.

    If we could make gains in a year as bad as 2021, just think what we can accomplish in 2022.

    The post Yes, There Were 10 Good Things About 2021 first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • EDITORIAL: By The Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley

    I couldn’t help but be drawn to the constant flow of emotions that came in the wake of the death of Professor Brij Lal on Christmas Day.

    People from all walks of life shared their innermost feelings. There was no holding back for many.

    Although he wrote books and learned articles in academic journals, Professor Lal also wrote, when he had time, for The Fiji Times.

    So he and I shared a correspondence. And what came through so often in his writing was that this man, whose intellect would carry him in any place in the world, regarded the country of his birth — our country — as a special place.

    The good professor came from a farming family in Tabia, Vanua Levu. They weren’t rich, but that is from where he rose — to become an emeritus professor of Pacific and Asian history at the Australian National University.

    He was your average farm boy, but he had it in him to become someone who would be held in very high regard.

    He would eventually walk the corridors of the well-established, in many countries around the world, before he finally settled in Brisbane, Australia. Yet he never lost that touch of humility and appreciation of others.

    Today we look at that connection. From Tabia to Brisbane! From a farm boy to an emeritus professor! Professor Lal’s life leaves many lessons to appreciate and value.

    There are platforms for us to achieve, or aspire for. Yet despite the fact that he lived in a more developed country, with better available resources and the potential for a better life, Professor Lal never forgot his roots on Vanua Levu.

    He yearned to return to see once more the “green undulating hills of Tabia”.

    He considered it a special place. We are fortunate to live in a beautiful country abundant with rich resources.

    We are friendly people who have learnt to embrace multiracialism, religion and ethnicity. In the face of all our differences, we have learnt to live together, appreciating these differences, and instinctively embracing them.

    For his part, Professor Lal was proud to tell the world about Tabia. He lived with very strong memories of his childhood, and the special connection he had with people he knew and grew up with.

    Perhaps, when we are able to take a moment, to get a jolt of reality, to truly appreciate what we have now, and the endless possibilities, we should reflect on how hard it would be to be denied the right to return home.

    In one of his most recent pieces for The Fiji Times, Professor Lal wrote:

    “Fiji is a bit like Churchill’s Russia, a ‘riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma’.

    “Here is a beautiful country full of a talented population, sophisticated infrastructure and abundant natural resources which is sadly prone to debilitating self-inflicted wounds that hobble its present and dent its future.”

    Professor Lal epitomised the value Fijians have for their connection to their homeland.

    In the face of the covid-19 pandemic, we are reminded about this sense of appreciation and value. We are reminded about who we are — Fijians!

    This editorial was published in The Fiji Times on 28 December 2021 under the original title of “Our special place in the world”. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    New Zealand’s leading daily newspaper has praised the “gift of inspiration” over global cooperation in launching the James Webb space telescope at the Christmas weekend, but has decried the failure of the international community to seriously tackle the growing covid-19 public health crisis cooperatively.

    The New Zealand Herald declared today in an editorial that the timing, cooperation, and development work involved launching the successor to the Hubble telescope “is in marked contrast with the still muddled, individual country-based approach to the pandemic”.

    The launch also could not help but “signify the yawning gap between what people are capable of and what they commonly settle for”, the newspaper wrote.

    The launch of the James Webb telescope was a collaboration between the space agencies of the United States, Europe and Canada with people from 29 countries having worked on the project, reports AP.

    “It blasted away from French Guiana on a European Ariane rocket. As with previous space missions, it involves vision, ambition and precise calculations that have to work perfectly to pull it all off,” the Herald said.

    “The telescope has a 1.5 million km journey ahead, far beyond the moon, with a task of eventually gazing on light from the first stars and galaxies.

    “It all hinges on the telescope’s mirror and sunshield unfolding on cue over nearly two weeks, having been tucked away to fit into the rocket’s nose cone.

    “If that goes right, the telescope will be able to look back in time a mind-boggling 13.5 billion years.”

    Fascinating year for science
    The US$10 billion telescope project had capped a “fascinating year for space science” after the “incredibly precise landing of a rover and a helicopter drone on Mars, which resulted in the first powered flight on another planet”, said the Herald.

    Noting Nasa’s science mission chief Thomas Zurbuchen’s comment welcoming the launch — “what an amazing Christmas present” — the newspaper contrasted the collaborative achievement with the “muddled, individual country-based approach” over covid-19.

    “While the rocket was launching humanity’s imaginative time machine, hundreds of thousands of people on Earth were getting a ‘gift’ of covid at Christmas. Both Britain and France hit more than 100,000 cases on Saturday,” the Herald said.

    “The cost of the space project is tiny compared to the US$725 billion the US spent on defence in the 2020 financial year — more than the next 11 countries combined. Next year’s bill is US$770 billion.

    “It is closer to the US$50 billion amount the OECD has estimated it would cost to vaccinate the world’s population against the coronavirus and protect the global economy.

    “Far more money than that — US$12 trillion — was spent by countries in financial support between March and November 2020.

    Time to hatch global covid plan
    “Although that support was urgently needed, surely there was also time to hatch a US$50 billion global plan for a coronavirus endgame before the vaccines came on stream in late 2020.

    “Now, a year later, each country is dealing with the omicron wave its own way, and progress in distributing vaccines to poorer regions is slow. People feel frustrated the vaccines haven’t guaranteed a return to life as we knew it.

    “The vaccines themselves are an amazing scientific achievement: developed quickly and still doing their job of protecting the vast majority of vaccinated people against severe covid disease.

    “A study by the World Health Organisation and a European Union agency estimated in November that the vaccines had saved nearly half a million lives in a region of 33 countries.

    “But it is hard for people to really absorb achievements that involve prevention: When they work as hoped, at least some people believe it’s proof the threat was overblown.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The spine is made up of 24 bones — called vertebrae — connected by ligaments and muscles to form the spinal column, which protects the spinal cord: a pillar of nerves that connects your brain to the rest of your body. Without a spinal cord, you could not move your body. Without a spine, you could not stand tall and keep yourself upright. (I smell a metaphor brewing.) Without a healthy backbone — literally or figuratively speaking — we cannot stand up for ourselves… or others. We are symbolically spineless.

    It’s been said that the spine “symbolizes our strength, courage, being centered and uprightness. Problems with our spine indicate feelings of weakness and fear. We have lost our centeredness and emotional integrity and are feeling overburdened.” When we feel weak or overburdened, we are, in a way, spineless. But when we’re centered and in touch with our emotional integrity, we are demonstrating backbone.

    Spineless is not examining ourselves and our own personal choices.

    Backbone is embracing freedom 24/7.

    Spineless is living in fear of social norms, oppressive laws, and loss of reputation.

    Backbone is being less afraid of the State than of living on a planet without trees, without drinkable water, without arable land, without a hint of justice, and without personal autonomy.

    Spineless is playing it safe.

    Backbone is recognizing that safety is an illusion.

    “Forget safety. Live where you fear to live. Destroy your reputation. Be notorious.” (Rumi)

    If you rebuild and fortify your subversive spine and stand up in the name of holistic justice, plenty of folks (including some alleged comrades) will be coiled and ready to attack. It’s never easy to challenge the status quo, to stand out, to consciously opt out of groupthink… but it’s a whole lot easier with a strong and flexible spine.

    No one knows how the realm of rebellion will play out in 2022 but without some committed and sustained backbone from a wide range of allies, it cannot grow, evolve, and realize its potential. And if this generation does not realize its potential, well… we’re fucked. The choice must be made: Spinelessness or Backbone. The present and the future are waiting on your decision.

    The post Activate Your Spine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • “I am the lucky one”, the co-chair of the Democratic Society Congress (DTK) tells us, “I’m an MP so I have immunity”. But he will still face charges. Everyone else around the table has either been to prison, is in the middle of a trial, or is facing prison sentences.

    This isn’t exceptional. It is the norm in Bakur (North Kurdistan – the Kurdish majority region of Turkey). In every meeting we go to, in every interview we conduct, eventually we discuss what sentences people are facing or have already served.

    Everyone is charged with “membership of a terrorist organisation”. But these are not terrorists. These are lawyers, journalists, MPs, co-op members, and human rights activists. Their crime is being Kurdish and supporting radical democracy in the face of president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s fascistic regime.

    And while this is nothing new – ever since my first trip to the region in 2011 as an election monitor, I’ve been struck by the fact that there is no safe position to take if you support the Kurdish struggle and oppose the ruling government – there are signs things are getting worse.

    This was my sixth trip to Bakur since 2011. Several friends I’ve met on previous trips are now in prison, are under investigation, or have escaped the country. This most recent delegation was made up of radical journalists, including three of us from The Canary, the Kurdistan Solidarity Network, and defendant and prisoner solidarity organisations. Our aims were to learn from a struggle that inspires us politically, to connect our work, and to amplify the voices of those facing constant repression from the Turkish state.

    Gentrification

    There are signs in Amed (Diyarbakir) that the Turkish state is feeling more confident. In the old city of Sur, small, out of reach Turkish flags and pictures of Erdoğan – who appears to love having his face on every lamppost – have been replaced by bigger banners. Most of the police cordons have gone. There is no longer an armored car parked permanently on the corner of one of the main squares.

    In 2015, residents of Sur declared autonomy. The Turkish state responded with deadly force. Eliza Egret and Tom Anderson reported on the situation in Red Pepper in 2016:

    The police and military are using every kind of violence against the Kurds. They are using tanks and heavy armoured vehicles. They have flattened houses, historical places, mosques. They use helicopters and technological weapons, night vision binoculars and drones. They don’t let families get to the bodies of youths who were killed. Corpses remain on the streets for weeks.

    As people on several trips have told me, the Turkish state also used the excuse to bulldoze the area and concrete over evidence of the war crimes committed. Old houses have been replaced with new builds. Those displaced were given less than market value prices for their homes and are unable to afford to move into the new houses the government has built. This was deliberate. Erdoğan wants to change the make-up of Sur. I’m told that government officials, police, and military are all given discounts if they want to buy these new houses.

    During my last trip in February 2020, these new builds were still closed to public access. We could only view them from the city’s historic walls or through gaps in fences. Now they’re open. But they’re eerily quiet. Row upon row of empty houses and deserted streets. A literal ghost town when you know the horrors that have been concreted over to create them.

    There are other signs of gentrification around Sur. New cafes have opened up; a once bombed-out deserted hotel is now open and boasts a Starbucks. A massive poster for Burger King is displayed on one of the main streets. As one person tells me, these are all ways in which the Turkish state is trying to crush the spirit of Sur. But despite years of war, curfew, displacement, and now gentrification, that spirit is still strong.

    Force still dominates

    While the military and police presence is diminished, it’s still felt and impossible to ignore. One night, walking back to our hotel, we see a police operation with a balaclava-clad man wielding a semi-automatic on a street corner. On another night, two of our delegation are stopped and searched by the police. No explanation is given. Local residents tell us this is just what happens when people are out at night.

    These are just minor glimpses into the everyday reality for people who live in the region. Erdoğan might be trying various tactics to eradicate Kurdish resistance, but sheer force still dominates.

    The power of women

    Women’s rights are central to the Kurdish Freedom Movement. As I wrote after attending a TJA (Free Women’s Movement) conference in Amed in 2020:

    There’s a women’s revolution taking place in the Middle East. Not just in Rojava (the mostly Kurdish part of northern Syria), where images and stories of the brilliant and brave female fighters against Daesh (Isis/Isil) have captured international headlines, but in Bakur too. Under the increasingly dictatorial and fascistic government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, women’s rights are being eroded at a national level. In January, for example, a so-called “marry-your-rapist” bill was introduced, meaning men who rape women can avoid punishment by marrying their victims. Meanwhile, women are regularly attacked with the police showing little interest in investigating.

    But women are fighting back. And the Kurdish women’s movement is at the forefront of this fightback. Lipservice isn’t just paid to women’s equality in the Kurdish freedom movement; equality isn’t something that can be sorted after other struggles are won – it’s a central foundation that is visible in every aspect of organising. And it shows. Not just with the women at the conference but in the movement’s political structures. The HDP (Peoples’ Democratic Party) has ‘co-chairs’ to ensure there’s equal representation for women across the party.

    The Turkish state is scared of the power of women. The TJA states that its “first target was the women’s foundations”. Ayşe Gökkan, the former spokesperson of the TJA, was sentenced to 30 years in prison in October. She was prevented from defending herself in Kurdish at her trial. Former HDP MP and DTK co-chair Leyla Güven was sentenced to 22 years in prison in December 2020.

    One of the women we met this time at the TJA had just been released from nine years in prison; another had served a six-year sentence.

    “If you are Kurdish the way is the prison”, they tell us. This is certainly a sentiment Ayşe would agree with. When we last interviewed her in the gardens of the DTK offices – offices now closed by the state – she told us:

    Prisons in Kurdistan have a special importance in our history of resistance. Prisons became education centres because so many people were imprisoned. Our resistance started in the jails. The people inside the jails started to organise the people outside the jails.

    However, the TJA tell us the situation is worse for women:

    The system is male dominant and that affects the cases. We have male friends and we are in the same struggle but because the system is male dominant we’re accused of being women and Kurdish while they are just accused of being Kurdish. That’s why it’s more hard for women. The women’s punishment is always more than men. The decisions are not equal with the law. They give decisions depending on the political situation. women are faced with lots of abuse, some faced with sexual abuse, torture, some other political intimidation. We have friend who is sentenced and faced with sexual abuse in prison.

    Prison repression

    The Turkish state is also trying to crush this prison resistance. At a prisoner solidarity organisation, we are told that Erdoğan is experimenting with different types of prisons to see which one works best, including increasing isolation for prisoners. The government is currently undertaking a massive prison expansion plan, spending billions despite the economy collapsing. The TJA tells us that women are punished for Kurdish dancing and singing.

    While we’re in Amed, we hear of the death of Garibe Gezer. Garibe committed suicide after being sexually assaulted and held in a padded cell. But as people make clear to us, she was killed by the Turkish state. This was reiterated in a statement made outside the Bar Association by the HDP, the Democratic Regions Party, Peace Mothers, and Lawyers for Freedom Association:

    We have lost Garibe as a result of the penal execution system, which is established with the aim of full isolation and killing every day, and its practices and as a result of the physical-sexual assaults.

    Release sick prisoners

    Other campaigns are focussing on the condition of sick prisoners. On the day we attend a press conference for sick prisoners at the Bar Association, we hear news that two died on 15 December. Both had cancer. According to data from the Human Rights Association, there are currently 1,605 ill prisoners in jail, with 604 of them classed as “seriously sick”. Since the start of 2020, 59 prisoners have died of their illness.

    HDP spokesperson Ebru Günay described the situation:

    The prisons of a country are the mirrors of their democracy. Unfortunately, the prisons of Turkey have turned into houses of death. Only in the last week, two ill prisoners have lost their lives in prison.

    People are also campaigning for the release of Aysel Tuğluk. Aysel has been in prison since 2016 and has dementia. She is:

    the first woman who co-chaired a political party in the history of Kurdish political parties and the only woman who faced a political ban as she was banned from politics after the Democratic Society Party was closed. She is also a lawyer, a human rights defender and a politician who has devoted her whole life to the Kurds’ struggle for freedom and equality that will culminate in an honorable peace.

    Despite her illness, and an independent medical report saying she should be released, she is still imprisoned. People are ensuring she is not alone, though, as the statement made outside the Bar Association makes clear:

    Aysel Tuğluk or all other captives are not alone. There is a powerful women’s organization behind them. Women’s solidarity and unity will keep on defending the politics of keeping alive.

    Resistance is life

    There’s a saying in Kurdish – resistance is life – berxwedan jiyane – and despite the sadness, despite the repression, this spirit was still evident in every meeting. Despite decades of repression, people are not only still fighting back, but they are fighting for a radically democratic, anti-capitalist, and pro-feminist society.

    And while we’re a long way from facing the excesses of the Turkish state in the UK, we are facing the most draconian crackdown on dissent we’ve seen in generations. Our friends are in prison for fighting back against police violence. On 17 December, Ryan Roberts was sentenced to 14 years in prison for the 21 March Kill The Bill demo in Bristol. He will spend a decade behind bars. As Tom Anderson wrote in The Canary:

    Ryan – along with his fellow demonstrators – fought back against the police’s violence, racism, and misogyny. The actions of the demonstrators on 21 March were part of the same struggle as the actions of people fighting back against state violence around the world, and we should be proud of them.

    The police bill will criminalise many more of us. The struggles are different, but there are many parallels.

    These struggles will continue. And whether it’s fighting back against our increasingly authoritarian UK state or standing in solidarity with our Kurdish comrades, our struggles are connected, and international solidarity is powerful.

    Resistance is life.

    Featured image via The Canary

    By Emily Apple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • In 2015, the United States signed what is popularly referred to as the JCPOA (the joint comprehensive plan of action) a deal involving Iran and the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) designed to limit the capacity of Iran to develop nuclear weapons. In exchange for their signature, the sanctions that has been applied to Iran were meant to be lifted. That did not happen, and in 2019 the Trump administration cancelled the United States involvement in the agreement.

    The new Biden administration, which took office in early 2021 had promised during the election campaign to re-join the JCPOA. This has not happened. In fact, the Americans have issued fresh demands seeking to limit Iran’s development of other missiles that it sees is essential for its defence. The various parties have been meeting in Vienna, but the new Iranian government, notably more hard-line that its predecessor, has been reluctant to amend the terms of the original deal. Frankly, who can blame them.

    The purpose of the negotiations is ostensibly to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capacity. Their current level of uranium enrichment puts them within a very small margin of achieving a nuclear capacity. This is a development that has caused considerable concern in the Middle East, not least among members of the Israeli government.

    It is one of the great hypocrisies of the present situation that Iran, which is under constant attack by the Israelis, including the murder of nuclear scientists, is expected to remain silent in the face of that constant Israeli attack, and do nothing to protect yourself from the ongoing Israeli onslaught.

    The other great unmentionable in this whole scenario is the fact that there is already a nuclear armed state in the Middle East, and that is Israel. It is one of the enduring mysteries of Middle Eastern politics that one is supposed to see a potentially nuclear armed Iran as a threat to peace and stability, yet ignore completely the fact that a nuclear armed Israel is able to blindly continue its murderous policies.

    Israel has not signed any nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and officially does not acknowledge the fact that it is a nuclear armed nation. It presumes to itself the right to criticise Iran, indeed take active steps against that country, without ever acknowledging the truth of its own position. The word hypocrisy does not seem strong enough to convey the reality of this situation.

    If Iran does not sign a new deal and promise, inter alia, not to develop nuclear weapons, then there are many commentators that see at least one inevitable consequence of that refusal being a United States (and Israeli inspired) attack upon Iran. Such an attack, apart from its obvious Israeli self-interest, would be completely illegal.

    Even the concept that the United States and/or Israel would be entitled to take matters into their own hands and attack Iran beggars’ belief. That such an attack would lead to a massive Iranian counter-attack is without question. Even without nuclear weapons, the Iranian Armed Forces are well equipped with the conventional means of inflicting huge damage on United States and Israeli assets throughout the Middle East.

    Neither the United States nor Israel is well equipped with assets in the form of friendly states throughout the Middle East. It is difficult to see that any attack on Iran would enhance that circle of friends, and indeed it is likely to have the opposite effect.

    Iran on the other hand has powerful friends in the region and beyond. It can count on the support of Lebanon, Iraq and Syria for starters and it is difficult to see even Saudi Arabia willingly joining the Americans/Israelis in an attack on Iran. The Saudis and Iranians have recently been having talks and Saudi Arabia’s association with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which Iran recently joined as a full member, has been a factor in that rapprochement.

    The other major factor in this equation is the position of both Russia and China. Both countries have recently made significant financial investments in Iran and neither are likely to sit idly by in the face of a United States and/or Israeli attack upon Iran. This is one of the most important factors in the changing balance of power in the Middle East. It is surprising that it has received so little attention from other commentators, yet in my view it is the single most important factor affecting the balance of power in the region.

    Of course, such an analysis assumes that people will behave rationally. Such an assumption cannot be made about either the Israelis or the current United States administration. The former has literally gotten away with murder in recent years, and its defiance of international law is unparalleled in the region. One has only to cite the example of the stolen Syrian Golan Heights to make the point.

    Numerous United Nations resolutions have been simply ignored as Israel has simply felt that it had United States backing, regardless of how egregious its actions. The former United States president Donald Trump only emphasised the point when he recognised Israeli control of the Golan Heights making it Israeli territory.

    It is also a fact that the current United States foreign policy is firmly in the hands of the neo-con element within the Washington power structure. The animosity of this group to Iran (and indeed Russia and China) needs no reiteration. Their failure to recognise the realities of fading United States power could be a mistake that leads us all to a nuclear war. Russia and China’s support for the Iranian government makes that prospect more likely.

    One would like to say that the prospects for a peaceful resolution of the Iran situation is likely. Unfortunately, that view would betray a failure to understand that the combination of Israeli arrogance and United States unwillingness to accept that the world is changing to its disadvantage is a reality we must all learn to live with. The failure to realise that reality could literally be fatal.

    The post United States and Israeli Intransigence vis-à-vis Iran first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • pervert\transitive verb: to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right: corrupt.

    pervert\noun: one that has been perverted.

    So, it must be true; we have turned away from what is morally right as a nation, and we refuse to change our ways.

    It wasn’t always for affectation. For many years it was a necessity. A gun was a tool for procuring food. A gun provided protection in a hostile environment. It was true two hundred years ago. It was still quite true a hundred years ago, particularly in rural areas. Fifty years ago, it was not so much true anymore, not even in rural areas. Today it’s hardly true anywhere. For the vast majority of Americans, there is no physical necessity met through gun ownership. But there is a psychological need, and it’s met with increasing fervor. It seems the further we progress from the actual need to own a gun, the greater is our emotional need to possess one. We adore them. We demand them. We can’t get enough of them.  We collect and display them. It’s the look: we want the guns and ourselves to appear ever more formidable (“it looked cool,” said Rittenhouse). It’s the power: we want our guns to be ever more potent, ever more capable of ending a lot of lives in a little amount of time. The urge is moronic; there’s nothing much left in our civilized world to shoot at anymore, other than each other. And so, we do; we shoot and kill each other ever more efficiently and ever more needlessly.

    We do it because we’re perverts. We’re a nation of perverts.

    If it’s still the latest, it won’t be for long. Perhaps it already isn’t. Before the murders at Oxford High School, there had already been at least 28 school shootings across the country this year – more than two a month. School shootings are always the most heart wrenching, but they comprise just a small part of the 225 mass-killings over the same time period of 2021. Every other day or so, another multiple shooting is reported.

    We allow it because we’ve been seduced … and we seem to be okay with that.

    Our nation condemns the Crumbley family. The Oxford High School murders were so flagrantly perverse. How could they, how could any parent with any sense, with any accountability, purchase a Sig Sauer hand gun for a troubled adolescent boy? Who could be so brainless? The sheer audacity makes it easy for us; the Crumbley’s are low-hanging fruit to point at. It’s them, not us. But we made them; we enabled the Crumbley’s; we’re a nation of Crumbley’s.

    It’s not just them, the stupid people. It’s us, the self-ascribed sensible people who set it all up and watch it happen. We are the ones complicit with the NRA, the politicians, and the arms merchants; we allow and encourage the abuse they heap upon us. We pay them to hurt us.  It’s self-abuse. We’re a nation of self-abusing perverts. We, the sensible people, consciously abet an industry willing to sacrifice our children for their profit. When the sacrifice plays out, we wallow in shocked horror and incomprehension. We’re shocked every time, as if it has come fresh out of the blue. And then, quite predictably, we reload our sensible emotions and move on.

    The NRA and the gun merchants seduce and pervert us for profit. In 1871, the NRA was founded as an organization teaching marksmanship and gun safety. For many years it was a grassroots hunting club, funded solely through individual membership dues. Not anymore; today, the NRA is minion to a supportive master. Recreational hunting is increasingly less popular, and NRA dues-paying membership is in decline. The arms industry has stepped forward, taking up the slack. More than half of the club’s revenues now come through company donations and other corporate deals. With their funding come expectations. Compliantly, the NRA has become agent to the arms industry, an industry with ambitions beyond the dwindling sales to traditional sportsmen. Hence, the proliferation: guns for freedom; guns for patriotism; guns for God; guns for adornment; guns to save people; guns to kill people.

    The weapons and their ads aren’t aimed at sportsmen; there aren’t enough recreational hunters to generate the desired profit margin. The ads seek a wider market; they’re meant to stimulate fantasies of buyers beyond the deer-hunting crowd. The profit-generating ads are for guns designed to kill something other than four-legged animals. The ads glamorize weapons made to kill two-legged animals; they’re designed to kill human beings. The ads glamorize the power to be had in owning that kind of weapon. The ads work. When we contemplate buying a gun, we fantasize using it for its intended purpose. We purchase such a weapon because the ad and the fantasy of killing a human being has made us feel powerfully good. We’ve been seduced.  32% of us own guns, but only 4% of us use them for hunting. Ninety-two million Americans own guns, but don’t hunt. That’s a lot of gun fantasizing going on that doesn’t involve the shooting of birds or a four-legged animal. For many, the fantasy might envision a “good” person killing a “bad” person. For some it might be another fantasy. Whatever the fantasy, it always imagines the killing of a human being as a feel-good, cathartic event. Every day or so, one of those fantasies erupts, and another cathartic event takes place.

    It’s become normalized. We accept it, perhaps uneasily, but we accept it just the same. Recently Rep. Thomas Massie posted a Christmas card for all to see on Twitter. He posed, with children and wife, in front of their holiday tree, all holding lethal weapons. Nearly all the weapons were assault rifles, designed for killing human beings. The card’s message read, “Merry Christmas! ps. Santa, please bring ammo.” The photo caused a national stir for a few days, primarily for its insensitivity in regards to the recent Oxford High School murders. Little has been said of its perversity; Massie has placed an instrument designed to kill human beings in each of his children’s hands and a seed within their heads. He joyfully celebrates the manipulation as if it were wholesome. We see it as insensitive rather than perverse. We might not approve, but we accept it; it’s just some snarky gun fun meant to tease liberals. The stunt will likely help rather than hinder his re-election bid.

    What if it were something else? What if instead of a gun shop, Massie had visited a sex shop? What if he posed himself, his wife, and his children under the family Christmas tree, each smiling joyfully, while holding a dildo?  What if his Twitter card message was, “Merry Christmas! ps. Santa, please bring Vaseline.”?> Would we think him just a bit insensitive, or would we see him as grossly perverse? Would we be concerned with his mindset? Would we be aghast with what he was obviously doing, or had already done to his children? Would we re-elect him? I think the answers are known.

    With a sex toy, we’d be abhorred; we’d see his derangement and the abuse done to the minds of his children. We’d react; he’d not be re-elected; even gun-enthusiasts would turn on him – even if each family member held a dildo and a gun. But when it’s just a gun, not so much; we see the posing as distasteful, but let it slide. Each family member holds an instrument of war made perfect for mass-murder. The image bothers us for a while, but its implications have become normalized. We end up accepting it because we’ve been perverted.

    We’ve formed a circular firing squad, or more aptly, a circle jerk party. Our NRA and the arms industry, our politicians, and our gun owners form a triad of mutually abetted empowerment. The arms industry peddles (see ads again) expensive military style weapons to the general public. Gun sale profits are funneled to the political campaigns of willing sponsors. Political sponsors verbosely validate the industry inspired fantasies of the gun-buying public. The gun-buying public provides votes for the political sponsors and profit for the NRA/arms industry. So, around it goes, each one of the trio first perverting, then validating the perversions of the other two. Every couple of days, another mass-killing takes place. Every week or so, another school-shooting occurs. It’s all quite normal.

    Congressional legislators are perverted with money from the NRA/arms industry, pressure from the gun lobby, and votes from the gun-buying public. Legislators protect the industry from oversight and grant it immunity from victim lawsuits. Manufacturers knowingly sell military-style weaponry to civilians that are repeatedly used in mass-murders, yet bear no liability for the abuse. You (or anyone) could step unto a hotel balcony with an AR-15, shoot and maim dozens of people, and its manufacturer would be immune from lawsuit as long as the weapon efficiently met advertised expectations (the power to end a lot of lives in a short amount of time). Perversely, if the gun somehow misfired and injured one of your eyes while firing upon the crowd, you could conceivably sue the company for damages. We, through our legislators, have given our gun merchants carte blanche license to advertise and sell instruments specifically designed to efficiently kill human beings, knowing that some will be used to that purpose. Further, we, through our legislators, resist any legislation which might lessen either the sale or the lethality of the instruments.

    Shortly after the Oxford High School murders, a committee chaired by Sen. Rosemary Bayer introduced bills in the Michigan Legislature that would lessen the lethality of assault weapons, but not impact their sale – nor would the bills introduce any form of liability upon weapon manufacturers. The bills would prohibit selling or possessing a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, beginning on Jauary1, 2023.

    Wow, imagine that! If you’re a shooter, you’d be restricted to 10-round bursts of gun-fire rather than the 15 that Ethan Crumbley enjoyed. If you hoped to target 30 people, you’d be inconvenienced into carrying three clips rather than two. The proposed legislation illuminates the depth of our perversion. We’re amendable to accepting mass murder in 10-burst increments, but no more than that. We’re willing to allow 10 quick deaths, but not 15; that would be too much. Actually, it’s not even that; we’d just require that the murderer perform more clip-changes to fulfill his fantasy. It’s the type of legislation the arms industry would decry publicly, but profit by privately (they’d sell more magazine clips).

    Seduction is a term usually relegated to sexual matters. One party manipulates a second party into activity that gratifies the first party. It doesn’t always mean the second party receives no gratification, but it does mean it was manipulated into gratifying the first party’s desire, often through pretentious means. Our nation of gun owners has been seduced by the arms industry. We “give it up” and buy into their hype. We believe it, and make it feel real. With a gun, an expensive and lethal gun, we feel strong, safe, dangerous, and powerful. It’s a heady feeling. The feeling is so good that we’re willing to allow daily mass killings for it; we’re more willing to watch weekly school massacres than risk losing that feeling. We sacrifice our children to feel strong and powerful. We’ve been seduced. We’re a nation of perverts.

    It’s us. We’re all in this together and there’s no one else. It’s us, and we’ve really made a mess of things. It’s us, and there’s no one else; we’re in need of a self-induced intervention.

    Merry Christmas! ps. Santa, please bring strength and valor.

    The post A Nation of Perverts first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On Friday 17 December, Ryan Roberts was sentenced to 14 years in prison for fighting back against police violence at Bristol’s 21 March Kill the Bill demonstration.

    Grassroots prisoner support group Bristol Anarchist Black Cross called the sentence “brutal”:

    Ryan Roberts was sentenced on the 17th December 2021 at Bristol Crown Court to a total of 14 years in prison. He was convicted of riot and four counts of arson. Three of the sentences run consecutively and only one concurrently, hence the brutal sentence of 14 years. As it is over seven years, it means he has to do two thirds of the sentence. He will do just under a decade in prison.

    This weekend, mainstream media outlets are full of the pompous words of judge Patrick decrying Ryan’s actions. Precious few words have been spent, however, discussing the police violence meted out against demonstrators.

    I was there on 21 March, and I sat through Ryan’s week-long trial. I am writing this article today in defence of Ryan Roberts, and as a call for people to support him through his sentence.

    Ryan – along with his fellow demonstrators – fought back against the police’s violence, racism, and misogyny. The actions of the demonstrators on 21 March were part of the same struggle as the actions of people fighting back against state violence around the world, and we should be proud of them.

    So I am calling on you to ignore Patrick’s words of condemnation, and stand with Ryan and the other Kill the Bill defendants. Because in standing together, we will find strength, power, and the will to struggle on with a renewed determination.

    What really happened on 21 March

    On 23rd March, The Canary wrote:

    On Sunday 21 March thousands of people joined a #KillTheBill demonstration in Bristol, part of a weekend of action that saw protests held in many UK cities. By the end of the day in Bristol, at least three police vehicles were on fire, while a hundreds-strong crowd laid siege to a police station.

    The Canary‘s Sophia Purdy-Moore witnessed the police violence on 21 March. She said at the time:

    I saw police in riot gear hitting protesters round the head with batons. I did also see people at the front throwing bottles at police, but the response seemed disproportionate. The power imbalance felt completely off. At one point it looked as though their horses were going to charge into the crowd of peaceful protesters. The atmosphere was horrendous. There was a real sense of unpredictability and danger in the air after what had been an uplifting day. This all happened while there were still hundreds of people in the crowd (including children)

    An October statement in support of Ryan and the other defendants from grassroots groups Bristol Defendant Solidarity and Bristol Anarchist Black Cross wrote:

    Protesters sitting in the road were violently attacked [on 21 March]. People were pepper-sprayed, and hit with batons and shields. 62 people were injured in the KTB protests that took place in Bristol in March.

    Police repression

    82 people have been arrested so far – most of them for riot – following the 21 March Kill the Bill demonstration in Bristol.

    Ten of those arrested have pleaded guilty so far. They’ve now received sentences totalling over 49 years in prison. Grassroots groups in Bristol, meanwhile, have condemned the police violence against protesters on 21 March, and have said that they’re proud of the defendants for fighting back against the police.

    Ryan has been on remand in HMP Horfield since his arrest in April.

    “A fight for the freedom of our speech”

    I was in Bristol Crown Court during Ryan’s trial this October.

    Ryan joined the protest to demonstrate against the government’s draconian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. He told the court – in his evidence back in October – that he thought the Bill:

    would be an end to the right to protest

    He went on to say that the struggle against the Bill was:

    a fight for the freedom of our speech

    The court heard that Ryan was a van dweller. People who live in vehicles are one of the many groups of people who will be criminalised by the police bill.

    Ryan also spoke about the murder of Sarah Everard. When asked about why he was chanting “Whose streets, our streets!”, he said it was about the need to:

    Reclaim our streets basically, it relates to the Sarah Everard case, and other incidents that have happened with other police forces throughout the country.

    The March protest happened against the backdrop of Sarah Everard’s murder by a serving Metropolitan Police officer. Footage of police brutalising women a week earlier at a vigil for Sarah Everard spurred more people to take to the streets against the bill in the days before its second reading. As protests erupted in London and across the UK, the government announced that the bill’s progress through parliament would be delayed. But that didn’t stop people’s anger from spilling onto the streets.

    Ryan explained to the court that the turning point in the protest was the police putting on their riot gear and pushing the crowd. This was backed up by Kathryn Hobbs – a defence witness – who was part of an independent group of legal observers on 21 March, and who gave first aid to those injured during the police violence.

    Ryan told the court that after the police donned their riot gear what followed was:

    pushing, shoving, and hitting with shields and batons

    He went on to recount how a close friend was injured by the police, and how he saw several people being hospitalised.

    Nicholas Lewin – the barrister defending Ryan – showed the jury footage from the Ruptly news agency – taken on the 21 March – showing a line of police officers in riot gear knocking two people to the ground while repeatedly hitting them with riot shields and kicking them.

    Lewin asked detective constable Withey – the officer in charge of the case – whether violence was used on demonstrators. Withey responded:

    you can call it violence or you can call it lawful force.

    But PC Foster – a prosecution witness – admitted under cross-examination that the violence shown in the Ruptly footage wasn’t appropriate”.

    Defund the police

    During his evidence, Ryan explained to the jury why he thought it was necessary to defund the police. He said the police needed to be defunded “because of their actions in Bristol and elsewhere”. Ryan said that government funding that was not channelled towards policing could be spent on:

    suicide prevention, protecting people on the streets… child safety, there are lots of other areas that aren’t funded correctly.

    The charges

    At the end of the trial, Ryan was convicted of riot – a serious offence which carries a maximum ten year sentence. He was also convicted of arson with ‘intent to endanger life’ and several other counts of arson against police vehicles. He was additionally found not guilty of a second charge of arson ‘with intent to endanger life’.

    Ryan was – as part of the riot charge – accused of throwing several missiles at the police and kicking at a police riot shield. However, during cross-examination he maintained that his actions were in self-defence.

    During the demonstration, Ryan picked up a police baton and used it to smash the windows of Bridewell police station and attack police vehicles. He told the court that he had wanted to cause damage to them.

    One of the charges that Ryan was found guilty of was of attempted arson ‘being reckless as to whether life was endangered’. This charge related to a video where Ryan can be seen waving a lit piece of cardboard under a moving police vehicle as it drove away. The court heard evidence from the officer who was driving the vehicle, who said that he was unaware that this had happened until he watched footage from the demonstration later on. The prosecutor in the case implied that Ryan had intended to endanger the life of the seven police officers inside.

    The assertion that waving a piece of lit cardboard under the chassis of a moving police vehicle – in wet conditions – could lead to it bursting into flames is – in my opinion – absurd.

    The Canary reported what Ryan said during his trial about the other arson charges:

    Ryan admitted setting light to rubbish and cardboard underneath police vehicles. When asked why, Ryan said it was:

    “to make space between the police and the protesters, seeing as the violence that had occurred before – I didn’t want to see any more.”

    Similarly, when questioned about pushing bins up against an already half burnt Ford Cougar police vehicle, Ryan said that it was because the police:

    “were going to push us back.”

    Footage seen by the court showed that the police did advance on protesters only a short time later

    ‘They only call it violence when we fight back!’

    Judge Patrick has said that Ryan will have to spend two thirds of the sentence in prison. This means he is likely to spend almost a decade in prison for his actions resisting the police on 21 March before being released on license.

    In stark contrast, none of the police officers who injured protesters have been punished in any way. At least 62 people were injured by police during Bristol’s Kill the Bill protests in March, but no action has been taken by the police to punish the officers responsible. During Ryan’s trial, DC Withey said that none of the complaints of police violence had been substantiated. This is a small wonder, however, seeing as most complaints are investigated by the police themselves.

    The footage shown during Ryan’s trial showed extreme violence against protesters, including the practice of blading – a police tactic which involves striking people with the bottom of a rectangular riot shield. The use of blading in Bristol has been condemned by an All Party Parliamentary Group as “unjustified, entirely excessive” and possibly amounting to “criminal offences against the person“. Despite this no officer has been charged with an offence.

    The unevenness of Ryan’s situation reflects the unjust society that we live in.

    Anger

    People responded angrily at the news of Ryan’s sentence. London Anti-Fascist Assembly tweeted:

    After hearing the verdict, people took to the streets of Bristol – marching from the steps of the Crown Court:

    Ryan’s actions were part of our common struggle against state violence

    What happened on 21 March wasn’t just about a group of police officers pushing a crowd, or even about officers kicking and punching people on the ground.

    What happened concerned an authoritarian bill that would criminalise Travellers and van-dwellers like Ryan; a bill that would see more people sent to prison for longer, and would massively restrict people’s ability to take to the streets and protest.

    More broadly, the Kill the Bill demonstration should be seen in the context of the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police office who was part of a misogynist police force, and against the background of the global Black Lives Matter movement, which – less than a year earlier – had risen up against racist police violence.

    In the months preceding the demo, two young People of Colour – Mohamud Hassan and Mouayed Bashir – had died after being in Police custody in Newport and Cardiff.

    What happened on 21 March was about all of this. It was about the daily acts of repression and violence carried out by the police in all of our communities. It was also about the 1,802 people (at least) who have died in police custody since 1990, about racialised police violence, and about racist policing.

    Non-white people are twice as likely to be shot dead by the police in the UK, and a Person of Colour is more than twice as likely to be killed in police custody. In Bristol – if you’re Black – you’re seven times more likely to be stopped and search by the police than if you’re white (according to figures recorded in 2017-18).

    In the face of all this, the actions of Ryan Roberts – and the other Kill the Bill demonstrators of 21 March – can be seen for what they are: a brave act of resistance against police and state violence.

    Ryan’s actions are just one example of how people struggle against power globally. I have watched many times as people defended themselves against police attacking political demonstrations. I have seen these things playing out here in the UK, but also in Germany, France, and Italy. Further afield I have seen Palestinian protesters using rocks to fight back the Israeli police and army, and Egyptian revolutionaries preventing the police from entering Tahrir Square in 2011 after they torched police and government buildings. In 2015, I saw Kurdish youth barricading their neighbourhoods to prevent the Turkish police and army from entering.

    Don’t get me wrong, these situations are all very different, but – on another level – they are all part of the same struggle. In my opinion, what happened on 21 March was simply another manifestation of this global struggle against power, this time on the streets of Bristol.

    Police repression is also a global phenomenon. Wherever there are rebels, the state acts to stifle rebellion.

    Its up to us to support Ryan through his time in prison, and to take inspiration from the fight which the Bristol Kill the Bill protesters showed on 21 March.

    Now – in the face of this authoritarian Policing Bill – we need to carry on the struggle of those arrested after 21 March, and organise to defend our communities against police violence.

    Featured image via screenshot/TheBristolActivist

     

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Truth comes to all of us at different degrees and levels.

    Lenny Bruce

    I was working in a gym — teaching someone how to torque her hips into a left hook — when I heard loud griping about health care… a subject worthy of complaint, for sure, but here’s the punch line:

    “I’d get better treatment if I wasn’t an American,” the griper declared. “The illegal aliens (sic) come here, don’t pay taxes, and exploit the system. Me? I’m screwed because I was born here and actually pay my taxes.”

    Of course, that gripe is loaded with common fallacies. For example, even if they work in the “informal economy” (with its low wages, unsafe conditions, and non-existent benefits), most undocumented immigrants regularly pay sales tax, real estate tax, gasoline tax, etc. In fact, undocumented workers using fraudulent Social Security cards pay billions of dollars per year into that system even though most will never receive a single penny in benefits.

    I could go on debunking the myriad myths surrounding immigration and the whole divide-and-conquer 1% mentality — but far too often, the facts don’t even matter. In a heavily conditioned society, way too many folks choose to believe what they are told/taught/programmed to believe. Don’t take my word for it. Just take a look around. How/why does that happen? I’ve written about this before yet, it sadly remains relevant and timely, so here we go again.

    In his book, The Pig Who Sang to the Moon: The Emotional World of Farm Animals, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson writes: “I was told by some New Zealand sheep farmers that sometimes a particularly smart lamb will learn to undo the latch of a gate, evidently not an uncommon skill, and the sheep farmer then worries that the lamb might teach his less clever companions to do the same.”

    Masson asked the farmers: “What do you with sheep who can undo the latch?”

    “We shoot them,” came the reply, “so they can’t pass on their knowledge.”

    “Others nodded in agreement,” Masson continued. “They all had anecdotes about particularly intelligent sheep who were shot as a reward for their cleverness.”

    While this excerpt stands alone as a telling indictment of human behavior in general and the treatment of animals in particular, it additionally reminds one how important it is for each of us to not only undo the latches on the gates that keep our minds imprisoned… but to also pass on that knowledge.

    Of course, some of those who have learned to undo the latches in human society are duly “rewarded for their cleverness,” too. The tactics vary but even the most obedient of populations can be pushed too far and that’s when the latches get undone, the knowledge occupied and passed on, and the gates fly open.

    These gates — literal and figurative — can lock us into a limited way of seeing things… a concept Masson also touches on in The Pig Who Sang to the Moon. He spoke with some women who worked with cattle, asking them about the cows’ feelings.

    “They don’t have any,” the women agreed. “They are always the same, they feel nothing.”

    “At that moment,” Masson writes, “we all heard a loud bellowing. I asked why the cows were making that noise.”

    The women shrugged it off as “nothing,” explaining that cows that were separated from their calves were calling them.

    “The calves are afraid,” one woman said, “and are calling for their mothers, and their mothers are afraid for their calves and are calling them, trying to reassure them.”

    “It sounded to me,” Masson stated, “as if these people were suffering from confirmation bias, which involves only taking into account evidence that confirms a belief already held and ignoring or dismissing evidence that disproves that same belief.”

    Even the evidence of their own senses cannot convince them? There’s an important, essential lesson lurking in there for us all. Learn it, pass it on, join us.

    The post Say No to Gates first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Coronavirus (Covid-19) vaccines have become a topic of fierce debate. Different sides of the argument seem entrenched in their positions. But is there a right and wrong position on this? And does the idea of forced vaccinations and passports reek of corporate fascism?

    In short: no forced vaccines or passports

    Let’s sum this up fairly easily:

    • The government should not force people to have vaccines.
    • The government should not force people to carry vaccine passports.

    There. That was easy – wasn’t it? Well actually, no. Because the reasoning behind this position is extremely complex – and not in the slightest ‘anti-vax’.

    Vaccines: the arguments for them

    The arguments for vaccines are that they reduce the risk of severe illness and cut hospitalisation and mortality rates. This is fairly obvious by anyone’s standards from the data for the UK. Studies are also showing that vaccines are reducing transmission. But Omicron is an unknown quantity. Currently, some evidence shows it’s evading the vaccine. It may be that (much like seasonal flu) vaccines will need to be adjusted accordingly to beat Omicron.

    So, surely that is enough of a reason for the government to force us all to have both them and vaccine passports, no? ‘Protect the NHS. Save lives’ and all that. Well, again – it’s not that straightforward.

    Government vaccine authoritarianism

    As my editor said to me when discussing this article, there’s a “genuine tension between personal freedom and collective responsibility”. The current UK administration is perhaps one of the most right-wing in recent memory. So, trusting them with our civil liberties seems bizarre at best. UK governments have form on rolling our basic rights and freedoms back under the guise of ‘public interest’.

    Tony Blair’s allegedly centre-left Labour Party from 1997-2010 was one of the worst offenders. Also, “disaster capitalism” as it’s known – when governments use a crisis to further control or change society – is nothing new. So to think that the Tories aren’t exploiting the pandemic is naïve at best: from dodgy PPE contracts to what a future with vaccine passports/digital ID may look like via “secrecy” clauses for companies like Pfizer over their contracts with the government.

    Increasing corporate fascism

    I warned via The Canary, even before the first lockdown in March 2020, that the government’s coronavirus legislation was authoritarian and civil liberties-infringing. On top of that, you have the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: a piece of racist, authoritarian legislation that’s anti-protest. Then there’s the Nationality and Borders Bill: another piece of racist, authoritarian legislation. I could go on.

    The point being, our right-wing government is turning the UK into a corporate fascist state. I have written extensively about this for The Canary. In short, it’s the idea that politicians have allowed corporations unbridled power and the same rights as citizens – which ends up concentrating power into their hands. Forced vaccines or vaccine passports could hand more power over our everyday lives to corporations. For example, a pharmaceutical company could deliberately restrict the supply of a vaccine to increase profits and therefore indirectly resrict people’s freedom if passes remain in place.

    Yet as things stand, we’re supposed to believe the government is a benevolent entity acting in our best interests? Germany has forced “quasi-lockdowns” for the ‘unvaccinated’ or people who haven’t recovered from coronavirus – where they are not allowed to go into certain public spaces. This is one example of where the UK may head – and Germany’s centre-left government is a fairly liberal one. So, imagine what ours may do.

    Capitalism’s conflicting interests

    Of course, what we’re also seeing with the vaccine rollout is the different industries of capitalism pursuing their own interests. On the one hand, you have the interests of big pharma. Then, on the other, you have the nighttime/service sector economy. It’s clear right-wing governments are stuck in the middle here because both these subsets of the economy are crucial for capitalism’s wheels to keep turning.

    So, mandatory vaccinations and passports are the obvious solutions to keep both sectors happy. Big pharma makes a killing – and the nighttime/service sector gets to stay open. Once again, the rest of us are left with doing what we’re told, to protect corporate profit. If ever there was another reason to nationalise the pharmaceutical industry, it’s this.

    One size fits all vaccines: a failed approach

    There also needs to be a debate about the ‘one size generally fits all’ approach to vaccination. While the vast majority of people will experience no major side effects from the jab, this is not the case for everyone. Just in my Twitter community, I know of several people living with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) who have had the vaccine and it’s made them even sicker. Sadly, the voices of chronically ill and disabled people are often erased from the discourse.

    Plus, human physiology and genetics are complex things. Mass vaccination programmes only factor in risks for a few patient groups. So, diseases like ME, whose origin is still unknown and yet is generally triggered by a virus, are ignored in this. Some people may argue ‘well, it’s better than them dying’. I know some people who would disagree with this given how severely ill they are. Moreover, they shouldn’t be given this binary choice anyway.

    The sins of the few cause the punishment of the many

    But ultimately, the story of government-mandated vaccines is the same as other catastrophes like the climate crisis. Essentially, the sins of the few cause the punishment of the many. The actions of the wealthiest people and corporations have resulted in our entire species now being under threat from climate breakdown. And governments prioritising the economy and the needs of capitalism over public health at the start of the pandemic have meant countless unnecessary deaths and the almighty mess we’re now in – including the debate over vaccines.

    Capitalism: reaping what it sowed

    Also, the fact that governments are getting closer to forcing vaccinations upon us is in some sense of their own making. As a species, corporate capitalism encourages us to become obsessed with ourselves at the expense of others. Our own responsibilities to our communities, our species, and wider ecosystems have been eroded over time. In a perfect world, we all would have voluntarily locked ourselves in our homes with robust government support until the virus died a natural death. Sadly, humans are not an innately selfless species – and corporate capitalism encourages that.

    What’s the alternative?

    From the start of the pandemic, the government’s handling of it was a disaster. It should have closed the borders immediately; locked down quicker; provided better financial and social support for everyone, and made it the goal to try and reach ‘zero Covid’. But this didn’t happen. In reality, the government’s response was often driven by sham behavioural science; decisions were either wrong or too late, and that has now left us in this position. Because of government ineptitude coupled with capitalism’s needs, we have a binary choice of ‘to vaccinate or not to vaccinate’. It should never have been this way.

    Yes to targeted, personalised vaccinations

    Vaccinations per se have been a good thing for humans. As a society, we generally exist in close proximity to each other, encouraging disease transmission. We’re one of the few vertebrates that cannot synthesise our own Vitamin C, putting our immune systems at a natural disadvantage. This is made worse by structural and social factors like poverty and nutritionally poor food. And mother nature is, as coronavirus has shown, constantly evolving – bringing new threats to our door. So, the fact that humans have a first line of defence against viruses is obviously in our own interests. Vaccination programmes should holistically look at each person, their health, and how it could potentially impact them while weighing up the benefit to the rest of society.

    We should decide

    But ultimately, the decision to have a vaccination should be a personal choice. Humans surely should have evolved beyond a point where those in charge of us have to enact laws to force medication upon us. We should be making these decisions ourselves, knowing that there is a benefit for us as a society to be vaccinated. For those of us who, for whatever reason, choose not to have it there should be no legal repercussions.

    Governments should not force us to have the vaccine because of their own mistakes and profit-driven agendas. We should all be looking at what we can do personally and collectively to stop the spread of the virus, reduce pressure on the NHS and save lives. And then, we need to consider how we allowed this situation to arise in the first place – making sure it never happens again.

    Featured image via Wikipedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Settlers enjoyed a seeming free permission: to dispossess natives at will of all the best land, turn them out of traditional fishing locations, disrespect elders, women, children and religion, leave whole communities without political representation and punish men for breaking laws which they could have no means of knowing existed. It was inconceivable that all this change could happen overnight without violence. Instead, there was the greatest imaginable violence: genocide.

    — Tom Swanky, The Great Darkening, 2012

    Somehow, even “genocide” seems an inadequate description for what happened, yet rather than viewing it with horror, most Americans have conceived of it as their country’s manifest destiny.

    — Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous People’s History of the United States, 2015

    Imagine, if you can, that someone would take almost everything from you — your home, your culture, your language, your spirituality, your connection to the past, your children, your elders — and render you spiritually, emotionally, and economically destitute. In subsequent years, the thief uses the purloined land and resources to amass enormous material wealth. While others around you have suffered injury and death, you are among those still breathing — a survivor? Sometimes the word survivor seems so inappropriate. Isn’t it possible to breathe the air and still feel as if you have not survived?

    Canada exists because it conducted a genocide. Canada prefers that the genocide have an adjective attached: cultural. A cultural genocide sounds like there were no bodies, that only some traditions were ripped away. But that is a lie. Many Indigenous children taken from their families did not return. Indigenous children with contagious tuberculosis were intentionally kept in dorms with otherwise healthy children. Smallpox is also known to have been deliberately passed on to First Nations. The purposeful propagation of lethal diseases is, first and foremost, biological not cultural. Land is a lot easier for the taking when there are no people on it.

    But history sometimes has a seemingly morality-attuned quirk for re-emerging and biting the backs of those, or their progeny, who reaped unjust fruits.

    Canadian society and its government have been dominated by European settler-colonialists. Many of the settlers denigrated Indigenous peoples, viewing them as savages, lazy, uncouth, and inferior. So the Indigenes were removed to postage-stamp sized reserves far from White society’s sensibilities. In the meantime, the plan to disappear Indigenous peoples, by way of assimilation, was being carried out by the church and state.

    The long-buried crimes would eventually resurface and set off a paroxysm of consternation in sensible society.

    One powder keg, was the launching of a national class-action lawsuit by Indigenous peoples concerning a long-standing human rights complaint over the underfunding of First Nations child welfare. The Canadian government fought it, but sometimes a form of justice prevails. Canada was found culpable for racially discriminating against First Nations kids living on reserves. Canada was ordered to pay the statutory maximum of C$40,000 to victims of discrimination and some family members.

    Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN) reported: “The federal government is pledging up to $40 billion [approximately US$30 billion] to compensate First Nations kids and reform the child-welfare system.”

    What is a pledge from the Canadian government worth? After all, prime minister Justin Trudeau promised to lift all long-term drinking-water advisories by March 2021. Progress was made, but as of 9 December 2021 there are still 42 long-term drinking-water advisories in 33 communities.

    The Truth and Reconciliation Commission — whose raison d’être was to come to grips with the tattered legacy of forced assimilation and abuse in the residential school system — issued a report in July 2015 with 94 Calls to Action. As of 8 October 2021, 13 calls were completed, 29 had projects under way, 32 had projects proposed, and 20 calls had no action started. More than 6 years later, Canada has completed almost 14% of the actions. What does that indicate about fidelity to reconciliation?

    Then there is the question unexplored: from where did the Canadian government derive the money to “compensate” First Nations kids? Is the Canadian state not filling its coffers with resources extracted from First Nations, Michif, and Inuit land? Land, much of which is unceded or obtained through fraudulent treaty negotiations.

    Consider what reconciliation and compensation looks like to the Wet’suwet’en people who are facing militarized Canadian gendarmes helping force a pipeline route through unceded Wet’suwet’en territory.

    What should be done?

    If someone (especially someone of means) steals something precious from you, don’t you want it returned? If someone unlawfully tosses you out of your home and off your property, don’t you want it back? There is an Indigenous-led movement calling for Land Back. If land was stolen should it not be returned to the original users? Users because many First Nations do not believe in ownership of the land, meaning that it cannot be bought or sold.

    The post What Does It Mean for the Dispossessor to “Compensate” the Dispossessed? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • [A version of this essay was presented to the UK Engage Conference: Masculinity, Patriarchy, Feminism on November 19, 2021.]

    Before talking about pornography and men, I should say a few words about pornography and me.

    I have spent my adult life working as a journalist or a professor, acquiring information that has helped me understand pornography and the other sexual-exploitation industries, including prostitution and stripping. This presentation is rooted in more than three decades of this research and writing.

    But I am not a detached observer. Like virtually all men of the post-Playboy generation (the first issue came out in 1953, and I was born in 1958), I used pornography as a child and young man. I have a hazy memory of a soft-core motorcycle magazine with pictures of topless women, which a grade-school friend had found and hid in his backyard. By the time I was in junior high, I had discovered where my father hid his pornographic magazines, in the second dresser drawer underneath his t-shirts. In junior high school, I had a friend who had figured out how to sneak into the local pornographic movie theater. In my 20s, I used pornography sporadically, and like many men I felt drawn to the intensity of the experience but conflicted about using it.

    I begin autobiographically not because my early life is so intriguing but precisely because it’s not. These experiences were pretty normal for men my age. The experiences of boys and younger men who grew up with the internet are similar in some ways but more troubling because of the intensification of the images and the delivery system.

    I started questioning the dominant culture’s version of normal at the age of 30 when I went to grad school and read about the radical feminist critique of pornography and the sexual exploitation of women. Today I want to make the case for radical feminism to men who want to escape the culture’s pathological normality, who no longer want to try to be a “real man.” As I have said many times, we are trained to fear feminists, but radical feminism is not a threat but a gift to men.

    I’ll describe the content of contemporary pornography and what that says about men. That part of the presentation is pretty straightforward, though painful to confront. Then I will discuss what I’ve heard men say about pornography over those three decades. That’s more complex and offers some hope.

    Pornographic Images

    I will focus on the graphic sexually explicit material that depicts primarily heterosexual activity that is produced for heterosexual men, who are the majority of the consumers. While women’s use of pornography has increased in recent years, the industry still produces material that reflects the male sexual imagination in patriarchy. That’s also true of gay male pornography. More on that later.

    What this material says about men is simple: In contemporary patriarchy, men are socialized to find control of women arousing. Pornography eroticizes domination and subordination, with the core power dynamic of male over female.

    Let’s start with a bit of history. The pornography industry operated largely underground in the United States until the 1960s and ‘70s, when it became more accepted in mainstream society. That led to an increase in the amount of pornography produced, which expanded dramatically with new media technologies, such as VCRs, DVDs, and the internet.

    The industry’s desire to increase profits drove the development of new products, in this case a wider variety of sexual acts in pornographic films. The standard sexual script in pornography—little or no foreplay, oral sex (primarily performed by women on men), vaginal intercourse, and occasionally anal intercourse—expanded to keep viewers from becoming satiated and drifting away.

    The first of those changes was the more routine presentation of men penetrating women anally, in increasingly rough fashion. Why anal? One longtime pornography producer whom I interviewed at an industry trade show explained it to me in explicit language, which I’ll paraphrase. Men know that most women don’t want anal sex, he said. So, when men get angry at their wives and girlfriends, they think to themselves, “I’d like to fuck her in the ass.” Because they can’t do that in real life, he said, they love it in pornography.

    That producer didn’t realize he was articulating a radical feminist critique: Pornography is not just sex on film but rather sex in the context of male domination and female subordination, the central dynamic of patriarchy. The sexual experience in pornography is made more intense through sex acts that men find pleasurable but women may not want.

    Where did the industry go from there? As pornographers sought to expand market share and profit, they continued to “innovate.” Routine acts in pornography now include slapping and spitting on women, pulling women’s hair, and ejaculating not just on women’s bodies (the longstanding “money shot”) but especially on their faces (a “facial”). A number of specifically pornographic sex practices—acts that are typically not part of most people’s real-world sex lives but are common in pornography—followed the normalizing of anal sex, including:

    • double penetration (two men penetrating a woman vaginally and anally at the same time);
    • double vag (two men penetrating a woman vaginally at the same time);
    • double anal (two men penetrating a woman anally at the same time);
    • gagging (oral penetration of a woman so aggressive that it makes her gag);
    • choking (men forcefully grasping a woman’s throat during intercourse, sometimes choking the woman); and
    • ATM (industry slang for ass-to-mouth, when a man removes his penis from the anus of a woman and, without visible cleaning, inserts his penis into her mouth or the mouth of another woman).

    Even pornographers acknowledge that they can’t imagine what comes after all this. One industry veteran told me that everything that could be done to a woman’s body had been filmed. “After all, how many dicks can you stick in a girl at one time?” he said. A director I interviewed echoed that, wondering “Where can it go besides [multiple penetrations]? Every hole is filled.” Another director worried that pornography was going too far and that porn sex increasingly resembled “circus acts.” “The thing about it is,” he told me, “there’s only but so many holes, only but so many different types of penetration that can be executed upon a woman.”

    One pornographic genre that explores other forms of degradation is called “interracial,” which has expanded in the past two decades. Films in this category can feature any combination of racial groups, but virtually all employ racist stereotypes (the hot-blooded Latina, sexually animalistic black women, demure Asian “geishas” who live to serve white men, immigrant women who are easily exploited) and racist language (I’ll spare you examples of that). One of the most common interracial scenes is a white woman being penetrated by one or more black men, who are presented as being rougher and more aggressive, drawing on the racist stereotype of black men as a threat to the purity of white women, while at the same time revealing the white woman to be nothing but a slut who seeks such defilement. This racism would be denounced in any other mass media form but continues in pornography with little or no objection from most progressives.

    Finally, in recent years there has been an increase in what my friend Gail Dines calls “pseudo-child pornography.” Sexually explicit material using minors is illegal, and so mainstream pornography stays away from actual child sexual abuse material. But the industry uses young-looking adult women in childlike settings (the classic image is a petite woman in a girls’ school uniform) to create the impression that an adult man can have the high school cheerleader of his fantasy. Another popular version features stepfathers having sex with teenage stepdaughters. This material is not marketed to pedophiles but is part of the mainstream pornography market for “ordinary” guys.

    Dines’ description of contemporary pornography captures these trends: “Today’s mainstream Internet porn is brutal and cruel, with body-punishing sex acts that debase and dehumanize women.”

    A brief word about pornography marketed to gay men: The same analysis is useful. Gay pornography features sex between men, and so obviously the male domination/female subordination dynamic is not present. But top/bottom and other inequality dynamics replicate the eroticizing of power, including racist themes.

    These patterns don’t mean that every man will be aroused by such material, or that all men use such material, or that men are drawn to this material because of some immutable biological drive. Pornography does not tell us about the essence of men. Pornography reflects the construction of male sexuality in patriarchy, a social system that is only several thousand years old. Our species has been around for several hundred thousand years. Patriarchy is not the norm in human history but rather a recent deviation from the social organization of more than 95% of human history. We aren’t talking about men-for-all-time but men-in-patriarchy.

    Pornography tells us that men in patriarchy are socialized to seek control over women, even to use coercion and violence to obtain sexual pleasure when deemed necessary. Pornography tells us something disturbing about how we are socialized in patriarchy.

    Pornographic Experiences

    I would like to shift from an analytical account of the content of this material to stories from my public presentations about pornography, starting in the early 1990s. The misogyny and racism in pornography have intensified over time, an unambiguously destructive trend. Men’s reactions are more complex, though I believe there is an underlying theme: fear.

    Here are a few of those stories about what men say about pornography.

    Staying in Control

    The first time I spoke in public about pornography was during my graduate studies at the University of Minnesota, when I was an occasional co-presenter of an anti-pornography slide show created by the feminist public-education group Organizing Against Pornography. When the program started, I noticed a college-age couple in the front row, leaning into each other in a fashion that suggested they were in a committed relationship. Both of them looked animated, eager to hear the presentation. After the slide show, which most people found disturbing, the man put his arm around her shoulder. As the conversation intensified and women started expressing their anger, the man placed his hand on the back of the woman’s neck, where it stayed for the duration of the meeting.

    The man seemed unaware of that shift, and I suspect it was unconscious. I can’t know what he was thinking, of course, but it was hard not to notice that as more women in the room challenged not only men’s pornography use but men’s behavior more generally, the more uneasy he seemed. His response was to exert physical control over his girlfriend. Perhaps the feminist critique hit too close to home.

    He didn’t speak during the discussion period, nor did his girlfriend. But other men in the audience that day defended men’s use of pornography and argued that the feminist critique was prudish. Those men refused to take a critique of the sexual norms in patriarchy seriously, and I quickly got used to such angry responses from men in public.

    From Anger to Dismissal

    That program in the early 1990s came at about the time that lively debate about the feminist critique ended. Throughout the 1980s, feminists who called themselves anti-censorship expressed concerns about any intervention against pornography, including the feminist proposal for a civil-rights approach to replace the failed criminal laws. But within a few years, the debate between the anti-pornography and anti-censorship feminists was eclipsed by an explicitly pro-pornography feminism, which gave more cover to men. Rather than self-reflect about their use of pornography, now men could simply say they were supporting feminists who embraced sexual freedom and sexual expression without limits.

    I ran into this approach most often when I was speaking at elite universities, where this pro-pornography feminism was strongest. During one presentation at Stanford in the early 2000s, I described the common sexual acts depicted in pornography that I summarized a few minutes ago. During the discussion, one young man with a particularly smug look on his face raised his hand and pointed out what he thought was a fatal flaw in my argument.

    “You’re assuming that double anal is painful,” he said. “What if some women like it?”

    I suppressed several unkind potential responses, including the suggestion that he seek out a double anal and report back to us. Instead I said that I was indeed assuming that a double anal is painful for most women, though people can train their bodies to endure a lot of pain. In the many public presentations I had made, I said that I had yet to hear a woman in the audience respond with enthusiasm to the description of multiple-penetration scenes.

    Then I pointed out that even if every woman who was used in a double anal scene enjoyed it, most of the men watching that scene assume she’s in pain. While most of the female performers act as if those multiple penetrations are pleasurable, watch closely and whatever the vocalizations of pleasure, it often seems they are just trying to endure the experience. Men aren’t stupid. They know that in everyday life there are very few women seeking double-anal penetration. The sexual charge for male viewers comes from watching a sex act that they know that women in their lives do not seek out and that virtually all women would find painful.

    Remember the radical feminist analysis: Pornography is not just sex on film but sex in the context of domination and subordination. Some men like to watch women engaging in sex acts that hurt. Pro-pornography feminism made it easier for men to avoid self-reflecting about that.

    Boys Will Be Boys

    By the 2010s, the use of increasingly cruel and degrading online pornography had become routine. After presentations, I heard many younger women say that they would prefer to date men who didn’t use pornography but that they didn’t know any. As pornography became normalized, men were increasingly open about using the material. One high school student told me that when he told friends that he didn’t use pornography, no one believed him. “You don’t have to be afraid to admit it,” they said. “We all do it.”

    A dramatic example of this came during an evening when I screened the 2008 documentary “The Price of Pleasure” at Texas State University. I expected a small group but arrived to find an auditorium packed with several hundred students, not because I was popular but because several professors required attendance. While introducing the film, I was nervous because the audience was so jocular, which continued during the screening. During one of the most intense scenes featuring the sexual degradation of women, some of the men started giggling, then laughing. After a minute of this, I asked my hosts to stop the film, and I went back to the microphone.

    I told the students that one way to deal with sexual material that brought up uncomfortable questions about our own lives was to laugh it away. But I asked them to remember that sitting all around them in the auditorium were women who had been sexually assaulted and harassed. I didn’t know which women had experienced sexual violence and coercion, I said, but in a group of this size you can be sure there are many. Before you laugh at depictions of sexual cruelty, remember that the woman next to you may be one of those victims. How do you think she might feel about your laughter? How might any woman, no matter what her experience, feel?

    The room fell quiet, we went back to the film, and the discussion that followed was sober and serious. Several women spoke about their fear and anger, and eventually a few men talked hesitantly about their misgivings about using pornography. But the students who stayed to talk informally after the program ended were mostly women. Most of the men got out as quickly as they could.

    Men’s Distress

    In the 2010s, it became more common for men to talk openly about how pornography affects them. For most, the self-awareness was not rooted in the feminist critique but rather their emotional distress about how pornography use was distorting their sexual imaginations and interfering in their sex lives.

    I remember the first time a young man talked about this with me. After my lecture, I chatted informally with people who had more questions or comments. As the crowd thinned out, I saw this student at the back of the room, apparently waiting for everyone to leave before he approached me. I don’t remember the university where I was speaking, but I remember this student clearly.

    He told me that the feminist critique was new to him and he had a lot to think about, and then got to what was making him nervous. He used pornography regularly since he was in middle school, he said, and it was increasingly hard for him to function sexually with his girlfriend. During sex, it always felt like there was a porn loop in his head that he couldn’t get rid of. More recently, he could no longer get an erection without thinking of pornography scenes. He said he loved his girlfriend and wanted to stop using pornography but hadn’t been able to quit. He seemed relieved one he had said it out loud.

    I told him I wasn’t a trained therapist and couldn’t offer counseling, but I said he wasn’t the only man struggling with these reactions. I repeated the only advice I had: If you try to deal with this by yourself, you will fail. Like any problematic behavior, the route to health is in breaking out of your isolation, understanding that others also struggle, and finding support to change. Therapy can be effective, but just as important is finding a community of like-minded men.

    Since that conversation, men have created online networks to share those struggles and help each other, including NoFap and Reboot Nation. Many of these men came together after reading the website Your Brain on Porn, founded by the late Gary Wilson. Other men have confronted their pornography use in Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous. While psychologists debate whether pornography can be addictive, men are dealing with how to break cycles of use that they experience as an addiction.

    I’m glad men are facing how their pornography use has affected them, but that is just a first step. Placing our own self-defeating and dysfunctional behavior in the context of a feminist critique of patriarchy not only opens up possibilities to help women and girls but also deepens our own capacity for critical self-reflection. And it helps deal with our fear.

    Fear

    Whether men celebrate pornography or worry about its effects on them, whether men are angry or anxious, fear is a common denominator. Some men are afraid someone will take away the material they think they need to experience sexual pleasure. Other men are afraid of what that vehicle to sexual pleasure does to their ability to function sexually outside of the pornographic world. And men are afraid of losing control, whether over “their” women or over themselves.

    Men’s fears bolster patriarchy. Institutionalized male dominance creates in women and girls a legitimate fear of, among other things, men’s violence and sexual exploitation. But men in patriarchy also live with fear that keeps them trapped.

    To be clear: Compared with the injuries visited upon women and girls, men’s struggles in patriarchy are far less threatening. Women and girls experience discrimination and an ever-present threat of sexual violence in patriarchy that men will never know. But patriarchy does diminish men’s capacity to be fully human, to experience the full range of human emotions.

    Men’s fears are rooted in the endless competition that is at the core of patriarchy, which leads to the pathological need for control in pursuit of the conquest we are trained to desire. Men are socialized to seek control, of our own emotions and the behavior of others. That control is aimed at taking what we come to believe is rightfully ours, including sexual gratification from women.

    I’ve described patriarchy as a lifelong contest of King of the Hill, the childhood game in which everyone tries to pull down the boy at the top of a hill. Patriarchy not only creates a domination/subordination dynamic between men and women, but also creates a corrosive competition between men. After conversations with many men, I have come to believe that virtually all men at some point in their lives are afraid that they aren’t man enough, that they can’t live up to what they’ve been taught is the dominating essence of a real man.

    But wait, some men say, “That’s not how I was raised” or “That’s not how I am.”

    It’s possible that there are men who were never affected by this cultural training in the dominant masculinity. Boys who were never affected by other boys and adult men warning them not to throw like a girl or cry like a girl. Boys who were never affected by a steady stream of movies and television shows depicting tough guys who triumph by using violence. Boys who were never affected by seeing male power all around them or being told that the ultimate power to be worshiped was He.

    And it’s possible that there are men who have never leveraged being male for personal advancement. Men who have never failed to stand up against sexism in their workplace to ensure that women were treated fairly. Men who have never used women or other men in pornography or the other sexual-exploitation industries. Men who have never told a sexist joke.

    It’s possible there are such men, though I have never met one. And I have never met a man who at some point in his life had not been afraid that he was not man enough.

    As with any system of unearned privilege and power, it can be difficult for those of us on top to see how such systems shape us. Our best hope of seeing that is feminism, especially the radical feminism that I first encountered in the anti-pornography movement. That’s why I keep saying that radical feminism is not a threat but a gift to men, because it helps us to see the world more clearly, to see ourselves more honestly.

    A feminist analysis, combined with critical self-reflection individually and collectively, offers us a way out of the traps that patriarchal constructions of masculinity set for us. If we can overcome our fear, we can be part of a movement that can limit—and someday eliminate—the damage we do to women and girls. It’s a movement that also gives us the chance to become fully human.

    The post What Do Men Tell Us about Pornography? What Does Pornography Tell Us about Men? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The liberating power of irreverent “black comedy”: breaking false idols, mocking prevailing hypocrisies, and calling forth a massive revolt against mass delusion and folly–through laughter.  It was, of course, in the Sixties, just when people were beginning to “raise their consciousness” — that various forms of spirited and subversive humor appeared on the scene.  Things were a-changing: Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, “second wave” feminism, and a new (guiltless) candor about sex.  But even more fundamentally, a new egalitarian ethos, poised to sweep away the entrenched authoritarian institutions still to be found in patriarchy at home and war-making abroad.

    There was a bracing climate of good-humored frankness in the air–most conspicuously, in the circles of high-spirited, rebellious youth.  Good-humored, because young people almost everywhere felt energized and hopeful by the new honesty and intimate communication.  In startling contrast to our own sadly deluded time–plagued as it is by misguided righteousness and hidden, festering resentments–it was a more optimistic age, in which small-minded bigots and petty dictators of everyday life could hopefully simply be laughed off the stage of a “new-world-in-progress.”

    At its most liberating, such invigorating satire delightfully mocked ALL sacred cows, hypocrisies, bigotries, and narrow-minded provincialisms.  Destroy all conventional stupidities and petty tyrannies–with an overwhelming upswell of liberating laughter.  Think of Kubrick and Southern’s Dr. Strangelove (1964).  Sixty years on, it remains a devastatingly funny, darkly incisive exposure of “madness in high places” — the Pentagon’s “crackpot realism,” which sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote so trenchantly about.  (A few years later, President Nixon would order his generals in Vietnam to “kill anything that moves.”)  If anything, the bumbling, priapic Gen. Buck Turgidson, brilliantly portrayed by George C. Scott, still exhibits a modicum of sanity–unlike those generals we’ve seen in Iraq who “do not do body-counts.”

    Think also of the pathbreaking TV satire of the Seventies, All in the Family.  “Let’s not pretend that offensive racism doesn’t exist,” creator Norman Lear seemed to be urging, “let’s bring it out in the open for all to hear and see, thereby revealing it for all its pathetic ignorance.”  Let the uneducated, small-minded “Archie Bunkers” of America say their say–in an appropriately comic, buffoonish format, of course–and maybe, just maybe, their laughable ignorance will consign their kind to the dustbin of history.  (Sadly, it doesn’t seem to have turned out that way: “Archie Bunker” just waited until he could get his very own Fox network!).

    That reminds me of my favorite example of what I’m talking about: the movie No Way to Treat a Lady (1968), a delicious mock-thriller in which both the serial killer and the detective have debilitating “mother-complexes.”  For under-50 readers, the allusion to the Freudian Oedipus complex may seem quite distant and unfamiliar.  But in the Sixties, expanding horizons of liberation included overcoming (socio-political) repressions and indoctrinations.  Freudianism–and overcoming “repressed sex” — were once again all the rage.  Sexual maladjustment was frankly confronted as a possible source of innumerable psycho-social pathologies.  Recall that in Dr. Strangelove, the paranoid Gen. Jack D. Ripper evidently practices–when he is not impotent–coitus reservatus.  He is obsessively fearful of any threat to his “precious bodily fluids.”  And, of course, the movie itself climaxes in a kind of final “cosmic orgasm.”

    Christopher Gill, played with true comic genius by Rod Steiger, is a mother-smothered actor who still worships at the shrine of his domineering actress-mama, long-dead but immortalized in the “Amanda Gill Theater” which he manages.  In one droll scene among many, Gill recalls his elderly(!) mother performing as Cleopatra in Shakespeare’s play.  Gill, you see, suffers from “paranoid mother-hate” — so much so that he just can’t stop strangling various old ladies.  Meanwhile, the mother-shackled, hapless detective Mo Brummel, played with appropriate nebbishness by George Segal, is on the case.  Of course, there are possibly “offensive” stereotypes here–the domineering “Jewish mother” and her hapless, thirty-something son.  But it is all done in such a playful spirit of drollery–making fun of the stereotypes, as well as of the Freudian mumbo-jumbo that one must take with more than a grain of good-natured irony.

    Significantly, quite unlike misogynistic slasher movies which began with Hitchcock’s disturbing Psycho (1960), all this is presented in a good-natured, un-serious fashion.  Both Gill and Brummel have the same problem–they just deal with it in different ways!  And, unlike Hitchcock’s sickening serial-killer movie Frenzy (1972), the strangulations in No Way to Treat a Lady are brief and off-screen.  Using a lipstick, the effeminate Gill invariably draws a pair of alluring red lips on the foreheads of his victims–the luscious red lips also evident in the portrait of his late, lamented Mother.  Gill, as a failed actor, thus attains the ultimate revenge: not only does he kill a series of mother-surrogates, but demonstrates his under-appreciated acting genius in the process!

    In one encounter, Gill adopts the costume of an emigre German plumber who has come to “pound on the pipes.”  (“You are from Frankfurt?  I am from Frankfurt!”).  After eating the Frau’s generously offered “google-hoops,” he completes the business-at-hand.  In another, he is a gay hairdresser, who arrives at a cat-lady’s apartment, explaining that she “signed a coupon at the drugstore” and has “won a wig.”  Steiger, complete with his own (Boris Johnson?) style of wig (and an effetely lisping voice), wishes to proceed to his business–only to be constantly interrupted by the naughty doings of the woman’s innumerable cats!  And, just when he might be able to complete the “wig-fitting,” a sister arrives and immediately smells trouble.  Gill, much exasperated that both the cats and the sister have diverted him from his business, is then chased out by the yelling sister: “You fag [redubbed “phony”]!  Gill’s departing repartee is deliriously droll: “That doesn’t make you a bad person!”

    Can you see what I’m driving at?  It was a time of liberating, growing awareness–with an impatient eagerness to throw off the hidden prejudices, outmoded conventions, and above all, hypocrisies that crippled people’s capacities for real engagement and bold, life-affirming transformations in their lives.  An opening for human growth had appeared, in which good-natured frankness and easy-going irreverence could help people to overcome their crippling inhibitions, stifling conformities, and irrational prejudices.

    Unfortunately, these days hypocrisy once again reigns supreme–but in strangely new forms.  Common-sense wisdom might tell us that if you prohibit “offensive speech,” it doesn’t just wither away.  It festers in secret–where it then builds on real or imagined grievances. Our everyday experience might also tell us that if you try to force someone to agree with you, he will stubbornly resist–defiantly insisting on his “right to an opinion” (which he might otherwise have soon re-examined on his own).  But these days, menacing “white supremacists” and their ilk have instead defiantly withdrawn into an algorthmically-amplified, Internet bunker of their fellow paranoids, thereby mutually reinforcing their delusions about  “endangered liberty.”  And, in the meantime, stockpiling more assault weapons–and waiting for another hate-mongering demagogue like Trump.

    The post Liberating Frankness, Enlightening Irreverence first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • ANALYSIS: By David Robie, Auckland University of Technology

    “Loyalist” New Caledonians handed France the decisive victory in the third and final referendum on independence it wanted in Sunday’s vote.

    But it was a hollow victory, with pro-independence Kanaks delivering Paris a massive rebuke for its three-decade decolonisation strategy.

    The referendum is likely to be seen as a failure, a capture of the vote by settlers without the meaningful participation of the Indigenous Kanak people. Pacific nations are unlikely to accept this disenfranchising of Indigenous self-determination.

    In the final results on Sunday night, 96.49 percent said “non” to independence and just 3.51 percent “oui”. This was a dramatic reversal of the narrow defeats in the two previous plebiscites in 2018 and 2020.

    However, the negative vote in this final round was based on 43.9 percent turnout, in contrast to record 80 percent-plus turnouts in the two earlier votes. This casts the legitimacy of the vote in doubt, and is likely to inflame tensions.

    A Jean-Marie Tjibaou portrait at Tiendanite
    A Jean-Marie Tjibaou portrait in the background at Tiendanite village polling station. Image: Caledonia TV screenshot APR

    One of the telling results in the referendum was in Tiendanite, the traditional home village of celebrated Kanak independence leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou. He negotiated the original Matignon Accord in 1988, which put an end to the bloodshed that erupted during the 1980s after a similar failed referendum on independence. In his village, it was apparently a total boycott, with not a single vote registered.

    In the remote northern Belep islands, only 0.6 percent of residents cast a vote. On the island of Lifou in the mainly Kanak Loyalty Islands, some of the polling stations had no votes. In the Kanak strongholds of Canala and Hiènghene on the main island of Grande Terre, less than 2 percent of the population cast a vote.

    Macron criticised for pressing ahead with vote
    The result will no doubt be a huge headache for French President Emmanuel Macron, just months away from the French presidential elections next April. Critics are suggesting his insistence on pressing ahead with the referendum in defiance of the wide-ranging opposition could damage him politically.

    Electoral posters in Noumea
    Electoral posters advocating a “no” vote in the referendum in the capital Noumea. Image: Clotilde Richalet/AP

    However, Macron hailed the result in Paris, saying,

    Tonight, France is more beautiful because New Caledonia has decided to stay part of it.

    He said a “period of transition” would begin to build a common project “respecting the dignity of everyone”.

    Pro-independence Kanak parties had urged postponement of the referendum due to the COVID crisis in New Caledonia, and the fact the vote was not due until October 2022. The customary Kanak Senate, comprising traditional chiefs, had declared a mourning period of one year for the mainly Indigenous victims of the COVID surge in September that had infected more than 12,000 people and caused 280 deaths.

    While neighbouring Vanuatu also called for the referendum to be postponed, the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) provided a ministerial monitoring team. The influential Melanesian Spearhead Group (comprised of Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Fiji, Solomon Islands and New Caledonia’s independence coalition), refused to recognise the “unilateral” referendum, saying this was

    a crucial time for Melanesian people in New Caledonia to decide their own future.

    A coalition of Pacific civil society organisations and movement leaders joined the opposition and condemned Paris for “ignoring” the impact the health crisis had

    on the ability of Kanaks to participate in the referendum and exercise their basic human right to self-determination.

    "Kanaky: "Racist vote - don't vote"
    “Racist vote – don’t vote” banners in a Kanak boycott protest. Image: Caledonia TV screenshot APR

    A trio of pro-independence advocates had also travelled to New York last week with New Caledonia Congress president Roch Wamytan and declared at the United Nations that a plebiscite without Kanak participation had no legitimacy and the independence parties would not recognise the result.

    Pro-independence leaders insist they will not negotiate with Paris until after the French presidential elections. They have also refused to see French Overseas Minister Sebastien Lecornu, who arrived in Noumea at the weekend. They regard the minister as pandering to the anti-independence leaders in the territory.

    Why is New Caledonia so important to France?
    Another referendum is now likely in mid-2023 to determine the territory’s future status within France, but with independence off the table.

    Some of France’s overseas territories, such as French Polynesia, have considerably devolved local powers. It is believed New Caledonia may now be offered more local autonomy than it has.

    New Caledonia is critically important to France’s projection of its Indo-Pacific economic and military power in the region, especially as a counterbalance to growing Chinese influence among independent Pacific countries. Its nickel mining industry and reserves, important for manufacturing stainless steel, batteries and mobile phones, and its maritime economic zone are important to Paris.

    Ironically, France’s controversial loss of a lucrative submarine deal with Australia in favour of a nuclear sub partnership with the US and UK enhanced New Caledonia’s importance to Paris.

    The governments in Australia and New Zealand have been cautious about the referendum, not commenting publicly on the vote. But a young Kanak feminist artist, Marylou Mahé, wrote an article widely published in New Zealand last weekend explaining why she and many others refused to take part in a vote considered “undemocratic and disrespectful” of Kanak culture.

    As a young Kanak woman, my voice is often silenced, but I want to remind the world that we are here, we are standing, and we are acting for our future. The state’s spoken word may die tomorrow, but our right to recognition and self-determination never will.The Conversation

    Dr David Robie is associate editor, Pacific Journalism Review / Te Koakoa, Auckland University of Technology. 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.

  • I can still vividly recall, some thirty-plus years later, my days at Columbia University as a Teaching Assistant (TA) in Anthropology.  As a part-time job, it paid little–but nonetheless provided complete tuition-exemption for those of us still registered as full-time grad students.  The lecture-hall was more like an auditorium: maybe 200 students taking a survey course on “Human Origins” (a course which I was later to teach there).  The professor would drone on-and-on, his pedantic style often inducing somnolence rather than fascination with the subject.  Later in the day, we TAs would meet with our “discussion sections”; i.e., students who chose to show up for some informal tutoring in the material.

    Grading essay exams, both mid-terms and finals, was the most critical task of this part-time job–and we prepared ourselves for a few late-nights of reading endless “bluebooks.”  It was especially critical to carefully and fairly grade all the finals in an expeditious manner, so that the undergrads could receive a final grade for the course.  In that light, I’m more than a little uneasy with the present tactic of Columbia’s TA strikers–refusing to show up to do the grading, and/or withholding the grades until their demands are met.  Their grievances, real enough (if relatively minor), certainly deserve more negotiations.  But, as a former UAW/Ford auto worker–as I worked my way through college–I fear that the TAs are getting bad advice from the union (which probably has little to lose by conducting such “experiments”).  As far as preserving good-paying jobs nationally, the UAW has a fairly abysmal record.

    I fear, moreover, that the TAs have a lot to lose.  I have no doubt that the Columbia administrators–like their peers on other campuses–are already looking for substitutes to perform the grading and related duties. In any event, in the near-future automation, always looming to de-skill mere humans, will no doubt include the grading systems, even of essay exams.  (Such technology apparently already exists.)

    Like other “elite” graduate programs, Columbia’s GSAS provides a current breakdown of the costs of attending for one year: about $50,000 “tuition” (which, yes, means “instruction” — however elusive that may be), some $22,000 for “room-and-board,” and maybe $5-10,000 more for various sundries.  Equalling about $80,000 or so.  Students renting their own off-campus digs are, of course, paying more.  Overall, an astounding cost: and for what?

    Relentless marketing over many generations can do wonders.  Think of the sacrosanct hush, the reverential kowtowing, evoked (knee-jerk style) by this magical mantra…”Harvard.”  Or, to an only slightly lesser degree, the “accreditational aura” conjured up by …Yale…Princeton…Columbia.  Yet, when the reality is experienced–what a letdown!  The callow undergrad is often simply overwhelmed by the arbitrary requirements and arcane readings–not to mention the sheer impersonality–of such elite “meccas of learning.”  The prospective Ph.D., “accepted” by such an elite bastion as Columbia GSAS, quickly seeks a “mentor” (advisor)–and preferably an up-and-coming “hot” commodity riding the wave of the latest intellectual fad (or craze, if you prefer).  Ideally, such a sponsor is plugged into a network of rising stars who might serve as contacts and “references” in the future.  Whether these “cutting-edge” scholars are often little more than poseurs and charlatans–especially in such fields as comparative literature and gender studies–is beside the point.  One is not seeking to advance human knowledge and enlightenment, one is seeking A JOB; i.e., a prestigious appointment on the tenure-track! 

    The doctoral candidate thus willingly goes through an interminable rite-of-passage–characterized by mystifying ordeals and punishments–and finally emerges…as what?  Perhaps as someone whose most conspicuous achievement was to have exhaustively written about a topic so insignificant that the endless legions of previous scholars had no trouble overlooking it.  Yet upon graduation, the incredible scarcity of such tenure-track positions must be fiercely combatted by the aforesaid relentless networking — as well as by the relentless padding of one’s CV with “presentations given,” “comments on” Foucault’s footnote, “notes toward a theory of (something or other),” ad infinitum.

    But a successful job search also requires considerable skill in “impression management.”  Having carefully balanced a well-measured sycophantism with maybe just a dash of unthreatening “originality,” the ambitious young academic makes sure to project a blandly reassuring mediocrity, sure to please each-and-every member of the prestigious Department’s Search Committee!  Then–hooray (well, almost!): if the Dean and the Provost and Assistant Dean for Harmonious Relations all approve–and, yes, the President, as well as the Legal Department–then one is now…an Assistant Professor!!

    I’ll admit it: although I was committed to choosing specializations and writing articles that I truly believed in, I was as susceptible to the frantic “desire to succeed” as most others.  Way back when, I got a call from a prestigious professor who “sat” on one of those prestigious inter-disciplinary “Committees” at the University of Chicago.  Fly out immediately!  It’s between you and another fellow–a coveted Mellon Lecturership in Social Science!  (Little did I know who the hell (the sinister) Andrew Mellon was.)  When I arrived at my hotel, very late that night, I found a huge ream of course materials–all regarding the courses I would be expected to teach in the coming semester.

    Since I spent the early morning hours plowing through the stuff, I was quite groggy when, at 9:00 a.m., I began my pilgrimage, Kafka-like, from office to office–meeting the innumerable taciturn and unprepossessing colleagues with whom I would be expected to work.  Finally, at a late lunch, I met the Dean and several other professors–all of whom proceeded to ask me guarded yet probing questions.  Apparently, I was a socialist–after all, my CV listed articles in Dialectical Anthropology.  But was I also somehow a “conservative”?  After all, I had published a book and several papers on Freudian (well, neo-Freudian) topics, and hadn’t Women’s Studies scholars entirely discredited Freudian theories?  (My book Riddles of Eros, in fact, adopts a radical-feminist perspective on liberated female sexuality.)  The Dean suddenly became wary–and when I casually mentioned that I admired some of the points made by his colleague Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind (1987), he went ballistic: “Bloom is insulting to our students!”  He then left the table in a fury.  The other four professors remained conspicuously silent, staring into their coffee cups (or was it cocktails?).  When he returned, ten minutes later, he announced that the interview was over, and that I could go outside to the curb, where a limousine would arrive momentarily to whisk me back to the airport.  This whole episode, way back when, was most instructive to me–about petty dictators attracted to the exercise of arbitrary fiats.  The priceless irony: I had believed, naively enough, that a university is a sanctuary for–intellectual freedom!

    But to return to the current situation at Columbia.  To my mind, many contradictions abound.  The graduate students, knowing full well that neither they nor the hapless undergrads are getting high-quality skillful teaching (especially from the elite profs who, when they deign to stand in front of an undergrad lectern, are usually more interested in dazzling and intimidating the young students than helping them and inspiring them to love the pursuit of humanly-valuable knowledge).

    Moreover, these grad students, aware of Columbia’s obscenely massive treasure-chest (investment portfolio of some $14 billion, which increased $3 billion or so in just the past year), are in effect saying: we deserve some of that!  Sure, it’s only a part-time job with little skill required, and we do enjoy a tuition-exemption (as well as a below market-rate apartment rental), but…it’s expensive to live in NYC!  And we need decent dental insurance!  Few, despite their often pro-Bernie sentiments, seem willing to commute from, say, cheaper neighborhoods in the Bronx (or from working-class New Jersey, as I did).

    By contrast, in past decades Columbia protest-organizers focused first and foremost on the corrupt, amoral nature of Columbia’s investments (fossil fuels, armaments, nuclear power, apartheid South Africa).  Or, going back even further (1968): Columbia activists were certainly in earnest when they kicked out profs doing Pentagon-funded research from their offices.  In those days, before the baton-wielding police arrived, the student-activists were actually able to shut down university operations entirely.  Why? To try to force the university to abandon its ongoing expansion plan of tearing-down adjacent tenement buildings in Harlem.  Today, with the urban poor more isolated and beleaguered than ever, one can only wonder how many of the current Columbia graduate “workers” — their (often) progressive political attitudes notwithstanding–would even dare to venture the several blocks into those Harlem streets.

    The post The Columbia “Strike”: A Merry-go-Round to Nowhere? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • COMMENTARY: By Marylou Mahe, a Kanak supporter of independence for New Caledonia

    When tomorrow’s referendum on independence for New Caledonia goes ahead, it won’t have my vote.

    I am a young Kanak woman, a pro-independence and decolonial feminist who wants to stop the injustice and humiliation of my people, colonised for more than a century by France.

    But this referendum is undemocratic, and should be postponed.

    For more than 30 years, New Caledonia has undergone a unique process of decolonisation. After the Matignon (1988) and Nouméa (1998) agreements, the indigenous Kanak people and the various communities on the archipelago have worked to build a common society.

    A process driven by constant dialogue, the spoken word, and recognition of the Kanak culture, which had long been ignored.

    This was done under the watchful and “neutral” eye of the French state. The spoken word refers to a Melanesian way of navigating the world — it determines actions and assures the perpetuity of the collective existence of the group.

    It is sacred, with a moral and spiritual commitment, and cannot be betrayed.

    Three referendums on independence
    The Nouméa agreements included up to three referendums, asking New Caledonians to vote on the sovereignty and independence of the islands.

    The first took place in November 2018. The “No” vote, which “loyalists” had initially predicted would win by 70 per cent, ended up with only 56.7 per cent, while 43.3 per cent said “Yes” to independence.

    In October 2020, the second referendum was held, in which 53.3 per cent voted “No” and 46.7 per cent voted “Yes”. There were only 10,000 votes between the two camps.

    We felt that we were touching independence with our fingertips; the momentum was in our favour.

    Touching independence
    “We felt that we were touching independence with our fingertips; the momentum was in our favour.” Image: David Robie/APR

    For this third and final referendum, the state initially announced that the consultation could not be held between September this year and August 2022, because of French presidential campaigns and elections taking place until April. It later contradicted itself by setting the date for December 12.

    As the referendum campaign was about to begin, New Caledonia, which until then had been covid-free, recorded its first local cases on September 6.

    The pandemic rapidly spread: 276 people have died since, and a light lockdown has been put in place. Despite this crisis, the state is maintaining the referendum date, and the pro-independence movement has called on its supporters not to vote.

    And I wouldn’t vote. The future of New Caledonia cannot be built without its indigenous people. The Kanak voice is the cornerstone of New Caledonia’s common destiny.

    Campaign conditions are not met
    With covid-19 health restrictions, it is impossible to create the democratic conditions for a normal and fair election campaign. Large rallies are now impossible, and many pro-independence Kanak tribes do not have easy access to the internet.

    The digital divide is real, and the idea of a “fair” online campaign is an illusion. Beyond this, the virus is likely to demobilise voters.

    Time of mourning
    This is a time for traditional Kanak mourning. More than 50 percent of the people who have died from the virus are Kanak. The Customary Senate, the representative body of the Kanak people, has declared a period of mourning of one year.

    Yet the state has dismissed this issue. We felt this was a sign of contempt. I have the impression that my culture is being ignored, that my Kanak identity is being denied, and that we are being set back more than 30 years. To a time when our voice did not count. As if I and we didn’t exist.

    Betrayal of the spoken word
    The spoken word is of considerable importance in Kanak culture. Sunday’s vote will be perfectly “legal”, even if half the electorate does not participate. But what political and moral legitimacy can be given to an independence referendum without the participation of the colonised people?

    The French state, with the support of local loyalists, is undermining 30 years of negotiations. It risks taking us back to the violence of the 1980s. The state’s failure to keep its word is bringing us closer to the shadows of the past.

    As a young Kanak woman, my voice is often silenced, but I want to remind the world that we are here, we are standing, and we are acting for our future. The state’s spoken word may die tomorrow, but our right to recognition and self-determination never will.

    Marylou Mahe is a decolonial feminist artist and student in English studies, in France. She was born in Houaïlou, in the Kanak country of Ajë-Arhö, of mixed Kanak and French descent. This article is published via the Pacific Cooperation Foundation and was previously published by Stuff.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    Despite its champions being honoured with a Nobel Peace Prize, press freedom has a “sword of Damocles” hanging over it, warn this year’s two laureates.

    Maria Ressa of the Philippines, co-founder of the news website Rappler, and Dmitry Muratov of Russia, editor of the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, will receive their prize in Oslo on Friday for “their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression”, reports AFP news agency.

    “So far, press freedom is under threat,” Ressa told a press briefing, when asked whether the award had improved the situation in her country, which ranks 138th in the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) press freedom index.

    The 58-year-old journalist mentioned her compatriot and former colleague, Jesus “Jess” Malabanan, a reporter for the Manila Standard Today, who was shot in the head on Wednesday.

    Malabanan, who was also a Reuters correspondent, had worked on the sensitive subject of the “war on drugs” in the Philippines.

    “It’s like having a Damocles sword hang over your head,” Ressa said.

    Toughest stories ‘at own risk’
    “Now in the Philippines, the laws are there but… you tell the toughest stories at your own risk,” she added.

    Ressa, whose website is highly critical of Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, is herself the subject of a total of seven lawsuits in her country.

    Currently on parole pending an appeal after being convicted of defamation last year, she needed to ask four courts for permission to be able to travel and collect her Nobel in person.

    Sitting beside her on Thursday, Muratov, 60, concurred with his fellow recipient’s words.

    “If we’re going to be foreign agents because of the Nobel Peace Prize, we will not get upset, no,” he told reporters when asked of the risk of being labelled as such by the Kremlin.

    “But actually… I don’t think we will get this label. We have some other risks though,” Muratov added.

    ‘Foreign agent’ label
    The “foreign agent” label is meant to apply to people or groups that receive funding from abroad and are involved in any kind of “political activity”.

    “Foreign agent” organisations must disclose sources of funding and label publications with the tag or face fines.

    Novaya Gazeta is a rare independent newspaper in a Russian media landscape that is largely under state control. It is known for its investigations into corruption and human rights abuses in Chechnya.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Feature image: Hilary Wardhaugh 

    Content notification: This post discusses extreme pain and suicidal thoughts. If you need support, call Lifeline: 13 11 44.

    I can paint a perfect toenail. Seriously, I could start a second career giving pedicures. I can’t paint a fingernail, and often my handwriting is incomprehensible. But, goddamn it, I can paint a perfect toenail.

    ♦♦♦♦

    I began practicing painting toenails when I was rebuilding my fine motor skills after losing most of the use of my hands. It helped, but I probably should have practised handwriting. Because now I can paint a toenail better than I can write. The mind is very specific like that.

    At the time I needed to regain my fine motor skills, the idea of practicing handwriting filled me with fear and sorrow for all that I had lost and may never regain because of a severe neurological disorder.

    And so I painted toenails, because when I painted toenails I didn’t have to face the fact I could no longer hold a pen, write on a. piece of paper… or any of the other things I previously did with little sense of effort.

    ♦♦♦♦

    One winter, I caught the flu. I got on a train into the city in Melbourne, and when I stepped off it I was carrying influenza. Not that thing where people say they have the flu, but really it’s a cold. I caught a ‘bedridden, could not even open my eyes, can someone please carry me to the toilet’ flu. But, I was also a workaholic. Society had trained me to be a workaholic, rewarded me every time I took on more projects, when I kept showing up when I was sick – ‘a real team player’, ‘willing to go the extra mile’. Oh, how late capitalism loves a workaholic.

    So, within two weeks, and still with a fever, I took myself back into the office. I wobbled through meetings and croaked and coughed my way through presentations. I can’t stand those people now, the ones that show up to work sick, thinking that they – or perhaps the work – is just too indispensable to not. But I was one of the worst. Sickness to me was my body letting me down, getting in the way of what I needed to do. My body was little more than a barrier to living, which needed to be overcome. I have since learnt that it is very dangerous to live as though your mind and body are separate entities.

    Two weeks after my flu symptoms abated, I began to have a strange tingling sensation in my feet. Ignoring this new ailment, as I did the flu and quite a number of colds and other ‘inconveniences’ before, I went for a run. The next day, I could not use my feet anymore. Not to run on, not to walk on. They tingled and ached constantly and hideously.

    Confused, but not alarmed, that afternoon I took myself to a podiatrist and the following day to a physiotherapist – covering the bases, because it all seemed so odd, this new tingling and pain.

    ‘There’s something wrong with my feet,’ I told them, ‘they hurt too much to walk on. Both of them, the same. It’s the strangest thing’.

    Flummoxed they poked and prodded my feet to no avail. They could see nothing obviously wrong. ‘Maybe you’ve just done too much running?’, the podiatrist offered up in lieu of a diagnosis. ‘Your muscles are all jammed up’, said the physio. The podiatrist considered putting both my feet in ‘moon boots’ to immobilise them; thinking this might stop the spread of whatever was happening. Meanwhile, the physio tried to unlock my locked muscles with massage, to no avail, muttering ‘poor feet’ under her breath as she worked. We all concluded I had been doing too much running, because there wasn’t anything obviously wrong. There was no clear diagnosis, just an agreement that it was odd.

    A week later, the same sensations spread up my legs. I didn’t return to the podiatrist, given this was clearly no longer a problem with my feet. Instead I returned to the physio, who moved to muttering ‘poor legs’ under her breath and she worked to try and release my locked immobile muscles.

    Despite the physio’s efforts, I grumpily hobbled around the house on my desperately painful feet and legs. The muscles rigid, but simultaneously weak. I snapped at people and slammed doors, irritated by the pain and my lost independence. The fact that I could no longer ‘push through’.

    I was grumpy as all hell, but not afraid.

    No, the terror came when I noticed a tingling in my hands, then running up the lengths of my arms like the veins I could see in the underside of my wrists and forearms where the skin is pale and more translucent. Until I felt it in my hands and arms, I just had something wrong with my legs. When it started in my hands and arms, I knew I had a problem in my whole body. When I was being attacked from every periphery, I realised I was in deep shit.

    My grumpiness and frustration was replaced with quiet dread. On its spread, the tingling pain and weakness, until my hands hurt so much I could not hold a spoon to my mouth. Could not find the strength to pick up a pen and press it to paper. If I drew on all my reserves, I could make it the fifteen metres from my bed to the car on my excruciating, uncoordinated feet, to be driven to the doctor. ‘This will pass’, I told myself over and over. ‘This has to pass’.

    When I saw my doctor, she ordered every test she could think of, but the anxiety in her eyes suggested she also had no idea what was happening. ‘I’m going to order some tests that are going to sound scary’, she said, ‘I’m going to test for HIV’. But I already knew enough from growing up with a mother with autoimmune disease that it’s the things you can’t test for – the things they can’t name and therefore can’t treat – that are the ones you should really be afraid of. And sure enough, all her blood tests showed up nothing. Flummoxed, her prescription was bed rest and to come back in a week. I asked for painkillers but she refused; ‘you’ll become dependent, just push through’.

    Once my mystery illness was done with my limbs, rendering them inert painful weights attached to my torso, it came for my autonomic nervous system. The part of our nervous system that is controlled subconsciously by our minds; it controls our heart, temperature regulation and breathing.

    I began to feel chilled to my bones. Freezing cold every moment of the day. It was summer and the middle of a heat wave by then. I would sit outside in our tiny courtyard in the small patch of sun in thirty-eight degrees day after day. I couldn’t so much as break a sweat anymore, but the heat was a relief. By the end of that summer, I had the best tan of my life, and completely unusable limbs.

    At night, and sometimes during the day, I threw back codeine, not because it took away the pain, but because it knocked me unconscious. Seven hours of oblivion, where I lay on my back – each arm resting propped on a pillow – motionless, because if I rolled on my side the pain would reach up through the codeine and leave me sobbing and unable to sleep, wondering if I could go on.

    Out of desperation I wrote to a family friend who was a doctor, figuring that at least his personal interest might make him do some digging. He wrote back quickly, saying it sounded a lot like a nervous system disorder called Guillain Barre Syndrome. Later it was confirmed he had been right.

    ♦♦♦♦

    Nerve pain is cruel. Almost nothing works on it, even the best drugs only provide a slight dimming. You simultaneously gain pain, but lose feeling.

    Nerve pain is also not one thing. It takes many forms, as neurons fire chaotically throughout the body. Sometimes nerve pain is sharp, sometimes tingling, at other times it is buzzing, aching or burning. It can also be all these things at once.

    Regardless the form, it never rests.  It is relentless. My pain was relentless.

    But, because the destruction of my nervous system had caused my muscles to go rigid as the nerves fired off messages haphazardly while they dwindled, and my hands and feet to swell in reaction to the damage, we had all been staring at the symptoms and missing the cause.

    After months with no relief, I declared somewhat dramatically but also truthfully that I could not live like this. I could not go on. And my mother and husband took me to the emergency room, grasping a letter from the family friend with his suspected diagnosis.

    In the hospital they asked me to rate my pain out of ten. I stumbled over my answer:

    ‘Well’, I said ‘right now I guess I would call it a five out of ten… But, well, because I have been feeling this pain every moment of every day for more than a month now, and because the pain means I cannot sleep and I cannot move, I would say it is a ten out of ten’.

    ‘Ten out of ten?’ the doctor replied sceptically, ‘where ten is the worst pain you can imagine?’.

    ‘Yes’ I said with more certainty, ‘feeling this in all my limbs every second of every day is the worst thing I can imagine’.

    But being nerve pain, the most untreatable of pains, they offered me no relief. No codeine, no morphine, to render me oblivious if not pain free. They gave me no comfort, however small.

    Gemma with memoir

    Gemma’s own memoir is called “No Matter our Wreckage.”

    After examining me and putting me through MRIs, they told me there were no lesions in my brain. It was not MS like one of the doctors who saw me on arrival had originally thought. It was, instead, this strange disorder which I had never heard of until my family friend emailed me saying me with his thoughts. They said I was lucky it hadn’t spread to my lungs as most patients end up on a ventilator; I was an atypical presentation and that is why the GP and others had failed to recognise what was happening. And with my ‘luck’, and working lungs, they then discharged me.

    I left hospital that day thrown over the shoulder of my husband in a fireman’s hold; unable to walk on my now useless feet. I left hospital with no drugs and no advice on what to do next but to return to my GP. The GP who had not known a life-threatening illness when it sat in the chair in front of her, its owner begging for help.

    As Sarah Manguso wrote, in her memoir about surviving Guillain Barre Syndrome, “as I see it, that’s the main problem with neurological symptoms that can’t be measured in numbers yet, and why so many of my symptoms weren’t treated… My reports on them were the only observable evidence”. And the word of a patient is never enough. Over 100 000 Australians are hospitalised with chronic pain each year; you’d think we would be getting better at empathy, if not treatment. But more often than not, chronic pain suffers are given little relief, and even less sympathy.

    ♦♦♦♦

    Months went by like this:

    I would get out of bed and spend an hour dressing – slowly pulling on each item of clothing with my searing hands. I could not wear tight clothing, anything tight on the skin – even a jumper with elastic at the wrists – would cause more pain. Loose dresses that could be easily slipped on were my go-to. I would then hobble to the kitchen, and try and feed myself. I found if someone put the bowl in front of me on the table I could take the pain of lifting the fork up and down just long enough to get food down. Then I would often throw back more codeine and wait to fall unconscious.

    Eventually my family friend got me into the country’s best pain specialist, who admitted me to his rehabilitation clinic where I was finally diagnosed. Here, five times a week, I walked three steps at a time in a hot pool with stroke victims twice my age. Waved my arms three times. Then my legs. Then staggered out of the pool exhausted.

    And more months went by like this.

    ♦♦♦♦

    I searched for years for the right metaphor to explain the nerve pain I experienced when I was recovering from Guillain Barre Syndrome. I could explain what it made me want to do; I wanted to cut my hands off because I was convinced that might only be an eight out of ten on the pain score.

    It made me swallow any drugs I could find that would knock me unconscious, give me some reprieve.

    It made me think about taking my own life.

    It made me stockpile all the drugs from every doctor, so I could take my own life.

    But I for so long I was never able to find the right words, put them in the right order, or grasp the right metaphor that would help me to explain to those around me who had not experienced chronic nerve pain what it was like. To convey the specific terror, the particular horror, of it.

    Christina Crosby finally gave me that metaphor, in her memoir ‘A Body Undone’. After a spinal injury brought about by a cycling accident, Crosby was left a paraplegic. Until I had Guillain Barre I never realised that when you lose a limb, either functionally or actually, you are left with pain. Crosby’s spinal cord injury left her with nerve pain throughout her entire body. She likens it to wearing a wetsuit charged with electricity; “a wetsuit, the kind you’d use windsurfing… my skin feels like that neoprene, thick and pliable, with an electric current carried through the underside… making a bold outline of my body. My feet and ankles… buzz all the way through. My fingers are cold, thick and buzzing”.

    ‘Yes’, I thought, when I read it – ‘that is what it is like’. Like the firm pressure of a wetsuit pushing on you, almost hugging you, but instead of warmth it brings sensations. It brings pain everywhere, to every nerve ending, making you acutely, impossibly, aware of every millimetre of your body while simultaneously dulling dexterity and other – more normal and more gentle – sensations.

    Have you ever tried to be nimble in a thick wetsuit?

    Gemma with her dog.

    Gemma with her dog.

    Close your eyes and imagine you are wearing neoprene gloves. The extra volume they add to each finger makes your hands feel thick and clumsy. Do you feel the way that sensations against the skin are dull or hardly there at all?

    Now imagine trying to tie your shoelaces with those foreign things attached to the ends of your arms.

    Go one step further, if you dare, and feel yourself trying to tie those same shoelaces with the wetsuit now damp, adding additional weight, and an electric current running through it. Electricity zapping every part of your skin.

    Now, imagine going about every moment of every day – every task big or small –  with that sensation carried relentlessly across your body. All while I whisper in your ear over and over ‘this may never go away’.

    Did you shudder? Is your heart racing? Do you feel scared? You should, nerve pain like this can happen to any of us and sometimes – often, in fact – it never goes away. It’s becoming endemic, as long covid sweeps the world causing both Guillain Barre Syndrome and all manner of other nerve disorders. If it happens to you, you learn to live in a single point of light. There is only the pain, your thick useless fingers and the shoelaces that need to be tied.

    There is no past before the pain, there is no future you dare imagine – because maybe you will be stuck in that electrical wetsuit forever, or maybe you can no longer remember what the world felt like before you came to be wearing it.

    ♦♦♦♦

    I read A Body Undone when the worst of my nerve pain had gone. After three years of intensive physical rehabilitation, mindfulness techniques and many drugs. When I had regained all I ever would regain of myself.

    When I get sick or very tired I feel echoes of it in my hands still. When I am waking in the mornings, usually if I am stressed or upset by something going on in my life, I will shake in that hazy time between sleep and awake. You wouldn’t feel it if you were touching me. You wouldn’t see the sheets resting on my skin move. But inside, there is a tremor so strong it brings me out of my dreams and back into the world where I am, ever so lightly, haunted by the illness I once had.

    It has stayed with me, that illness, just enough that I can never forget its terror.

    ♦♦♦♦

    Just as it is hard to find the words to convey the experience of being locked inside a body in agony, the words to describe what it feels like when you finally break free are also difficult to piece together. As sociologist Arthur Frank wrote about tell the stories of illness, “the language of the story seeks to make the body familiar, the body eludes language… the body does not use speech, yet begets it”. When we want to tell stories of the body, we struggle to find the words that do not alienate ourselves from our ill bodies. We make the body strange to ourselves and others, in our attempts to make it familiar. Speaking, hearing, “traces of the body” in a story is not easy.

    I am no more blessed in writing skill than any others who have tried to give voice to the embodied experience of illness or chronic pain. Instead, I can only describe two moments in my recovery that stand out against all the background of the suffering of those years.

    The first is when I ran three meters again.

    When I got that flu that changed my life, I had been running ten kilometres five times a week. Two years later, I ran three meters. It felt harder and more exhilarating than if I had run the entire fifty kilometres I used to run in a week at once.. While my walking and arm waving in the pool had given me back a tiny bit of strength, I was still stripped bare. My lack of muscle meant that I had almost nothing to help propel my body through space. To hold my bones and tendons in place as I walked. But one eventually I had just enough strength to run three meters on a sunny afternoon.

    When you’re in deep shit, when you’re ‘life will never be the same again’ sick, you don’t realise it all at once. It comes in many, many, incremental moments of revelation. The day I ran three meters, I sat on my front doorstep afterwards breathless as previously unforeseen perils made themselves known. If it took me nearly two years to run three meters, how sick had I been before? How long was the road back to who I used to be? Was there a road back?

    The day a doctor gave me a disabled parking sticker form, I sat in silent acceptance. Though it took me until that sticker hung around for more than six years before I began to accept that perhaps it meant I had a disability. That ‘disabled’ was now part of my identity. Though, as many people with invisible disability do, I still struggle to call myself disabled, tending towards the softer phrasing “I have lived experience of disability”. There is no shame in disability. I struggle with the label because it means that this illness isn’t something that happened to me once. It is something that is happening to me now, still, and will be happening to me every day for the rest of my life.

    The second moment came during a phase of my recovery that required me to balance moving and not moving with absolute precision. My body shifted into a state where being too stationary was as painful as being too kinetic. I would wake up in the morning aching more painfully in my arms and legs than when the illness came on. This aching wasn’t a wetsuit of electricity, it was rods of steal being inserted into my bones as my eyes opened to greet the day.

    One particularly painful morning, no amount of stretching would relieve the pain. Warm me up for the day, so I could breathe. I couldn’t access the special therapeutic hot pool, so instead I pulled out my bike. I got on and began pedalling down my street. It worked, the pain in my limbs began to recede. But that wasn’t what made me smile brighter than I had since the day my feet began to tingle. It was the air in my face. The feeling of breaking free of the prison of my body and my house. It was the freedom of being able to move myself a good distance completely under my own steam.

    In that moment, I learned that movement is a privilege.

    ♦♦♦♦

    It was only after I ran those three meters and rode my bike that I was able to admit to myself, and to those around me, how dire the situation had been. How dire it still was.

    I needed to know I might be able to claw my way back to myself before I could say how far down I had fallen.

    Until then I hid my disability parking sticker from friends when they got in my car. I told no one at work what had happened, catching lifts there and back while pretending to just be run down. I was finishing my PhD at the time and working a part-time research job, so it was easier to hide in some ways. And I pushed through, having not yet learnt the lessons of chronic illness and collapse.

    To finish my PhD, I worked on butcher’s paper spread out across the living room floor, using big thick coloured texters that were fat enough for me to grasp. I would lie propped up on cushions writing. Typing was limited to when something was finished, and I’d brace myself for the finer work of hitting letters on the keyboard. Sometimes I would read from my butcher’s paper to a friend, and she would type for me as I lay on the floor in my pool of scribbled on paper.

    I had no control over my body. I had no control over my illness. Over whether I would recover. I had control over just two things:

    Whether I would live or die.

    Whether I finished that goddamn PhD.

    If I could just get that PhD done, I could focus on the former; devote myself fulltime to my body and its predicament. So on I went.

    It probably makes little sense to you. I’m not sure it makes much sense to me now either. One thing they taught me in rehabilitation was that in states of chronic pain the brain interprets negative emotions, such as stress, as pain. A PhD is amongst one of the most stressful things you can do, certainly the final steps of it. In my wasted, exhausted state I reasoned that the only way to remove this stress was to keep going until it was done. I believed – no matter what anyone said to me – that if I took a break or quit, the stress would not go.

    Looking back, I am not so sure this is true, and I’m even less sure I made the right decision. The prolonged and extreme stress that weighed on me in the last six months of my PhD brought several relapses with it. But these are the decisions I made, and they made sense to me at the time; in the choice between a qualification and my body, my actions and choices suggest the former defined me more than the latter. The former was what I believed I needed to live.

    ♦♦♦♦

    After the PhD was done, I finally dedicated myself to my body.

    It was in that year that I amassed a large collection of nail polish. Friends sent me little coloured bottles by post. Family passed on more when I saw them.

    For more than a year no one, not boy nor girl, left my house without painted toenails.

    Closeup of a young woman painting her toenails with some nail polish while sitting in bed

    While it began as something I did to help my hands recover, over time it became an act of care giving. There is something deeply personal about having your toes painted by someone else. Done with kindness, it is an act of love.

    Since becoming ill, I have painted the toenails of friends who have depression, of cancer patients whose nails have turned yellow. Of the grieving, the sad, and the bored.

    No matter what is happening for those I care about, I can paint them a perfect toenail.

    ♦♦♦♦

    Sarah Manguso wrote that she knew Guillain Barre was behind her when her drinking became more of a problem than her pain. I’ve never found this to be the case; every ailment, every grief and sadness feels to me that it can be traced back to the moment my feet began to tingle. I blame it for miscarriages – for having to wait years longer than I should have to begin trying to have children, because I was too unwell to carry one. I blame it for losing my love of music, because loud sound now does to me what running ten kilometres used to but without the endorphins. I blame it for making me feel old before my time.

    This is not to say, however, that there aren’t pleasures to be found living with the aftermath of nerve pain.

    When I was in rehab I said to my exercise physiologist, as I very slowly did rotations on an arm bike, ‘I wish I was one of those people, like marathon runners, whose bodies have so much resilience’. ‘Gemma’, he replied with an intimacy gained from having spent hours a week with me for months, ‘you are one of those people. But you also have the kind of personality where you would push past your own breaking point no matter where it was set. That is why you’re here with me’.

    He was right. The job, the running, the PhD, the ‘pushing through’ that flu and so many ailments that came before it. He was so right, in fact, that that statement probably saved me years of therapy.

    ♦♦♦♦

    While some illness never ends, with time we can become accustomed to almost anything. That, of course, is the answer to my fear of how I would have coped if the pain had never left – as it didn’t for Crosby and so many others. Crosby talks about this as a careful act of remembering who you were, while also forgetting. Forget the body you once were, forget some of the person, forget the life – because you are not the same. But neither is anyone else. All our lives are undetermined.

    Sometimes I wonder what my life would look like if I hadn’t got on that train back in 2012 as an overworked twenty-something and touched whatever filthy pole I picked up someone else’s influenza from. And then I remember what my exercise physiologist said. I would have always gone past my breaking point – it’s just who I am. If it wasn’t that flu, it would have been something else. And who is to say that I would have survived that something else? So I make peace with the here and now of what has happened.

    I’ve learned to live with more silence in my life, because now I need it to regain my energy in a way I never did before.

    And in that silence I have found creativity. When people learn about my various health issues they almost always ask how it is that I am so productive. The answer, of course, is that I am productive because of my illness. I must be still, I must be silent, far more than my natural disposition allows. The way that I have managed this is to turn that which was kinetic into words and ideas. Thankfully, words do not wear me out in the way that steps do and so I can push beyond the limits; allowing this part of me to roam as wildly and dangerously as it would like.

     

    The post On grieving the body: Fingers and toenails appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • SPECIAL REPORT: By Alexander Rheeney

    It was probably one of those rare times when I “became the news” as a journalist.

    I had accompanied Greenpeace activists to the Port Moresby headquarters of the Rimbunan Hijau (RH) in June 2006 to report on the presentation of the “golden chainsaw award” to the Malaysian logging giant.

    And I literally got “arrested” by security guards for trespassing and ended up at the Gordons Police Station.

    Police later let me go, saying I was only doing my job.

    I covered Papua New Guinea’s forestry sector extensively between 2003–2007 as a journalist and reported on many cases of human rights abuses, dodgy timber permit licences and the often clandestine relationship between loggers and Papua New Guinean politicians in successive national and provincial governments.

    I was sued a couple of times by logging companies in Papua New Guinea’s National Court along with my then employer, the PNG Post-Courier, and I was sent numerous warning letters by lawyers — a favourite tactic employed by a lot of logging companies at that time to keep away nosy journalists.

    That has probably become standard practice today, as PNG media companies with dwindling advertising revenue fearing hefty legal bills pushing them to bankruptcy back off.

    Support of ‘true patriots’
    My reportage wouldn’t have hit the printing press without the support of Papua New Guinean conservationists and true patriots who had a heart for the traditional landowners as well as international environmental groups.

    Also, officials at Morauta House, Waigani, who leaked official documentation from a government review of PNG’s logging sector in early 2000s which uncovered massive breaches of logging permit extensions and alleged human rights abuse, often perpetrated by rogue landowner-individuals in collision with corrupt officials.

    Papua New Guinea’s traditional landowners of the country’s tropical rainforest to this day remain the custodians of 5 percent of the world’s biodiversity, but continue to face increasing pressure from unscrupulous developers.

    With the 2023 General Election just 6-7 months away, the media in PNG should be vigilant as history shows that the country is at its most vulnerable state in the lead-up to, during and after a general election.

    Alexander Rheeney is a former PNG journalist and ex-editor of the PNG Post-Courier and now an editor of the Samoa Observer.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Content notification: This post contains discussion of rape culture, sexual assault and silencing victims. 

    I’m back again to review two more books from the In the National Interest series – the bite-sized deep dives from Monash University Publishing.

    Sticking with the theme of exploring the hellscape that is life in Australia for women these days, I read System Failure: The Silencing of Rape Survivors by Michael Bradley and Rape Culture by Louise Newman.  I want to acknowledge up front that these are heavy going topics, and both books needed a trigger warning – System Failure includes graphic depiction of rape, while Rape Culture includes detailed accounts of the psychological distress of survivors.

    System Failure: The Silencing of Rape Survivors

    Michael Bradley says we offer rape survivors a stark choice: go to the police, or remain silent.

    Like those I reviewed earlier, these books are easy to get through. System Failure especially is a good starting point for those wanting to know more, or who are thinking about these issues for the first time. Unlike the other books, though, System Failure deliberately does not propose any solutions, rather,  Michael Bradley states ‘What I want to point out is that the failure exists, that it is profound, complete and absolutely known.’

    The book does an excellent job of laying out the historical origins of rape as a property crime against men (!), the system’s inability to deal with nuance and contradiction in intimate relationships, and the traumatizing – and often fruitless – process of justice seeking.

    But with no solutions posed, we’re not offered anywhere to go with all this. I suppose there are some people who don’t know the system is cooked and so need to hear this – but I am not one of those people and so I was deflated from spending more time dwelling on the horror.

    I would have liked more unpacking of how the intersection of ‘the system’, patriarchy, and gender norms act on men and women to normalize sexual violence, to make consent so tricky, to heap shame on women, or of the particular challenges faced by diverse women, and trans and non-binary people, but at 85 pages there’s only so much that can be covered.

    Overall, if you don’t yet realize that the whole damn system is wrong, this is a great place to start. But if you are acutely aware of this, maybe give this read a miss.

    I thought there might be some of the exploration I was seeking from System Failure in Rape Culture, but no. Rape Culture is more about the psychological trauma of experiencing sexual violence and living in rape culture than it is about unpacking rape culture itself.

    When I realized this, I was excited to dive into an exploration about the need for psychological theories that recognize that humans, especially minoritized and marginalized humans, live in political, economic, and social systems that can be traumatizing and cause psychological harm.

    Rape Culture

    Yet again, women’s testimonies are discredited, says Louise Newman.

    The book left me wanting more – though again, at 82 pages, and attempting to connect some big ideas, it was only ever going to skim the surface. And while I’m not sure that the connection always lands, Louise Newman does offer important solutions, summed up as ‘We need gender-specific models of care and treatment for the enormous range of mental disorders and psychological issues stemming from rape culture…’ Can I get an AMEN?

    Engaging in this material requires some radical self-responsibility – knowing what our limits are at any one time and establishing some supports for ourselves when we do engage. So, I would exercise caution in whom I recommended these to – these are thought provoking contributions, but you will have to deal with those thoughts. Ultimately, these authors clearly care deeply about their subject matter and write engagingly and it’s comforting to know that these passionate people are out there doing their thing.

    The post Review: Rape culture and silencing survivors appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Shocking footage has been circulating on social media showing National Armed Forces (TNI) Indonesian military helicopters firing indiscriminately at civilian villages in Suru-Suru District, Yahukimo Regency, Papua. Video: via Café Pacific

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Yamin Kogoya

    This past week marked 60 years since West Papua declared independence on 1 December 1961.

    Around the world, Papuans and solidarity groups commemorated this national day in melancholic spirits — the weight of that fateful day carries courage and pride, but also great suffering and betrayal.

    Outraged by 60 years of silence and ignorance, Powes Parkop, the Governor of Papua New Guinea’s capital, strongly condemned the PNG government in Port Moresby last week. He said the government shouldn’t ignore the crisis in the Indonesian-controlled region of New Guinea.

    Parkop accused the government of doing little to hold Indonesia accountable for decades of human rights violations in West Papua in a series of questions in Parliament directed at Foreign Minister Soroi Eoe.

    Port Moresby's Governor Powes Parkop
    Port Moresby’s Governor Powes Parkop with the West Papuan Morning Star flag … criticised PNG policy of “seeing no evil, speaking no evil and to say no evil against the evils of Indonesia”. Image: Filbert Simeon

    “Hiding under a policy of ‘Friends to All, Enemy to None’ might be okay for the rest of the world, but it is total capitulation to Indonesian aggression and illegal occupation,” Parkop said.

    “It is more a policy of seeing no evil, speaking no evil and to say no evil against the evils of Indonesia.”

    A similar voice also echoed from staff members of the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre during their West Papua flagraising event at their office in Suva on Wednesday.

    Ignorance ‘needs to stop’
    Shamima Ali, coordinator and human rights activist from the crisis centre, said Pacific leaders — including Fiji — have been too silent on the issue of West Papua and the ignorance needed to stop.

    Ali said that since Indonesia’s occupation of West Papua, gross human rights violations — including enforced disappearances, bombings, rocket attacks, torture, arbitrary detention, beatings, killings, sexual torture, rape, forced birth control, forced abortions, displacement, starvation, and burnings– had sadly become an enforced “way of life” for West Papuans.

    Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre shows solidarity for West Papua
    Staff members of the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre show solidarity for West Papua at their office in Suva last Wednesday – December 1. Image: FWCC

    SBS also narrated last week’s commemoration of December 1 in Canberra, in which Papuans raised the banned Morning Star flag and expressed the significance of the flag-raising to Papuans.

    As a mark of remembrance, flags were raised all across the globe from Oxford — the refugee home of Benny Wenda, the West Papua independence icon — to Holland, homeland of many descendants of exiled Papuan independence leaders who left the island in protest against Indonesia’s illegal annexation in 1960.

    Celebrating Papuans’ national day in West Papua or anywhere in Indonesia is not safe.

    Amnesty International Indonesia reported last Friday that police arrested and charged eight Papuan students for peacefully expressing their political opinions on December 1 — Papuans’ Independence Day.

    The report also stated that Papuans frequently face detention and charges for peacefully expressing their political views. But counter-protesters often assault Papuans under police watch with no repercussions.

    Eight arrested in Jayapura
    At least eight people were arrested in Jayapura, Papua, and 19 were arrested in Merauke, Papua, for displaying the Morning Star flag.

    In Ambon and Bali, 19 people were injured by police beatings, and 13 people were injured when protesters were physically attacked by counter-protesters who used racist language, reports Amnesty International Indonesia.

    In West Papua, the Indonesian police are also reported to have investigated eight young Papuans involved in raising the Morning Star flag in front of the Cenderawasih Sport Stadium, known as GOR in Jayapura Papua, according to the public relations Chief of Papua Police, Ahmad Musthofa Kamal.

    Across West Papua, the Morning Star flag has been raised in six districts: Star Mountains, Intan Jaya, Puncak, Central Mamberamo, Paniai, and Jayapura City.

    Unfortunately, Papuans are hunted like wild animals on this day as Jakarta continues to force them to become a part of Indonesia’s national narrative. The stories of which, for the past 60 years, have been nothing but nightmares filled with mass torture, death, and total erasure.

    Amid all the celebrations, protests, and arrests happening across the globe on this national day, shocking footage emerged of yet another aerial attack in the Star Mountain region.

    In the last few days, shocking footage has been circulating on social media showing National Armed Forces (TNI) Indonesian military helicopters firing indiscriminately at civilian villages in Suru-Suru District, Yahukimo Regency, Papua.

    According to reports, this is the result of a shooting incident between the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) and the TNI in which a TNI member was killed, and another was wounded.

    Soldier flown to Aceh
    Serda Putra Rahaldi was one of those killed in the incident. He was flown to Aceh via Jakarta.

    Praka Suheri, another TNI soldier wounded in the incident, has also been evacuated to Timika Regional General Hospital for treatment.

    It is difficult to know the exact circumstances leading to the death of a soldier, but Brigadier General TNI Izak Pangemanan, Commander of Military Resort 172/PWY, says two soldiers were drinking water in a shelter located only 15 meters from the post when the shooting took place, Antara reported on Saturday, December 4, 2021.

    Since November 20, five TNI soldiers have been wounded, including Sergeant Ari Baskoro and Serda Putra Rahaldi, who died in Suru-suru, Antara reported on Saturday, December 4, 2021.

    The armed conflicts remain tense between the TPNPB and the TNI in seven regencies in the territory of West Papua, namely: Yahukimo District, Intan Jaya Regency, Star Mountains Regency, Nduga District, Peak District, and Maybrat-Sorong Regency.

    This seemingly low-level, yet hidden conflict between the Indonesian state security forces and the TPNPB continues, if not worsens, and the world has largely turned a blind eye to it.

    The Papuan church leaders stated in local media, Jubi, on Thursday November 25, that a massive military build-up and conflict between Indonesian security forces and TPNPB had resulted in displacing more than 60,000 Papuan civilians.

    ‘More than 60,000 displaced’
    “More than 60,000 people have been displaced. Many children and mothers have been victims and died while in the evacuation camps,” said  the chair of the Synod of West Papua Baptist Churches Reverend Socrates Sofyan Yoman.

    Jakarta seems to have lost its ability to see the value of noble words inscribed in its constitution for the betterment of humanity and the nation. In essence, what is written, what they say, and what they practise all contradict one another – and therein lies the essence of the human tragedy.

    On December 1, 1961, the sacred Papuan state was seized with guns, lies and propaganda.

    On May 1, 1963, Indonesia came to West Papua with guns.

    In 1969, Jakarta forced Papuan elders to accept Indonesia during a fraud referendum at gunpoint. In the 1970s, Indonesia used guns and bombs to massacre Papuan highland villagers.

    And after 60 years, Jakarta is still choosing guns and bombs as their preferred means to eradicate Papuans.

    Sixty years on, the making of the current state of West Papua with guns and bombs is difficult to forget. Although West Papua lacks one key characteristic that East Timor had that brought international attention to their ardent independence war.

    Morning Star flag – always flying
    Nevertheless, as demonstrated around the world last week on December 1, their banned Morning Star flag seemed to always be flying in some corner of the world.

    As long as Papuans fly the Morning Star flag, their plight will challenge the human heart that cries out for freedom that binds us all together, despite our differences.

    As Indonesia’s state violence intensifies, Indonesians are likely to sympathise more with Papuans’ plight for justice and freedom.

    At some point, the government of Indonesia must choose whether to continue to ignore Papuans and use guns and bombs to crush them or to recognise them with a new perspective.

    Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • SPECIAL REPORT: By Sue Ahearn, co-editor of The Pacific Newsroom

    Did you notice anything different about the news coverage of the recent unrest in Honiara?

    Those fast-breaking stories on Australia’s television, radio and online networks were not presented by Australian journalists but by Solomon Islanders professionally reporting from the frontlines of the riots.

    There wasn’t a journalist on the ground from Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else except the Solomon Islands.

    International journalists, known in the industry as “parachuting” journalists, are the ones who normally drop in for a few days at the height of a breaking disaster or catastrophe.

    Often with little knowledge or background of the story. (Foreign correspondents are different — they’re experts in their field).

    Parachute journalists arrive off the streets of the nearest major city in a developed country and hire a local journalist as a fixer. The parachute journalist uses all the local’s expertise and knowledge to file reports, getting the credit while the local fixer receives none.

    The fixer probably doesn’t get paid much either.

    Covid-19 border restrictions
    What happened in Honiara was different because covid-19 border restrictions meant foreign journalists couldn’t get into the Solomon Islands.

    The local media stepped forward and did a brilliant job. They were fast and highly skilled.

    The situation on social media was a master class in how to cover a major international breaking story.

    As the looters rampaged through Honiara over three days, the local media team worked together pooling resources, videos, and facts, often running from danger as they were stoned and chased from the front line by angry looters.

    The ABC’s locally engaged journalist Evan Wasuka’s television story for ABC News, complete with stand-up in the streets of ravaged Honiara, led the 7pm bulletin across Australia. His live crosses kept ABC audience informed over several days.

    Veteran freelance journalist Gina Kekea filed for outlets all over the world, including Al Jazeera and the BBC. She was quoted by major news outlets, including CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

    Sports journalist Elizabeth Osifelo pitched in as a breaking news reporter to cover the fastmoving destruction. You might have heard her excellent discussion with Geraldine Doogue on ABC Saturday Extra.

    Media pack freelancers
    Many of the media pack were freelancers who worked together to cover the story, some had covered previous unrest.

    But for young journalists like Job Rongo’au filling for Z FM Radio station, it was their first experience in covering a riot and a scary one.

    Rongo’au said the protesters tried to grab his mobile phone, but he managed to run away to safety to file his extraordinary photos and videos that were shared on Facebook by thousands.

    He said his work went viral on social media and was used by Al Jazeera, Reuters, ABC, and many others — and on ZFM Facebook

    The ABC’s former Pacific correspondent, veteran Sean Dorney told me he thought Evan Wasuka’s 7pm television story was “terrific”.

    Dorney said he was impressed by the stories from the Solomon Islands media. He said he thought that all the Australian news media could learn a lesson from this about the talent that exists in the Pacific media.

    In the developing world, the trend of local staff stepping forward is known as “localisation”.

    Local staff step forward
    It’s an unexpected result of the closure of international borders because of covid-19. For the past 18 months Australian advisers and consultant have been unable to travel to the Pacific to work on humanitarian projects.

    Local staff have successfully stepped forward to manage projects in their place. There are many who hope this will continue after international borders reopen.

    Dorney said he is sure Australian training and support delivered to Pacific journalists over the past 20 years by journalists including himself, Jemima Garrett, and me contributed to the high-level skills displayed in Honiara.

    Sue Ahearn is a journalist and media consultant specialising in the Pacific and Asia. She is the creator of The Pacific Newsroom, and co-convenor of the industry group Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative. She worked for the ABC’s international service for 20 years and is currently studying Pacific development at the Australian National University (ANU). Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • What happened to news about Afghanistan? After their spectacular sweep of the entire country and overnight victory, there is no news now. And Taliban websites remain closed. Just human interest stuff about traitors/ cowards/ whatevers fleeing to the US or wherever. A convening of Afghan women parliamentarians, holding a mock Afghan parliament in exile (a Greek refugee camp). The hysteria about girls schooling ignores the well-documented but little known fact that almost all the schools (80%) that were supposedly educating girls throughout the country were non-functioning or even non-existent. And those teachers who were actually being paid were just pocketing the money (much of it first taken by local officials, who in turn funneled a portion to warlords).

    In fact, all schooling was mostly nonexistent, even for boys, so Afghanistan is actually less literate now, thanks to the US invasion, than it was 20 years ago, and even less literate than in 1978, the last year of peace, when women were going to university and those in Kabul were hijab-less, let alone birqa-less.

    Of course, the fault lies entirely with the nasty Taliban, though they didn’t even exist before 1978. War is nasty business and it’s always the other guy’s fault. And when you lose, you just move on, try to forget. So what if you left the scene-of-the-crime a basket case? Where is Afghanistan anyway?

    The US has a standard operating procedure: bomb the enemy to smithereens. If that doesn’t work, bomb some more. Then find some civilians who have been riddled with your bullets, fly them to Bagram air base for (the best) emergency treatment, try and fit the body pieces together, and presto! a human interest story highlighting how noble you are, how scientific. If that still doesn’t work and you’re getting flak at home, then cut your losses, pull out, and move on to the next enemy (all the time, boycotting the old enemy so it can’t threaten you). Eventually, as you are the world’s sole superpower now, the enemy will come begging and you can relent a bit.

    That was how Vietnam panned out, though it took 20 years to get around to recognizing the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. It’s a bizarre kind of win-win: even if you lose, the target is reduced to a failed state which is a model for no one, rather a warning for anyone contemplating trying to get out of US clutches. If you win, you can decide just how prosperous the new client state will be. Japan, Korea, and of course Germany got the VIP treatment. (WWI lesson learned: don’t ‘fail’ a big, powerful state). Vietnam managed to recover, and since it is happy to join the US-controlled world economy, it has been allowed to prosper. Reparations are never an option.

    That these horrendous wars never seem to bring any peace, let along goodwill, doesn’t faze US ‘planners’. Bombing is easy, and cheap (given that you have a military-industrial complex that is the very engine of your prosperity). It’s the new US norm. ‘It’s what we do.’

    The complementary policy to these senseless, horrible wars is the fanatical anti-ideology, which since the days of McCarthyism, seems to run in American veins. There is only one way to live, the American way, and any other option is by definition wrong, mistaken, evil. In the 1950s anti-communism poisoned US culture, and led the US down the proverbial rabbit-hole, destroying any socialist revolution on the globe before it could catch hold, cutting off the one path that can save our civilization from its current road to oblivion. Afghanistan provided the perfect battlefront for the latest US obsession (far away, mostly desert and mountains, good for target practice).

    Oh, almost forgot. Lie to enemy, even when they want to surrender. Most Taliban wanted to give up after the US invaded. They weren’t idiots. After a blanket offer by top Taliban leaders to resign was rejected, individuals tried to broker a deal for themselves. After a dozen agreed and were promptly arrested and sent to Bagram, Guantanamo or just tortured and killed, others realized their only future lay in resistance, so they regrouped, some in Pakistan, most just locally where they lived. Sleeper cells were activated and by 2003, as the corruption and murder/ torture by Afghan yes-men blossomed, the rural population started to support the Taliban. Soon half of Afghanistan was being administered by them, providing justice, collecting taxes.

    So why no interest in what’s happening now that the US is gone? And was the US project doomed from the start? Were all those trillions of dollars, 100,000s of lives for naught? Is there a Rosebud?

    Taliban ‘won’ in 2002

    The best way to answer that and what’s happening now is to see what happened under US occupation, but from the Afghan point of view. The Taliban have been governing most of Afghanistan for 15 years now. Anand Gopal’s No Good Men among the Living: America, the Taliban and the War through Afghan Eyes (2014) does this. He follows the lives of a few local heroes from 2001 to 2010, and presents events through their eyes.

    The answer starts in the dying days of the communist government, which had started out much like the US occupation, brokering peace with local warlords, having scaled back its development projects as things deteriorated. It held on, annoying the US, but then the peace was signed in 1988, ending arming of both sides–which US promptly ignored. For 3 years after the withdrawal of Soviet troops, the CIA kept weapons and money flowing to the mujahedeen, working to block any peace deal between them and the Soviet-funded government. When President Najibullah ran out of arms, the mujahideen took over. That was Bush I’s thank you to Gorbachev for dismantling the Soviet Union. (Lying is ok if you’re lying to the enemy.)

    When 9/11 came, Akbar Gul was already a star Taliban fighter, battling the Northern Alliance to the end. When the US invaded, he quit and tried exile, but after being robbed several times in Karachi, he returned to his native Wardak, learned how to fix mobile phones by trial and error, becoming well known as ‘mobile-phone Akbar’. But the US offered no amnesty for those who wanted to leave the movement, and the thieving and violence of the police and Karzai’s stooges, who now were in power and seeking revenge or just riches, became intolerable. A phone call from an old comrade to ‘get to work again’ was heeded.

    Between 2003 and 2010, he was the commander in Wardak, just southwest of Kabul, responsible for assassinating government officials, kidnapping policemen, deploying suicide bombs, killing US soldiers. He even hijacked two tanker trailers full of gas, paid off the drivers, bought arms on the black market, and divided the booty among his team. When interviewed the last time in 2010, he was disillusioned with the stressful life and the increasing intra-Taliban squabbles and one-up-manship. But it was also clear that the US had lost almost from the start with its mania to wipe out the enemy, just as it failed in Iraq to wipe out the Baathists, merely turning them into insurgents.

    Gopal describes the background to this. The lure of the Taliban in the 1990s held much the same allure by 2003, as ‘a home for unsettled youths,’ repulsed by the chaos their country was descending into. It provided ‘a sense of purpose, a communion with something greater.’ Akbar recalled receiving some instruction once on bomb-making from an Arab, presumably al-Qaeda, but otherwise had no interest in international politics, was barely able to read and write. He resented Mullah Omar’s support for bin Laden and his call to martyrdom following 9/11. Instead, he disbanded his men: ‘Go home. Don’t contact each other.’

    How close the US was to victory! If only they had left with their al-Qaeda spoils in 2002, amnestied the Taliban, with a solemn promise not to promote terrorism.

    Heela Achakzai graduated from university in the 1990, married her suitor Musqinyar, an idealist but a secular one, a communist. Though not interested in politics, Heela liked the communists for providing services and freedom for women, but as the Soviet troops retreated, the writing was on the wall, and they fled Kabul to Musqinyar’s family home in Khas Uruzgan. Although she was now effectively under house-arrest, complete with burqa and meshr (male guardian), she liked the Taliban for putting an end to tribal practices, including using females to settle feuds. And they didn’t kill her communist husband either. They lived in safety.

    When 9/11 brought US soldiers and a return of anti-Taliban warlords, her village descended into violence. Her husband was assassinated by a Karzai crony, local warlord Jan Muhammad Khan. She would have had to marry her brother-in-law as second wife, give him her home and possessions. No way. Her story is rivetting. She fled to the US base in Tirin kot, eventually worked promoting elections and and as a midwife. One villager elder told her that while this type of work wasn’t good for ‘our women, the the villages’ it was fitting for ‘educated women like you.’

    Heela also provided medicines to Taliban when they asked, thinking ‘Given Jan Muhammad and Commander Zahir and the others on the government’s side, why wouldn’t they fight?’ Then she was nominated and became a senator, having quietly worked with the Americans. (I presume she was evacuated in August, though she could well return. She is no traitor-coward.)

    Jan Muhammad Khan, Khas Uruzban warlord, plotted with Karzai after the Taliban came to power in 1996, and was about to be executed when 9/11 happened. He was appointed governor of Khas Uruzgan and moved quickly to amass wealth, feeding the US intelligence about Taliban, all of it fabricated (there were no Taliban), used to target his rivals. The US was blind to this but the people of Khas Uruzgan weren’t, and the US attempt to rebuild Afghanistan ended up only enriching the new US-backed elite, and turning most people against the Americans.

    As the Taliban were the only other choice, they gained support. US backers like Jan created nonexistent Taliban to keep the dollars and arms coming. For a country that prides itself as a model to be emulated around the world, it is hard to understand how the US could be so easily hoodwinked for 20 years at a cost of trillions, almost all of it wasted, enriching a handful of corrupt cronies, creating Potemkin villages and spiriting ill-gotten gains abroad. And, in a final irony, warlords like Jan spirited out at the last minute (Jan was assassinated in 2011) along with girls football teams and other Afghans who trusted the US.

    Gopal concludes: the Americans were not fighting a war on terror at all, they were simply targeting those who were not part of the Sherzi clan [another warlord, also later killed by a bomb] and Karzi networks.

    US troops fueled insurgency, ISIS

    Interestingly, Karzai did not flee in August, as did his successor, Ghani, who fled to Dubai with several suitcases full of cash. Karzai was never an easy ally for the US. During an interview with Voice of America in 2017, he claimed that ISIS in Afghanistan is a tool for the US, that he does not differentiate at all between ISIS and the US. In May 2021, he told Der Spiegel he sympathized with the Taliban, and saw them as “victims of foreign forces” and said that Afghans were being used to be ‘each against the other.’ Clearly hedging his bets.

    There were more than a few mass killings by crazed US soldiers, recalling My Lai. Gopal documents the case of Master Sergeant Anthony Pryor, awarded a Silver Star for his cold blooded murder of innocents in Khas Uruzgan. A Google search only turns up glowing reports of Pryor’s heroism, but the truth is he murdered 21 pro-American leaders and workers (which the US admitted), with 26 taken prisoner. Which is not much better than a bullet in the head.

    That US troops meant more terrorism, killing, was explained by Eckart Schiewek, political advisor with the UN mission. The same jockeying for power by warlords Dostum and Atta in the north never boiled over. ‘There were no American troops. You couldn’t call on soldiers to settle your feuds.’ By allying with various warlords outside the puppet government, the US undermined the puppet, syphoning funds to pay endless bribes to warlords, and created the petri dish for feuds over who’s closest to the US. A truly vile scenario, especially for a people as fiercely proud and independent as Afghans. By 2005 US fatalities doubled from previous year, and kidnappings and assassinations came in record numbers. Already it was too late. As for poppy elimination, that too became a program to wipe out other tribes’ competition and keep prices high.

    Gopal concludes that there were almost no Taliban or ISIS among Guantanamo prisoners, that most prisoners there and in Afghanistan were casualties of warlord-governors’ phony intelligence whose sole purpose was power and money.

    Real news

    Considering the general news blackout or deliberately anti-Taliban stories, we must look to events during the occupation through the eyes of such as Gopal, Jere Van Dyk, and memoirs of Taliban leaders, and the role of Islam itself in shaping Afghanistan’s future, as this is the bedrock of Taliban thinking and action. To not only respect Islam, but welcome it. “The Taliban was now a part of our family,” said Bowe Bergdahl’s mother Jani, as she waited stoically for news of her hostage son (eventually released). She was just stating a fact and dealing with it, not rejecting or despising it.

    First, ‘jurisprudence is part of the Taliban’s DNA, even to a fault,’ as that is their training (12 years for judges). Governing means providing justice. In a village under Taliban control for two years, the malek (mayor) told Gopal that ‘in that time crime had vanished.’ Taliban ‘police’ had captured a known child molester and turned him over to Islamic justice, with ‘judges tarring his face, parading him around Chak, and forcing him to apologize publicly. If caught again, he would be executed.’ People preferred Taliban austerity to government and foreign impunity.

    Real world political and economic troubles are pushed aside, or dealt with cavalierly, especially anything smacking of western decadence, as the road to hell is paved with seductive music, images, foods, drugs, etc. So that is what’s happening now. Cleaning the slate, exorcizing society of the demons who latched on to the rich heathen invaders. The Taliban are busy dismantling the US puppet infrastructure, finding warlords and bringing some justice to villages and cities.

    Times have changed. Whereas in 1999, it was still possible to smash TVs and radios, keep women off the air, it no longer is. And whereas Afghanistan’s fabulous musical traditions and non-Islamic culture were repressed, destroyed, they are not pushing this any longer. Gopal listened to the Taliban insurgents’ music, watched tapes of Taliban fights with the invader.

    All Taliban websites were banned in August, but Deputy Minister for information and broadcasting of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan-IEA Zabihullah Mujahid now has a twitter account. The most recent messages (with lots of insulting comments):

    1. West should not impose its civilization on us, we have an Islamic civilization, and the system of Islamic society that already exists.
    2. Islamic Emirate announces complete ban on the use of foreign currency in the country.
    3. ISIS attack on 400-bed hospital fails, 4 ISIS killed.

    There is another twitter account the Emirate, even charging westerners with a Trumpian ‘fake news’ for suggesting ISIS will grow again if sanctions continue. Voice of Jihad was the Taliban’s main English language site till it was closed. Googling Voice of Jihad Islamic Emiirate of Afghanistan, I found
    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Islamic-Emirate-of-Afghanistan which includes more unfiltered news of Taliban. Otherwise Al-Jazeera is the best source.

    So what about girls’ education? With no jobs waiting for high school graduates, villagers could only see potential ruin in allowing their daughters outside. Which is the cart and which the horse?

    It is wrong to think the Taliban are anti-education. They are ‘students,’ and the highest calling is teaching and administering justice. But they don’t want the US determining what is taught and to whom. They follow sharia, not tribal law, which is much better for women.

    The moral of this story?

    Justice is the main thing a government can provide, but for Muslims, it means a strict, god-fearing government. Iran, though Shia, had an Islamic revolution too, and as such is in US crosshairs, much like Afghanistan. It has survived 40 years of US-Israel bullying and worse, so its experience will be important for the Taliban. It is big on the death penalty, and the Emirate of Afghanistan most likely will be too. Women must wear scarves but study freely. Music and the arts are low key. This is most likely how Afghanistan will develop.

    The US can’t accept that Islamic justice is a worthwhile alternative to our very flawed systems of justice. Just as it couldn’t accept the truth that it’s better to be poor in a socialist society than in a capitalist one. Just ask 70% of Russians and the other orphaned ex-Soviets. The 1% needs to be brought under control, tamed to meet society’s pressing needs. And to take away the unease, resentment that eats away at society where the super rich flaunt their wealth and despise the common folk. This is not an easy task. The Taliban have stated recently there should be limits on wealth. They understand the truth behind the Lorenz curve.

    Gopal recounts meeting a one-eyed malek of a village, Garloch, that no longer existed. ‘Nothing you see here in this country belongs to us. You see that road out there? That’s not ours. Everything is borrowed and everything can be taken back.’ Gopal was intrigued by this Sufi wisdom. Garloch’s malek explained the vagaries of existence: First came the Taliban, then US soldiers, then planes killing the wrong suspect, then Taliban, then … until the villagers gave up and left, leaving the old mayor living under a plastic sheet in a gully. His message to Obama: ‘I don’t give a shit about your roads and schools! I want safety for my family.’

    Now comes the hard part. While Talib mullahs are busy righting wrongs and bringing a harsh but just communal peace, factions within the Taliban are also marshalling their forces, vying for power, not to mention the many collaborators, dreaming of another invasion. The revolutionary honeymoon is soon over, and the US continues to sit on Afghanistan’s meagre reserves, thinking about giving them away to 9/11 and other victims.

    Which of course would leave the Taliban nothing to feed Afghans, who will turn again to poppies to survive, which will lead to more US-led boycotting, etc.

    What’s happening now in Afghanistan demands our attention. And not the CNN version of events. It is heartening that such hardy, devoted souls like Gopal really care what happens to Afghans, and truly want the best for them. I want to know what has happened to the villains and heroes of his tale of life behind the lines. Sadly, our age of internet is letting us down on. I can only wish the Taliban well.

    *****

    Warlord Zaman: This whole land is filled with thieves and liars. This is what you Americans have made. I know this game. I went to the Americans and said, ‘I can find bin Laden. Give me $5m and I’ll bring you his head. Then I went to al-Qaeda and told them, ‘Give me $1m or I’ll turn you over the the Americans.’ So they gave me $1m, and I convinced the Americans to stop the bombing for a little while. I told them we could use the time to find Osama, but really it was so those Arab dogs could escape to Pakistan. Then I went to the ISI and said, ‘Give me $500,000 and I’ll give you al-Qaeda.’ They pulled a gun and told me to get out of their face. You see, they don’t play this game. You can’t buy them. Gopal, p148.

    The post Afghan Emirate’s Challenge to the World first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Content notification: This post contains discussion of and examples of online abuse and commentary some people might find offensive. It is published here in the interest of genuinely and openly discussing ideas and thoughts about what we, as a community, consider abusive and/or sexist on social media platforms.

    While draft anti-troll legislation by the current Australian Federal Government is intended to magically change the nature of global social media and protect those who are relentlessly bullied online  – with a cursory nod to women and children being the greatest victims of this abuse – the details are yet to be explained. On the surface of it, it appears more like a mental blip, than a comprehensive stab at halting harmful cyberhate and misinformation on the platforms.

    What about users who troll from a VPN? What level of abuse will be deemed severe enough for the Government to step up and step in? How many cases does it expect to prosecute and to what level? How will it force a global behemoth such as the likes of Facebook to gather and then share the necessary personal information?

    In the meantime, Facebook has its own measures to prevent trolling. Users can be reported by other users and Facebook’s algorithms or human moderators will assess the post and step in with a user ban: 12 hours, 24 hours, 3 days, 7 days, 30 days, depending on the number of misdemeanours.

    But how does this work? Facebook does not release details of its criteria for assessment. What we do know is that many platforms outsource their moderation offshore where barely trained and often very young people are dealing with our complaints.

    I have always been one who finds bullying, injustice and casual cruelty hard to walk away from, in person, and online. For example, I’m sometimes active with the Australian branch of the #iamhere movement, a group of volunteers who work on Facebook to take “action to disrupt those who are spreading hate on the Internet.”

    This work largely consists of the group focussing energies on particular public posts from MSM where hate is flourishing in the comment sections, and correcting the record by sharing actual facts about the content (such as in the case of vaccine or climate denial) and offering affirmative comments to offer space for those who are the subject of attack (for example in stories about domestic violence, transgender and sexuality issues). We get to see a great deal of human ugliness in this work. But we keep it polite and factual and it’s good to feel supported.

    However when free range, I’m a little more feisty. I’m sure if I just put up and shut up, posted nice pictures of my dinner, my cats, chooks, sewing and a few suggestive cleavage shots, of course, I wouldn’t get myself into social media trouble.

    But I’m in the fray and I don’t apologise for this – consequently I’m frequently in the Facebook slammer. In the interests of honesty, I’m also sometimes a smidge sarcastic. Recently, for example, I received a 30-day incarceration, which means no commenting, liking, or sharing, though I can still read posts and use Messenger.

    The Guardian had shared an article about Harry Styles’ new makeup range, with a picture of the gorgeous, sexually playful, gender non-conforming pop star and non-binary role model in full frockage. One commenter suggested that Harry and those like him be conscripted to the military. My response was: “really? why? to ‘make a man of him’? who made a man of you, pussycat? Was it nasty, or… fun?”

    Online hate

    Gretchen Miller says hate is flourishing in comment sections online. But somehow she always ends up in the Facebook slammer for seemingly mild commentary. 

    I am uncertain as to whether I was jailed for calling a man “pussycat,” or for the phrase “make a man of him”. Pussycat is a term of affection, something my father used to call me, and sure, I wasn’t feeling much affection for the commenter, nonetheless it’s no more offensive than love, sweetheart, or darling.

    As for the proposal that beautifully creative and fey people like Harry Styles should be subjected to the military, known for its brutality towards those who don’t fit in, well that is quite clearly menacing.

    My teen is nonbinary and I’m acutely aware that banally hideous comments like this, floating in a relentless sea of hatred and contempt, causes genuine damage to young people looking for role models. I wanted to make space for anyone reading the comments who might feel threatened, but heaven forbid, I, as a woman, should challenge this bloke. Thus, 30 days, in the slammer for ‘bullying’.

    Previously I have received 30 days for (light heartedly) describing my beloved cat as a female dog for scratching the furniture. I got another 30 for expressing horror that a Northern Beaches Sydney Christian school had a ‘rate my wife’ sexual education program for its teen boys, that categorised girls according to their church-going, virginity and other Christian values.

    In discussing this on my own private page with a friend, a mother of a daughter, I, as a mother of a son, wasn’t polite about the entitlement of the Christian mindset and wrote to her: “yeah. I can’t imagine having a daughter and knowing this stuff goes on. Makes one feel very impotent and powerless. But we’re not. The girls pushed back hard on this, thankfully. Don’t know how the boys responded but it seems ‘build a bitch’ does observe some kind of response to the cardboard cutout being designed here. Stupid flipping Christians.”

    Bam. More time behind bars. Apparently, that was hate speech. I’m not sure which element, however saw the door close and the key thrown away: the comment about Christians or the direct quote from the students who described this practice as ‘build a bitch,” which I pulled from a mainstream newspaper,

    I did, in irritation, call an anti-vaxxer a numpty one time: 30 days for that. And it’s not just me: a friend got pinged for hate speech for three days because she described a personal experience on my private page in this way: “As a teenage Mormon one of my male friends shared a pamphlet with me from his Sunday School class which warned boys against the sins of group masturbation because it leads to homosexuality. I remember just thinking, ew, so, is group masturbation a thing? Boys are just so gross.” Was it the mention of Mormons, sin, homosexuality, masturbation, or that “boys are just so gross”? Who’s to know?

    Meanwhile, a quick informal survey of friends and contacts and I gathered the comments below, all reported by women, all perfectly peachy as far as Facebook was concerned. Let’s take a real Facebook that I’ll give the pseudomyn “Random Specialist Mens’ Interest Group” (or RSMIG). In reality, it’s a misleading front for overt misogyny. The comments below were all made in public spaces. I’ve just changed the names. From Brian: “Kate, we are all aware that you are a member of the female “rape” club.” And, to Margaret, Brian was equally charming: “Sweety, you are not staying the night… We are not going to have sex… What part of “no means no” do you not understand? I am not into rough violent sex and rape like you are … So you are not staying for breakfast and I am not cooking you waffles… We should have pics of the outside of your house soon!! Hunny Bun.”

    Facebook and RSMIG was fine with Dave sweetly suggesting of a woman that her punishment should include: “remove her priviges, send HER to jail, 2-3 time what he got. Castrate her. EDIT: also, remover her clitoris. And boobs as well. Fyi, false claims that Destroys ppls lives, make my blood boil so much”  (grammar and spelling are word for word).

    Darren was apparently well within his rights when he wrote: “Trans people aren’t real humans, and should be put down like that retarded guinea pigs.” And Frank was also good to go with: “That kind of talk will bring about a level of hostility that these fantasy dwellers aren’t even remotely prepared for. If they aren’t careful, men might just show them what they wanna see… and then they’ll know just how patient and nice we’ve really been the whole time. … If they keep it up they will force men to retaliate and they will land right back where they were a century ago. They have no idea what masculine wrath even is. Yet.”

    My question here is: Who gets banned and for what? To what extent is gender bias coming into play here? Like so much of life, these comments indicate we are swimming in such a sea of misogyny, that we we barely blink at it. And it’s clear to me that society’s offline prejudices – that women aren’t trustworthy, aren’t able to equally voice their opinions and take up space – are being applied liberally online.

    We certainly know that women face more abuse online. But perhaps they face more censorship too.

    So what happens next? You can appeal a banning, and a bot will review the request. If that is unsuccessful it is possible to request further adjudication, which you won’t necessarily get: few of these requests reach an actual human.

    I have asked Facebook executives in Australia who the company employs to review these requests, the nature of their training and whether it reflects contemporary secular values.

    The impacts of this silencing are not minor. These bannings happened when we were in Covid lockdown and many of us were profoundly isolated. I use Facebook for sharing life stories and life stories aren’t necessarily clean and tidy.

    Sometimes they are about childhood reactions “boys are gross” and sometimes they are about politics: “Christian schools shouldn’t mandate the objectification of women and to do so is stupid” (truth in defence). The language I use is that of the every day, and drawn from mainstream media. None of my comments advocated violence against men. None of them threatened doxing, a violent uprising, or accused anyone of rape.

    So I am left with more questions than I had to start. I’m wondering how the LNP legislation can possibly deal with the complexity of these engagements. But also wondering how Facebook will greet what appears to be an unworkable proposal. But more deeply, what kind of user Facebook really wants. What is best for the bottom line – fostering social good or fomenting hate?

    What kind of user does Facebook seek, exactly? I don’t have a good feeling about the answers. Not at all.

     

    The post I’m a Facebook jailbird: the system is sexist appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • With a Christmas tree behind him the Prime Minister unwrapped a recycled theme years in the making and painful in its unpacking — the findings of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkin’s report Set the Standard. It was a standard, if it ever existed, that had been slipping for decades and Mr Morrison could only lament the obvious, the issues were not new and the culture giving rise to them didn’t just appear.

    Even so, it took Brittany Higgins’ extraordinary courage and the storm of pressure it unleashed to trigger the review and to lead the Prime Minister on Tuesday to acknowledge that “[w]e all share in the ownership of the problems and we all share in implementing the solutions.”

    He also acknowledged the breadth and extent of the bullying and harassment that besieged workplaces everywhere and thus making it particularly shocking that the very seat of government, perhaps the nation’s most prestigious workplace, had not been setting the standard for others to aspire to.

    But with the Jenkin’s report now released, the focus is on Parliament to look deeply at itself, and for the major parties to accept that the people elected to it are key to ensuring we are able to make real and meaningful change.  A more diverse Parliament, committed to using the far-reaching levers that Parliament has the power to draw upon, will ensure a greater chance of enabling our society to do better on gender equality and on all areas of public policy.

    On this, the Commission’s report provides confronting testimony on what needs to be addressed, hearing how gender inequality and a wider lack of diversity entrenches power within one group, devaluing women and, consequently, fostering gendered misconduct.  Multiple participants spoke about the lack of women in senior roles. ‘[B]y crowding out women at the most senior levels of staffing, a male-dominated and testosterone-fuelled culture dominates’ as well as instances of everyday sexism,” the Report explains.

    This absence of equality in leadership drives the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation to focus its research and activate policy to ensure that we have women and diverse leadership equally in all areas of public life. Moreover, it is clear that changes are needed in three key areas that contribute to the current ecosystems in all peoples’ lives. To address any change in the public sphere we must make changes in the private spheres of our lives.

    As Sam Mostyn, President of Chief Executive Women noted in her national press club address, the caring work done, both outside the home and inside the home, provides the fundamental infrastructure to all our lives, and must be valued.  We are thus led to examine the economic framework underpinning this infrastructure and see in turn the influence it has  on gender norms about what is valued and on power structures that so far have not yet enabled women and people of diverse backgrounds to be truly represented.

    Gender norms need budging in the home and in the traditionally identified ‘private’ spheres that impact on women’s experiences beyond the home. Parliament can and should address what must be done in the home to shift and challenge those norms. Government must address the role it can play in assisting in the sharing of the load of unpaid care work that COVID so clearly amplified was and is disproportionately carried by women. This demands greater attention to paid parental leave for men and women, that is affirmed in the workplace and government must better address how child- care fits in this paradigm.

    The links between the economic structures in society and equality are stark. When it comes to gender this has been evident in the context of the gender pay gap, the gender segregated workforce, the tax system, and public policy generally not being attentive enough to the differential impact of public policy, including fiscal policy, on different groups in society. Work must be undertaken in these areas, to consider what reforms are needed to embed equality in our economic structures to enable people’s lives to be lived to the full and to enable women to equally share the power and contribute to better public policy.

    But ultimately, Kate Jenkin’s report tells us that political and governance structures need changing to assist in the project of embedding equality in all public leadership in Australia.  Part of this project requires that we seriously address the style of politics currently on show in Parliament – where men stand over women, or attempt to do so, and the whole atmosphere is one of intimidation, dominance, put-down, humiliation and aggression. It is not one of respectful engagement to tease out and resolve countless wicked problems besieging the health of our nation.

    Kate Jenkins’ landmark report Set the Standard should be a seminal marker in our nation’s story, on the road to a healthier and stronger society.  The 28 recommendations should be engaged with immediately and carried forward by this and the next Parliament, due to be elected by 21 May 2022.  Let’s see if it has an immediate influence on the number of women pre-selected in safe seats around the country, as well as joining the numerous women standing up as Independents around the country, committed to ensuring a safe and equal society for all men and women, wherever they live.

    Feature image: Sydney, Australia – March 15, 2021 – Thousands of Australian women protest against Crime and Sexual Violence in a Women’s March 4 Justice rally. Photo from Shutterstock.

    The post The ecosystems of Parliament need urgent change appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • For those whose personal and political identities are virtually indistinguishable, these are especially vexing times. Specifically, during this historical stage of capitalism it’s challenging to abide by Gramsci’s optimism of the will and heart and not acquiesce to pessimism of the mind, to the intellect’s awareness of certain recalcitrant realities in our world. And residing in the belly of the global beast also compounds one’s sense of personal responsibility.

    In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, Karl Marx, with assistance from Friedrich Engels, wrote: “All that is solid melts in the air, all that is holy is profaned and man is at last compelled to face facts with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relation to his kind.” It hasn’t exactly come to pass, has it? It’s true, as the two young German philosophers predicted, that to survive, capitalism must constantly revolutionize the means of production, but its current global iteration presages a dystopia that promises to destroy us all. Will this occur before the working class slips off its chains and, shovels in hand, begins digging the graves of the bourgeoisie? The time frame is perilously short but can we honestly claim to be near the Manifesto’s “sober sense” today, that capitalism has forced us to see things as they really are? And even if that moment arrives, what then?

    Several weeks after penning a long piece about my Norwegian-American ancestors and U.S. settler colonialism, my personal muse had remained ominously silent and until today, I’ve been forced to follow suit. My Facebook page continues to feature daily doses of memes, photos, Thursday music, and inspiring quotations but they mostly functioned to keep flagging morale (my own and others) in check until new or refashioned old ideas surfaced.

    In that vein, as I peruse the usual left-wing web sites, I note that working class grievances remain in heavy rotation where they receive insightful treatment by some immensely talented writers. I don’t for a moment discount the importance of fighting to prevent matters from getting worse or pursuing genuine non-reformist reforms.

    However, except for a few exemplary essayists like Chris Hedges, I also discern a paucity of pieces addressing the “big picture,” the larger framework under which everything else is subsumed and especially, how to dismantle that system. Even the most witheringly effective indictments of our social, economic, political and intellectual life will mention the causal link to capitalism but then invariably trail off and conclude with permutations on the tired coda “We are the solution.”

    It’s my strong sense that we need more imaginative thinking and discussion about how to rid the planet of corporate capitalism and the psychopathic predator class’s power and control that’s responsible for monstrous crimes, obscene inequality and an accelerating death spiral toward mass extinction.

    Even authors who take on the daunting task of delineating what a better future might look like, rarely engage in or encourage speculation on how to get there. And let me quickly add that I’m as guilty as anyone for reiterating alarmist warnings that “the sky is falling” (Henny Penny was right) but then assuming that simply laying out irrefutable facts will convince people that revolutionary measures are not only warranted but overdue.

    Bob Dylan once wrote “When you ain’t got nothin’ you got nothin’ to lose.” But just how often is this the case in First World settings like the United States where members of the working class know they’re getting screwed over but also know that they’ve at least survived. Further, they’re also realizing that “working within the system” — like expecting salvation from the deplorable Democrats — is a transparent fool’s errand.

    Even as people increasingly “get” this, taking the next step is very serious business. Conjuring up Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis has poignantly posed the question, “Should I conform to the prevailing order, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous forces bestowed upon me by one of history’s irresistible forces? Or should I join those forces, taking up arms against the status quo and, by opposing it, usher in a brave new world?” Quite understandably, people are hesitant, even fearful. For us not to acknowledge that fear is disingenuous, self-defeating and patronizing. It also fails to convey sufficient humility because we can’t offer any guarantees about the future. However, keeping this reality in mind, we must attempt to move forward.

    By my lights, the only remaining viable option — and its chances for success are exceedingly slim — is “street heat” that our overlords and their enablers can’t absorb and co-opt. The latter has already happened with Black Lives Matter and the once promising Poor People’s Campaign. Both performed inestimable service but now behave more like adjuncts to the Democratic Party.

    We need a multiracial, class-based movement willing to engage in waves of sustained, non-violent civil disobedience where the risk of arrest is likely. Embracing creative tactics involving occupations (think, indigenous people’s resistance encampments in U.S. and Canada) wildcat strikes, protest pop-ups, unofficial walkouts and selective sabotage will assume important roles. A multitude of activities, all of equal value, are indispensable to success.

    Kim Petersen, an astute political analyst and former co-editor at Dissident Voice, notes that ideally this would morph into a general strike requiring a “steadfastness of purpose” and solidarity in the face of a certain ruthless response to crush it. At that point, it’s not inconceivable that defections within the ranks of the army, national guard and police will occur.

    A first step in this process is encouraging people to think and converse about the immediacy of this threat. Reminding people of all the radical resistance in U.S. history is important as is participating in small acts of resistance that can be the embryonic stage, the catalyst for major social and political transformation. They can be useful exercises for those experiencing physical and emotional discomfort at breaking the law for the first time, a sort of confidence building dress rehearsal.

    We are left with the following: On the one hand, prematurely engaging in large-scale resistance without further educational efforts, patience and due diligence is tantamount to undisciplined, ultra-left childishness. It would be gift to the ruling class. On the other hand, waiting too long to act is to court mass death. It’s not hyperbole to assume that if don’t take matters into our own hands, survival itself will be problematic for our children and grandchildren.

    Finally, although much of the above sounds Dr. Gloom and Doomish, even bordering on existential dread, that would be a misreading of my intent. As long as I remain a sentient being, I won’t give up or give in to the dark side. For me and many others the Rosa Luxemberg’s “socialism or barbarism” remains the only alternative. The numbers are overwhelmingly on our side and my will and heart tell me that “A People United Can Never Be Defeated!” isn’t just a catchy rally chant if enough people believe it.

    The post Thoughts on the Left’s Response to Capitalism’s Global Death Spiral first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A few months ago I started highlighting and fighting against vaccine misinformation on Instagram. In the beginning, I was motivated by a desire to help people understand that the vaccines were safe by sharing scientific facts. It then became a frustration with the misinformation spreading across social media during the vaccine rollout. I wanted to show that the misinformation being shared around social media was misguided at best and deliberate disinformation at worst.

    I didn’t set out to call out specific people, but it became clear to me that certain types of accounts and people had become central in the spread of this misinformation on Instagram. And so, my unintentional focus in these discussions became a very specific brand of misinformation peddler: the wellness warrior women.

    I discovered that anti vax rhetoric has found a natural home in wellness Instagram accounts. The blend of wellness, self-care, natural living, with a dash of MLMs (multi-level marketing) for good measure has, over the last 20 months, trended towards increasing levels of anti-vax rhetoric, rich in conspiracy theories, in what has been called ‘Pastel QAnon‘. Wellness accounts on Instagram largely started from a place of taking control of your own body and health, often with a distrust of the medical establishment and so were primed for anti-vax content.

    But this isn’t about those accounts and the danger they pose (which on its own could be a whole other article), but rather the reaction I got when I started calling out these accounts and highlighting their misinformation.

    There is a very specific type of comment that I got, as a woman and self-identified feminist, when I would critique or question the actions or words of another woman:‘That’s not very feminist of you’.

    There is an underlying assumption that comes with this view of feminism. One that says feminism means ‘women supporting women’ at all times. That a critique of one woman is a critique of all women and therefore is not allowed. That creating ‘division’ within the ‘sisterhood’ is counterproductive. These types of comments are emblematic of choice feminism (and it’s very close relative, white feminism). It uses feminism as a shield to protect from critique, as a permission slip for a woman to do or say whatever they want without accountability or consequences.

    This response is in no way limited to the anti vax space. I received similar criticism to my opinion piece on a recent Celeste Barber Instagram post and the internalised misogyny I saw exemplified in it. Being criticised by women for being perceived to be criticising a woman (who was herself criticising a woman) because ‘women shouldn’t criticise other women’ was truly some inception level commentary, the irony of which was seemingly lost on those commenting.

    It’s been fascinating to see the variance of understanding (and misunderstanding) of feminism in my own comments and DMs when the discussion turns to what feminism is or isn’t.

    I identify as an [aspiring] intersectional feminist (I aim to be intersectional in my approach, noting that I will almost always fall short in some way and have much more to learn). Intersectionality was first coined by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw in a paper looking at the intersections of race and gender specifically looking at the experience of Black women. Today she describes it as “a prism for seeing the way in which various forms of inequality often operate together and exacerbate each other”. It challenges us to look past our privilege and to overcome systemic oppression and inequality beyond those issues that impact us personally, to de-centre ourselves and be mindful of how the system harms different people in different ways.

    But I hazard a guess that those who tell me my critiques of the misinformation spread by other women are ‘not very feminist‘ would mostly be in alignment with ‘choice feminism’, or don’t consider themselves to be feminists at all. I can see how, to them, my critiques of other women seem ‘anti-feminist’. Choice feminism operates on the idea that a woman making a choice is inherently feminist because she is a woman and has exercised her ‘right to choose’. There is an assumption that because a woman has made a choice we, as women, must support her. Never mind the flawed premise it’s operating on that all choices are equal, freely made or even accessible to all women.

    This ‘right to choose’ language of choice feminism has seeped into the anti vax posts of these wellness accounts. The premise says that if someone chooses to not get the vaccine, they are making the right choice for them and we must support their choice. These posts also co-opt the ‘my body, my choice’ language of the reproductive rights movement, without care for the history and context of the phrase. Anti-vaxxers use it to justify their ability to make a ‘personal choice’ as well as using ‘my body, my choice’ as a weapon against people who support both vaccinations and a person’s right to choose an abortion – accusing them of being hypocritical and therefore anti-feminist.

    The common factor between abortion and vaccines is choice and therefore make them equivalent choices in the eyes of the choice feminist. To others, a personal choice to get an abortion is in no way the same as refusal to participate in a public health measure that could stop the transmission of a deadly disease. But in choice feminism, the choice of the individual is the guiding principle and so trumps any community minded measure or any perception of the social contract.

    The individualisation of choice feminism takes a structural level analysis and conflates it with an attack on all women within that structure. So by critiquing the dangerous misinformation spread by influencers who are women, I am perceived to be attacking women.

    But we need to be able to hold people accountable for their words and actions. A woman holding another woman accountable is not inherently anti-feminist in much the same way that immunity to genuine critique or accountability from other women is not feminism.

    The ‘not very feminist‘ comments make it clear that we’re not operating on the same understanding of feminism. Feminism is a broad church, with a variety of ‘brands’ of feminism. Roxane Gay described the pluralism of feminism in ‘Bad Feminist’: “We don’t all have to believe in the same feminism. Feminism can be pluralistic so long as we respect the different feminisms we carry with us, so long as we give enough of a damn to try to minimize the fractures among us.”

    Our feminism should be robust enough to withstand discussion and critique. If your feminism is so weak that a fact-based discussion between women threatens it, what does that say about your view of women and feminism?

    I don’t believe that holding other women accountable for problematic (and when it comes to vaccine misinformation, frankly very dangerous) views is creating division or tearing other women down. To me, minimising the fractures isn’t about never critiquing other women. It is about finding common ground where there is some, but not being afraid to speak up when someone’s words or actions are actively harming others. Even if, or perhaps especially if, that person is another woman. I don’t want the kind of feminism that insulates women from critique and says that their opinion is right at all times. Because there are always times when we get it wrong. And I want a feminism that will hold us to account for our words and our actions.

     

    The post You’re a bad feminist: Countering anti-vax, wellness warriors appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • “The cruelty is clear; the animal is heaving and gasping for breath,” Bobbie Armstrong tells me. She’s showing me footage of an exhausted stag, literally running for his life.

    Armstrong is an animal rights activist and a volunteer for Somerset Wildlife Crime. She goes out on to the hills documenting the horrific hunting incidents that take place in the region. I have interviewed Armstrong a number of times about the UK’s most horrific blood sport: stag hunting.

    Stag hunting is an illegal sport that continues to take place despite people like Armstrong exposing those who engage in the cruel practice. It involves an hours-long chase with hunters using quad bikes, motorbikes, and hounds. The ‘sport’ takes place on Somerset’s Quantock Hills and in other locations in the South-West.

    The Quantocks are owned by various landowners including the National Trust and the Forestry Commission.

    Illegal

    The footage is distressing to watch, and of course the hunt is against the law. Armstrong tells me:

    This stag was hunted by the Quantock Stag Hounds relentlessly. As he had clattered through fields, pursued by hounds and riders, he had become entangled in the crop. Anyone can see that this is an animal who is exhausted, who has run beyond his limits, and is still being forced to run on.

    The hunting ban means that no animal should ever be pursued. It can only be ‘flushed’ out and shot to protect crops, or to relieve it of suffering. It can also be killed in the name of ‘research’.

    Armstrong continues:

    This is not ‘flushing to guns’. This is not relieving suffering by dispatching a casualty. This is not research and observation. This is ongoing blatant illegal hunting. No animal may be pursued by hounds. Period. There is no exemption in the act which permits it.

    Failure of the police and landowners

    It is perhaps unsurprising that despite its illegality, nothing has been done by the police or the land owners to stop stag hunting. After all, the Hunting Act came into force in 2005, but hunters have continued to murder foxes and deer regardless. Armstrong explains:

    It’s happening because of the failure of Avon and Somerset Police to tackle the issue. It’s happening because the National Trust and the Forestry Commission are still turning a blind eye to it. It happens because Natural England are full of empty promises about enforcing the rules regarding vehicles on this Site of Special Scientific Interest, which in itself is a criminal offence.

    For four years we have been raising awareness and highlighting the plight of the deer on the Quantocks. There is NO question that they are hunting them, but until the stakeholders on the Quantock Hills actually take steps to enforce the law, protect the deer and take guns off the hills, this will go on.

    This latest incident of illegal stag hunting took place just a few weeks before the National Trust finally announced that it would ban trail hunting on its land. Trail hunting is when packs lay an artificial trail for hounds to follow – supposedly instead of chasing a real animal. Since 2005, hunters have used trail hunting as a guise to go about real hunting of both foxes and stags. Footage of foxes and deer being murdered had been presented to the National Trust over the years prior to the ban, but the Trust only acted when a top hunter was convicted in court for encouraging others to use trail hunting as a cover for real hunting.

    Armstrong says:

    The National Trust had to accept that the lies of so-called trail hunting had been exposed, and along with it their own plausible deniability.

    They knew what was really going on, all the while thinly veiled by these claims of trail hunting was barbaric illegal hunting.

    “Russian roulette”

    Armstrong is rightly very concerned that one day a member of the public will get injured. She says:

    Two years ago we put Avon and Somerset police and the National Trust and Forestry Commission all on notices regarding the safety issues on the Quantock Hills. Since then, none of them have taken any proactive steps to address what the whole country knows is a smokescreen, but in the case of stag hunting, one that has potentially fatal consequences.

    How many walkers, bird watchers, school excursions or cyclists know that they’re walking on a live firing range up there? They don’t! They have no idea. But the police know, the National Trust know… They are playing a game of Russian roulette with the safety of ordinary folk.

    The Canary contacted the National Trust for comment about the latest footage of the stag being hunted, but so far has received no response.

    While we should be celebrating the news that the National Trust has finally taken steps to ban trail hunting on its land, time will tell whether it actually enforces it. Thankfully we have groups on the ground, such as Somerset Wildlife Crime and local hunt saboteurs, who will continue to expose illegal hunting. It’s through these activists that both the hunting packs and landowners will be held to account.

    Featured image via Somerset Wildlife Crime

    By Eliza Egret

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • This story originally appeared in Progressive International on Nov. 29, 2021. It is shared here with permission.

    The pandemic rages on—not by accident, but by design.

    As we enter the third year of the COVID-19 crisis, two battles are underway. One is led by the carers of the world in overcrowded hospitals, fighting to end the pandemic. Another is by corporate executives in closed boardrooms, fighting to prolong it.

    The question at the very center of both is this—who will control medical recipes worth billions of dollars, and millions of lives?

    If more of our factories, wherever they might be, could start producing vaccines for the people in their countries, companies like Pfizer would lose their monopoly. They know this.

    As some countries roll out booster programs, less than 6% of Africa’s more than a billion people have been fully inoculated. Big pharmaceutical companies are letting the pandemic go on—and why not, according to a recent estimate, Pfizer is expected to make astronomical profits—$107bn in cumulative sales by the end of 2022 on its COVID-19 vaccines, now being dubbed a “megablockbuster.” Key to this is complete control over production, price, and profit. If more of our factories, wherever they might be, could start producing vaccines for the people in their countries, companies like Pfizer would lose their monopoly. They know this.

    Right now, the World Trade Organization is considering a proposal that would temporarily waive patent protections on vaccine recipes. Over 164 countries have supported it. But the pharmaceutical industry is fighting back, hard—through the governments it lobbies. The European Union, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, and Singapore have successfully blocked it for over a year.

    But as the ministers convene, once again, in Geneva on Nov. 30, a new global movement is readying its fight: 2.5 million nurses are taking these COVID-19 criminals to court. In an unprecedented move, unions from 28 countries, coordinated by the Global Nurses United and the Progressive International—have filed a complaint with the United Nations alleging human rights violations by these countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, whose end, they write, “is nowhere in sight.”

    In a closed-door meeting about how to get more vaccines to the world’s poorest people, the chief executive of Pfizer attacked Dr. Tedros, the head of the World Health Organization, for speaking “emotionally” when he called for greater balance in the global distribution of vaccines. From Brazil to India, the United States to Taiwan, nurses are bringing their emotions to bear. They have been on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic response and witnessed the staggering numbers of deaths and the immense suffering caused by political inaction. From the front lines, they prepare to hold these countries to account with a rallying cry: We, who care—we bear witness. Now, we testify.

    The nurses’ complaint is not simply a legal fight: it is radical call to expose and defeat the governments that have been holding the lives of people hostage in order to service corporate superprofits.

    The nurses’ complaint is not simply a legal fight: it is radical call to expose and defeat the governments that have been holding the lives of people hostage in order to service corporate superprofits.

    The leaders of these nations have been explicit about the world they seek to build: Early in the pandemic, the UK parliament’s foreign affairs select committee called for a “G20 for public health.” This is a revealing analogy.  Much like the G20, these countries have, in effect, hijacked international institutions and actively undermined the sovereignty of other nations, while enjoying complete impunity for their actions.

    Consider the principal opponent to the waiver proposal at the WTO: the EU. In May 2020, European Parliamentarians, the only members directly elected by citizens in the EU system, voted to back the waiver to “address global production constraints and supply shortage.” Yet, for the next six months, the European Commission, which negotiates on behalf of Europe at the WTO has stubbornly resisted the waiver. This is entirely unsurprising if we look at who the European commissioners and their cabinets meet: Since March 2020, they have had 161 meetings with Big Pharma in the same time frame that they managed to meet one NGO in favour of the waiver.

    Nothing stood in their way as they throttled democracy and gave free reign to a deadly virus. Not global health organizations, two-thirds of which are headquartered in the US, UK, and Switzerland. Not international institutions, whose austerity agendas, have over decades, decimated public health systems in developing nations even as 83% of all government health spending occurred in the affluent world. Not the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—which, it turns out, urged Oxford to reverse their decision to share their vaccine technology with the world.

    The COVID-19 criminals have made their disregard for universal human rights and international law clear. It is now up to us to reclaim the enormous power that the UN charter, the WTO, WHO, and international law hold, and deploy them as tools. That is why this translational coalition is moving the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council—to investigate—and find against the governments in question.

    In the complaint addressed to Dr. Tlaleng Mofokeng, the UN special rapporteur for physical and mental health, we articulated our demands:

    First, undertake an urgent mission to the World Trade Organization: For too long, these countries have been wholly unaccountable, disguising their submission to corporate interests behind technical jargon. Their days of impunity are over.

    Second, make a determination that the obstruction of the waiver constitutes a continuing breach of these governments’ obligations to guarantee the right to physical and mental health of everyone. Healthcare is our right. What we’re witnessing cannot be defined as an inefficiency in our system, or the failure of our politics — it is, in no uncertain terms — a crime against us all.

    The nurses have given their testimony: “These countries have violated our rights and the rights of our patients—and caused the loss of countless lives— of nurses and other caregivers and those we have cared for.”

    Today is the day the historic case of the Carers of the World vs. Covid-19 Criminals begins.

    Add your name here. At 100,000 signatures, the petition with your signature will reach the UN Human Rights Council.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.