radiofree.asia

Category: Polarisation

  • Israel’s former chief justice Aharon Barak fears state risks ‘civil war’

    Pacific Media Watch

    Israel’s most revered jurist, former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak, says that he fears the Netanyahu government’s latest actions, including moves to fire the Shin Bet secret service chief and attorney-general, are steering the country toward civil war.

    Speaking to the Ynet news site shortly before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened the cabinet that voted unanimously to fire Bar, Barak said that “the main problem in Israeli society is . . .  the severe rift between Israelis”.

    “This rift is getting worse and in the end, I fear, it will be like a train that goes off the tracks and plunges into a chasm, causing a civil war,” he said.

    In another interview, with Channel 12, when asked why he thought Israel was close to civil conflict, Barak said it was “because the rift in the people is immense, and no effort is being made to heal it.

    “Everyone is trying to make it worse.

    “Today there are demonstrations, then a car drives through them and runs over someone,” he said, referring to an incident at an anti-Netanyahu protest in Jerusalem on Wednesday when a driver rammed into a protester, injuring him.

    “But tomorrow there will be shootings, and the day after that there will be bloodshed,” Barak continued.

    Overturned sacking
    Barak also told Channel 12 he would have overturned a government decision to fire Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar if he were serving on the bench today.

    The former chief justice explained he believed the ousting of Bar from the role in the middle of his term was illegitimate because the position of Shin Bet chief was not a “role of confidence” with the political echelon.

    Instead, the person in the job was meant to carry out the role as it was explicitly written in legislation.

    “There is authority to dismiss, but no grounds for dismissal,” he elaborated, saying he would also strike down the firing of Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, another top official whom the government is seeking to oust.

    When asked about the prime minister’s tweet on Wednesday night alleging the existence of a “leftist deep state” in Israel that was working to thwart Netanyahu’s government, Barak replied: “I don’t know what a deep state is.”

    “We’re not the United States, we don’t have a deep state here. We have loyal public servants here, and they do things according to the law,” he added.

    Barak also appealed directly to Netanyahu, urging him to halt the process of firing Bar and Baharav-Miara, and other policies the former justice considers destructive, and said he thinks Netanyahu should be offered and should take a plea deal in his criminal trial.


    ‘Israel feels like it is on the brink of civil war.’   Video: France 24

    ‘Right for his legacy’
    “I think that it is right for Netanyahu. It is right for his legacy. And it is right for the State of Israel. And I think it is possible,” he said.

    “Otherwise, the trial will continue. The rift between [those] for Bibi and against Bibi will continue,” he added, using Netanyahu’s nickname.

    Asked by the interviewer what he would say to Netanyahu if he could talk to him, Barak answered: “This is your policy, I am completely against it. I ask you, don’t implement it beyond what you have done today. Stop. Stop.”

    “Don’t take the rift beyond where it already is,” he concluded.

    Responding to Barak, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar issued a terse statement on X, simply posting: “There will be no civil war.”

    Education Minister Yoav Kisch, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, said in a post on X that Barak was “threatening a civil war” with his warning, and promised that “these threats will not deter” the government from implementing its policies.

    MK Almog Cohen of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party said that Barak is “a reckless and irresponsible man,” who was “sent to issue a Sicilian mafia-style threat of blood in the streets and civil war.”

    Retired Israeli Supreme Court president Aharon Barak
    Retired Israeli Supreme Court president Aharon Barak . . . “We’re not the United States, we don’t have a deep state here.” Image: ICJ

    Well-respected internationally
    Barak served as a Supreme Court justice from 1978 to 1995. He was then elected as the court’s president. He retired from the bench in 2006.

    Despite Barak being a vocal critic of Netanyahu and his policies, the premier chose him to represent Israel as an ad-hoc judge at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the genocide case that was brought against Israel by South Africa amid the war in Gaza.

    Barak removed himself from the court last June for personal reasons.

    Barak, a Holocaust survivor, is well-respected internationally and is seen as Israel’s preeminent jurist.

    Within Israel, he long has been seen by Netanyahu and other right-wing leaders as a leftist “activist,” who is to blame for many of the issues with Israel’s judicial system that the government’s controversial judicial overhaul plans aim to rectify.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • New survey finds an alarming tolerance for attacks on the press in the US – particularly among white, Republican men

    ANALYSIS: By Julie Posetti, City St George’s, University of London and Waqas Ejaz, University of Oxford

    Press freedom is a pillar of American democracy. But political attacks on US-based journalists and news organisations pose an unprecedented threat to their safety and the integrity of information.

    Less than 48 hours before election day, Donald Trump, now President-elect for a second term, told a rally of his supporters that he wouldn’t mind if someone shot the journalists in front of him.

    “I have this piece of glass here, but all we have really over here is the fake news. And to get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don’t mind that so much,” he said.

    A new survey from the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) highlights a disturbing tolerance for political bullying of the press in the land of the First Amendment. The findings show that this is especially true among white, male, Republican voters.

    We commissioned this nationally representative survey of 1020 US adults, which was fielded between June 24 and July 5 2024, to assess Americans’ attitudes to the press ahead of the election. We are publishing the results here for the first time.

    More than one-quarter (27 percent) of the Americans we polled said they had often seen or heard a journalist being threatened, harassed or abused online. And more than one-third (34 percent) said they thought it was appropriate for senior politicians and government officials to criticise journalists and news organisations.

    Tolerance for political targeting of the press appears as polarised as American society. Nearly half (47 percent) of the Republicans surveyed approved of senior politicians critiquing the press, compared to less than one-quarter (22 percent) of Democrats.

    Our analysis also revealed divisions according to gender and ethnicity. While 37 percent of white-identifying respondents thought it was appropriate for political leaders to target journalists and news organisations, only 27 percent of people of colour did. There was also a nine-point difference along gender lines, with 39 percent of men approving of this conduct, compared to 30 percent of women.

    It appears intolerance towards the press has a face — a predominantly white, male and Republican-voting face.

    Press freedom fears
    This election campaign, Trump has repeated his blatantly false claim that journalists are “enemies of the people”. He has suggested that reporters who cross him should be jailed, and signalled that he would like to revoke broadcast licences of networks.

    Relevant, too, is the enabling environment for viral attacks on journalists created by unregulated social media companies which represent a clear threat to press freedom and the safety of journalists. Previous research produced by ICFJ for Unesco concluded that there was a causal relationship between online violence towards women journalists and physical attacks.

    While political actors may be the perpetrators of abuse targeting journalists, social media companies have facilitated their viral spread, heightening the risk to journalists.

    We’ve seen a potent example of this in the current campaign, when Haitian Times editor Macollvie J. Neel was “swatted” — meaning police were dispatched to her home after a fraudulent report of a murder at the address — during an episode of severely racist online violence.

    The trigger? Her reporting on Trump and JD Vance amplifying false claims that Haitian immigrants were eating their neighbours’ pets.

    Trajectory of Trump attacks
    Since the 2016 election, Trump has repeatedly discredited independent reporting on his campaign. He has weaponised the term “fake news” and accused the media of “rigging” elections.

    “The election is being rigged by corrupt media pushing completely false allegations and outright lies in an effort to elect [Hillary Clinton] president,” he said in 2016. With hindsight, such accusations foreshadowed his false claims of election fraud in 2020, and similar preemptive claims in 2024.

    His increasingly virulent attacks on journalists and news organisations are amplified by his supporters online and far-right media. Trump has effectively licensed attacks on American journalists through anti-press rhetoric and undermined respect for press freedom.

    In 2019, the Committee to Protect Journalists found that more than 11 percent of 5400 tweets posted by Trump between the date of his 2016 candidacy and January 2019 “. . . insulted or criticised journalists and outlets, or condemned and denigrated the news media as a whole”.

    After being temporarily deplatformed from Twitter for breaching community standards, Trump launched Truth Social, where he continues to abuse his critics uninterrupted. But he recently rejoined the platform (now X), and held a series of campaign events with X owner and Trump backer Elon Musk.

    The failed insurrection on January 6, 2021, rammed home the scale of the escalating threats facing American journalists. During the riots at the Capitol, at least 18 journalists were assaulted and reporting equipment valued at tens of thousands of dollars was destroyed.

    This election cycle, Reporters Without Borders logged 108 instances of Trump insulting, attacking or threatening the news media in public speeches or offline remarks over an eight-week period ending on October 24.

    Meanwhile, the Freedom of the Press Foundation has recorded 75 assaults on journalists since January 1 this year. That’s a 70 percent increase on the number of assaults captured by their press freedom tracker in 2023.

    A recent survey of hundreds of journalists undertaking safety training provided by the International Women’s Media Foundation found that 36 percent of respondents reported being threatened with or experiencing physical violence. One-third reported exposure to digital violence, and 28 percent reported legal threats or action against them.

    US journalists involved in ongoing ICFJ research have told us that they have felt particularly at risk covering Trump rallies and reporting on the election from communities hostile towards the press. Some are wearing protective flak jackets to cover domestic politics. Others have removed labels identifying their outlets from their reporting equipment to reduce the risk of being physically attacked.

    And yet, our survey reveals a distinct lack of public concern about the First Amendment implications of political leaders threatening, harassing, or abusing journalists. Nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of Americans surveyed did not regard political attacks on journalists or news organisations as a threat to press freedom. Among them, 38 percent identified as Republicans compared to just 9 percent* as Democrats.

    The anti-press playbook
    Trump’s anti-press playbook appeals to a global audience of authoritarians. Other political strongmen, from Brazil to Hungary and the Philippines, have adopted similar tactics of deploying disinformation to smear and threaten journalists and news outlets.

    Such an approach imperils journalists while undercutting trust in facts and critical independent journalism.

    History shows that fascism thrives when journalists cannot safely and freely do the work of holding governments and political leaders to account. As our research findings show, the consequences are a society accepting lies and fiction as facts while turning a blind eye to attacks on the press.

    *The people identifying as Democrats in this sub-group are too few to make this a reliable representative estimate.

    Note: Nabeelah Shabbir (ICFJ deputy director of research) and Kaylee Williams (ICFJ research associate) also contributed to this article and the research underpinning it. The survey was conducted by Langer Research Associates in English and Spanish. ICFJ researchers co-developed the survey and conducted the analysis.The Conversation

    Dr Julie Posetti, Global Director of Research, International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) and Professor of Journalism, City St George’s, University of London and Waqas Ejaz, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Oxford Climate Journalism Network, University of Oxford. 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.

  • Polarised media undermines democracy, professor warns at Pacific media conference

    By Kaneta Naimatau in Suva

    In a democracy, citizens must critically evaluate issues based on facts. However in a very polarised society, people focus more on who is speaking than what is being said.

    This was highlighted by journalism Professor Cherian George of the Hong Kong Baptist University as he delivered his keynote address during the recent 2024 Pacific International Media Conference at the Holiday Inn, Suva.

    According to Professor George when a media outlet is perceived as representing the “other side”, its journalism is swiftly condemned — adding “it won’t be believed, regardless of its professionalism and quality.”

    PACIFIC MEDIA CONFERENCE 4-6 JULY 2024
    PACIFIC MEDIA CONFERENCE 4-6 JULY 2024

    Professor George, an author and award-winning journalism academic was among many high-profile journalists and academics gathered at the three-day conference from July 4-6 — the first of its kind in the region in almost two decades.

    The gathering of academics, media professionals, policymakers and civil society organisation representatives was organised by The University of the South Pacific in partnership with the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and the Asia-Pacific Media Network (APMN).

    Addressing an audience of 12 countries from the Asia Pacific region, Professor George said polarisation was a threat to democracy and institutions such as the media and universities.

    “While democracy requires faith in the process and a willingness to compromise, polarization is associated with an uncompromising attitude, treating opponents as the enemy and attacking the system, bringing it down if you do not get in your way,” he said.

    Fiji coups context
    In the context of Fiji — which has experienced four coups, Professor George said the country had seen a steady decrease in political polarisation since 2000, according to data from the Varieties of Democracy Institute (VDI).

    He said the decrease was due to government policies aimed at neutralising ethnic-based political organisations at the time. However, he warned against viewing Fiji’s experience as justification for autocratic approaches to social harmony.

    “Some may look at this [VDI data] and argue that the Fiji case demonstrates that you sometimes need strongman rule and a temporary suspension of democracy to save it from itself, but the problem is that this is a highly risky formula,” he explained.

    Professor George acknowledged that while the government had a role in countering polarisation through top-down attempts, there was also a need for a “bottom-up counter-polarising work done by media and civil society.”

    Professor Cherian George delivers his keynote address
    Professor Cherian George delivers his keynote address at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference at the Holiday Inn, Suva. Image: David Robie/Asia Pacific Media Network

    Many professional journalists feel uncomfortable with the idea of intervening or taking a stand, Professor George said, labelling them as mirrors.

    “However, if news outlets are really a mirror, it’s always a cracked mirror, pointing in a certain direction and not another,” he said.

    “The media are always going to impact on reality, even as they report it objectively.

    Trapped by conventions
    “It’s better to acknowledge this so that your impact isn’t making things worse than they need to be. There’s ample research showing how even when the media are free to do their own thing, they are trapped by conventions and routines that accentuate polarisation,” he explained.

    Professor George highlighted three key issues that exacerbate polarisation in media:

    • Stereotypes — journalists often rely on stereotypes about different groups of people because it makes their storytelling easier and quicker;
    • Elite focus — journalists treat prominent leaders as more newsworthy than ordinary people the leaders represent; and
    • Media bias — journalists prefer to report on conflict or bad news as the public pay most attention to them.

    As a result, this has created an imbalance in the media and influenced people how they perceive their social world, the professor said.

    “In general, different communities in their society do not get along, since that’s what their media, all their media, regardless of political leaning, tell them every day,” Professor George explained, adding, “this perception can be self-fulfilling”.

    To counter these tendencies, he pointed to reform movements such as peace and solutions journalism which aim to shift attention to grassroots priorities and possibilities for cooperation.

    “We must at least agree on one thing,” he concluded. “We all possess a shared humanity and equal dignity, and this is something I hope all media and media educators in the Pacific region, around the world, regardless of political position, can work towards.”

    Opening remarks
    The conference opening day featured remarks from Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, head of the USP Journalism Programme and conference chair, and Dr Matthew Hayward, acting head of the School of Pacific Arts, Communications, and Education (SPACE).

    The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, Co-operatives, Small and Medium Enterprises and Communications, Manoa Kamikamica was the chief guest. Professor Cherian George delivered the keynote address.

    Professor George is currently a professor of Media Studies and has published several books focusing on media and politics in Singapore and Southeast Asia. He also serves as director of the Centre for Media and Communication Research at the Hong Kong Baptist University.

    The conference was sponsored the United States Embassy in Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga and Tuvalu, the International Fund for Public Interest Media, the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme, Fiji Women’s Rights Movement, New Zealand Science Media Centre and the Pacific Women Lead — Pacific Community.

    The event had more than 100 attendees from 12 countries — Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Cook Islands, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Solomon Islands, the United States and Hong Kong.

    It provided a platform for the 51 presenters to discuss the theme of the conference “Navigating Challenges and Shaping Futures in Pacific Media Research and Practice” and their ideas on the way forward.

    An official dinner held on July 4 included the launch of the 30th anniversary edition of the Pacific Journalism Review (PJR), founded by former USP journalism head professor David Robie in 1994, and launch of the book Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, which is edited by associate professor Singh, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad, and Dr Amit Sarwal, a former senior lecturer and deputy head of school (research) at USP.

    The PJR is the only academic journal in the region that publishes research specifically focused on Pacific media.

    A selection of the best conference papers will be published in a special edition of the Pacific Journalism Review or its companion publication Pacific Media Monographs.

    Kaneta Naimatau is a final-year student journalist at The University of the South Pacific. Republished in partnership with USP.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Jacinda Ardern’s legacy for NZ: Unique covid-19 strategy ‘saved many lives’

    RNZ News

    Jacinda Ardern will largely be remembered in Aotearoa New Zealand as the prime minister whose pandemic-era policies saved thousands of Kiwi lives, according to former prime minister Helen Clark.

    And she will also be considered an example of how to govern in the age of social media and endless crises, political experts say, while also achieving more than her critics might give her credit for.

    Ardern was set to deliver her valedictory speech later today, having stepped down as prime minister earlier this year after just over five years in the job.

    “I think that while I’m happy for Jacinda that she’s going to get a life and design what she wants to do and when she wants to do it, you can’t help feeling sad about her going,” Clark, herself a former Labour prime minister, told RNZ Morning Report ahead of Ardern’s speech.

    “Leaders like Jacinda don’t come along too often and we’ve lost one.”

    Ardern has played down suggestions online vitriol played a part in her decision to stand aside — but acknowledged on Tuesday she hoped her departure would “take a bit of heat out” of the conversation.

    Clark said she “fundamentally” believed the hatred got to Ardern, powered by “populism and division” generated by former US President Donald Trump and his supporters.

    ‘Conspiracies took hold’
    “Conspiracies took hold and suddenly you know, as the pandemic wore on here, I think the sort of relentless barrage from America — not, not just through Trump himself and the reporting of him, but through the social media networks — we have the anti-science people, the people who completely distrusted public authority, the QAnon conspiracies and hey, it played out on our Parliament’s front lawn and it still plays out and it’s very, very vitriolic and divisive.

    “So I think that that spillover impact was really quite, well, not just unpleasant — it was horrible.”

    Former PM Jacinda Ardern on the front page of the New Zealand Herald today
    Former PM Jacinda Ardern on the front page of the New Zealand Herald today . . . revealing her next move. Image: Screenshot APR

    Researchers have found Ardern was a lightning rod for online hate.

    The perpetrator of the 2019 mosque shootings used the internet to connect with and learn from other extremists, which led to Ardern setting up the Christchurch Call movement to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.

    Her post-parliamentary career will include continuing that work, as New Zealand’s Special Envoy for the Christchurch Call, reporting to her replacement, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins.

    “The mosque murders was just the most horrible thing to have happen on anyone’s watch, and she rose to the occasion, and I think the international reputation was very much associated with initially the empathy that she showed at that time,” said Clark.

    But “one of New Zealand’s darkest days”, as Ardern put it at the time, was not the only near-unparalleled crisis she had to deal with in her time as prime minister.

    “The White Island tragedy was another that needed, you know, very empathetic and careful handling. But then comes covid, and there’s no doubt that thousands of people are alive today because of the steps taken, particularly in 2020.

    ‘Would we have survived?’
    “You know, I mean, I’m obviously in the older age group now which is more vulnerable. My father is 101 now and has survived the pandemic. But would we have survived it if it had been allowed to rip through our community, like it was allowed to rip through others?

    “I think that there’d be so many New Zealanders not alive today had those steps not been taken.”

    Data shows New Zealand has actually experienced negative excess mortality over the past few years — the elimination strategy so successful, fewer Kiwis have died than would have if there was no pandemic.

    Former Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield said that was “unique, virtually unique around the world”.

    Despite that, it was New Zealand’s aggressive approach towards covid-19 in 2020 and 2021 that arguably drove much of the polarisation and online vitriol.

    “There’s no doubt that those measures did save lives. They also drove people into frenzied levels of opposition and fear and isolation,” said Clark. “They felt polarised, they felt locked out.”

    But she said Ardern bore “very little” responsibility for that.

    UNDP head Helen Clark poses in Paris on June 1, 2015
    Former PM Helen Clark . . . “There’s no doubt that those measures did save lives.” Image: RNZ News/AFP

    Political scientist Dr Bronwyn Hayward of the University of Canterbury said Ardern’s Christchurch Call to eliminate extremist content will have a long-lasting impact on not just New Zealand, but the world.

    “There’s been a lot made about the fact that she resigned under pressure from the trolls, which is completely missing the point that what she’s saying is that in this era where we’ve got particularly Russian, but also other countries’ bots that are attacking liberal leaders,” Dr Hayward told Morning Report, saying Ardern was the first global leader to “really understand” how what happens online can spill over into the real world.

    “She understands that democracies are now under attack, and the front line is your social media, where we’ve got a propaganda war coming internationally.

    “So she’s taken a very systemic approach to thinking about how to tackle that, so that in local communities it feels like you’re reeling from Islamophobia, to racism to transphobia, but actually, when we look internationally at what’s happening, naive and quite disaffected groups have been constantly fed this material and she’s taken a systemic approach to it.”

    Clark said one of the biggest differences in the world between Ardern’s time as prime minister and her own, was that she did not have to deal with social media.

    “I didn’t have a Twitter account, didn’t know what it was really. We had texts, that was about it. We used to have pagers, for heaven’s sake.”

    Ardern’s domestic legacy
    One of the first things Hipkins did when he took over as prime minister was the “policy bonfire” — but critics have long said the Ardern-led government has had trouble delivering on its promises.

    Interviewer Guyon Espiner reminded Clark that her government had brought in long-lasting changes like Working for Families, the NZ Super Fund and Kiwibank — asking her what Ardern could point to.

    Clark defended Ardern, saying the coalition arrangement with NZ First in Ardern’s first term slowed any reform agenda she might have had, and then there was covid-19.

    “Looking back, there needs to be more recognition that the pandemic blindsided governments, communities, publics around the world. It wasn’t easy.”

    Dr Hayward pointed to the ban on new oil and gas exploration and child poverty monitoring, “which before that was ruled as impossible or too difficult”.

    Dr Lara Greaves, a political scientist at the University of Auckland, said it was “incredibly hard to really evaluate” Ardern’s legacy outside of covid-19.

    “Ultimately … she is the covid-19 prime minister.”

    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
    Former PM Jacinda Ardern at a covid-19 press conference. Image: RNZ News/Pool/NZ Herald/Mark Mitchell

    The future
    Clark said Ardern would be emotional during her valedictory speech.

    “You have very close relationships with colleagues, you have relationships with others of a different kind — with the opposition, with the media, with the public — and you’re walking away, you’re closing the door on it.

    “But you know that a new chapter will open, and that life post-politics can be very rewarding. I’ve certainly found it so. I have no doubt that Jacinda will get back into her stride with doing things that she feels are worthwhile for the the general public and worthwhile for her.”

    After losing the 2008 election, Clark rose the ranks at the United Nations. She said while that was an option for Ardern, there is plenty of time for the 42-year-old to do other things first.

    “I was, you know, 58 when I left being prime minister. And Jacinda’s leaving in her early 40s and she has a young child, so who knows? She may want Neve to grow up with a good old Kiwi upbringing.

    “And she may want her, you know, involvement internationally to be more, you know, forays out from New Zealand. That’s for her to decide. I mean, the world’s her oyster, if she chooses to follow that.”

    Dr Greaves also pointed to Ardern’s relative youth.

    “It seems like she’s going for a period of sort of recovery and reflection and figuring out what to do next. But of course, she’s got another 20 years in her career, at least — the world’s her oyster.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Roe v Wade shows why abortion is at the heart of America’s divisions

    ANALYSIS: By Tim Watkin, RNZ Series and podcasts executive producer

    It was sometime in the late 1990s that I first interviewed Alan Webster about New Zealand’s part in a global Values Study.

    It’s a fascinating snapshot of values in countries all over the world and I still remember seeing America grouped with many developing countries on a spectrum that had most English-speaking, democratic and developed countries grouped at the other end.

    It charted belief in angels and other supernatural beings.

    It was a lightbulb moment that has always helped me remember how deep religious beliefs run in the US and how socially different it is from most Western, Enlightenment-inspired countries.

    That memory came back to me when I awoke to the news that the US Supreme Court has overturned Roe v Wade in a 6-3 ruling, eliminating a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion — a right that has been in place since 1973.

    Abortion rights will now be decided state by state, with 26 states ready to enact laws that ban abortion, often with no exceptions. That means no abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

    It is undoubtedly a landmark moment in US politics and law, the latest step (not the end) in a decades-long campaign by conservative Americans to overturn America’s most controversial and divisive law.

    ‘Enflamed debate, deepened division’
    Writing the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division”.

    He’s right, but the implication that this ruling somehow calms the waters is either deeply naive or deeply cynical. It does nothing more than flip the issue, like the handover of the ball in a football game, with what has been the team on defence now going on attack and vice versa.

    And because change in and of itself is fuel for any fire, this only ensures abortion remains THE divisive issue in American politics for, well, who knows how many years to come?

    Abortion has divided the country for decades; more so than foreign wars, economic policy and even gun control. It is the answer to so many questions non-Americans have about US politics.

    Many around the world have been perplexed by the growing divisions in US politics, the loss of civility, the rise of Trump. There are answers there about the influence of money, taxes, changing demographics and more.

    But at the heart of US political polarisation, often unspoken, masked or downplayed, has always been abortion.

    One of the most confounding of political mysteries in the past decade was why 84 percent of white evangelicals in 2016 voted for a thrice-married alleged sexual abuser as president and why “character” suddenly fell down their list of voting priorities.

    Today’s court decision is the answer.

    Evangelicals motivated by abortion
    Evangelicals are motivated by abortion more than any other issue and Trump’s commitment to swaying the court against it convinced them to vote for him even when it was against their economic interests and compromised other values.

    Many in conservative religious circles in the US compared Trump to King David, arguing that God has long used flawed and corrupt individuals to bring about his will.

    That faith has been vindicated today and Trump’s status as a moral hero is enshrined, despite his many other sins.

    Such is the strength of belief for or against abortion. Its power to divide is so strong because, seen through different lenses, it is so obviously right or wrong to those on either side of the debate.

    It is, to those on either side, obvious that they are right and they are horrified — not just perplexed, but horrified — that anyone might disagree with them.

    Those celebrating today’s overturn are celebrating the end of mass murder, because to them the decision to abort a foetus is the decision to take a life. (Others, to be fair, see it as a legal issue, one that is not in the Constitution and so should always have been viewed as a political debate not a constitutional right).

    Those weeping over today’s ruling do not see a foetus as a human life and rather see the courts telling a woman what she can do with her body, right to the point of that woman’s life and death.

    Matter of life over death
    When both sides see their view as a matter of life over death, you can understand the depth of feeling and pain on both sides and that, whatever Alito may be hoping, today’s decision will do nothing to heal America.

    What’s more, the impact of today’s ruling on US politics will be deep. Three things stand out:

    • Reproductive rights will dominate the 2022 mid-term elections and the US presidential elections in 2024. The court has said abortion is not a constitutional right, therefore it is up for grabs politically. Debate over national bans v national rights has already begun. That will mean less political oxygen for pressing political issues such as climate change, China and the Ukraine invasion.
    • This could be the start of a conservative pendulum swing in US politics, led by the US Supreme Court. Judge Clarence Thomas in his support of the majority opinion suggests the now reliably conservative court could dive further into America’s moral dilemmas, ruling on same-sex marriage and contraception rights.
    • Perhaps most troubling, it undermines citizens’ faith in their major public institutions. A majority of Americans favour at least some rights to abortion and some gun control. This week the Supreme Court has issued rulings at odds with public opinion on both. At a time when core institutions such as Congress and the media are losing the trust of citizens, adding the courts to that list is a major worry. If the foundations of liberal democracy are not serving the people, then those people start to look for alternatives, the baby can be lost with the bathwater and whole systems of law, order and government can start to look fragile.

    These are perilous days for the American project and that has implications for all of us. The’s court ruling is yet another polarising decision in these most polarising times and it’s hard to see where the healing can begin.

    Tim Watkin is a founder of political news website Pundit, has a long career in journalism and broadcasting, and now runs the podcast team at RNZ. This article was originally published on Pundit and is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • World Press Freedom Day 2021: Hostility towards journalists on rise

    Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    Journalists are fearful that increased harassment, abuse and violence directed towards them during the covid-19 pandemic could become the new normal, says the union for Australian media workers.

    Releasing its 2021 report into the state of press freedom in Australia, Unsafe at Work – Assaults on Journalists, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance says attacks on journalists increased both globally and and in Australia throughout 2020.

    MEAA has been cataloguing the decline of press freedom in Australia now for 20 years.

    MEAA says political polarisation caused by the pandemic was behind much of the rising animosity towards journalists, particularly through social media.

    But the union also warns that law enforcement agencies have become more heavy-handed in their treatment of journalists.

    According to MEAA’s 2021 press freedom survey – the fourth year it has been conducted – Australian journalists are fearful of an increasingly hostile working environment where physical assaults, online abuse and harassment by law enforcement agencies are becoming common.

    Although most working journalists who completed the survey said they had not been physically attacked or harassed themselves, 88.8 percent said they were fearful that threats, harassment and intimidation was on the rise.

    Assaults on journalists
    A quarter of all journalists surveyed said they had been assaulted at least once during their career, and one-in-five said they had been harassed by police while reporting over the past 12 months.

    A larger number – 35 percent – have been subjected to threats to their safety online and 70 percent said they did not believe their employer provided sufficient training or support in situations where they faced threats or assaults.

    MEAA chief executive Paul Murphy said an MEAA media release that the survey results were unsettling.

    “Journalists know that their work will always be under scrutiny and expect it to be criticised, but they are entitled to a safe workplace like all other workers,” he said.

    “But in recent years, and encouraged by politicians, journalists are being exposed to much more than an acceptable critique of their work.

    “They are threatened and sometimes assaulted at public events, while social media has now evolved into a vehicle for abuse, harassment and threats against journalists. Sometimes these attacks are one-offs but increasingly they are part of a torrent of abuse, which is a weapon to hurt and to harm.

    “The polarisation of politics is a key feature in much of this abuse.

    Urgent action needed
    “Urgent action is needed to ensure journalists can carry on their duties to our communities free from abuse, harassment, arrests and violence.”

    Overall, MEAA says that there has been little improvement in press freedom in Australia over the past 12 months, although the union welcomed the decision by the Australian Federal Police not to prosecute three journalists on national security grounds following raids in 2019.

    MEAA is hopeful that reform is slowly approaching towards a national uniform defamation regime, and there are positive signs that the Queensland government will finally adopt journalist shield laws, bringing it into line with all other jurisdictions.

    MEAA will release its 2021 report into the state of press freedom in Australia, Unsafe at Work – Assaults on Journalists, on UNESCO World Press Freedom Day today – Monday, May 3.

    The annual report catalogues MEAA’s press freedom concerns in Australia, and the region.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • World Press Freedom Day 2021: Hostility towards journalists on rise

    Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    Journalists are fearful that increased harassment, abuse and violence directed towards them during the covid-19 pandemic could become the new normal, says the union for Australian media workers.

    Releasing its 2021 report into the state of press freedom in Australia, Unsafe at Work – Assaults on Journalists, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance says attacks on journalists increased both globally and and in Australia throughout 2020.

    MEAA has been cataloguing the decline of press freedom in Australia now for 20 years.

    MEAA says political polarisation caused by the pandemic was behind much of the rising animosity towards journalists, particularly through social media.

    But the union also warns that law enforcement agencies have become more heavy-handed in their treatment of journalists.

    According to MEAA’s 2021 press freedom survey – the fourth year it has been conducted – Australian journalists are fearful of an increasingly hostile working environment where physical assaults, online abuse and harassment by law enforcement agencies are becoming common.

    Although most working journalists who completed the survey said they had not been physically attacked or harassed themselves, 88.8 percent said they were fearful that threats, harassment and intimidation was on the rise.

    Assaults on journalists
    A quarter of all journalists surveyed said they had been assaulted at least once during their career, and one-in-five said they had been harassed by police while reporting over the past 12 months.

    A larger number – 35 percent – have been subjected to threats to their safety online and 70 percent said they did not believe their employer provided sufficient training or support in situations where they faced threats or assaults.

    MEAA chief executive Paul Murphy said an MEAA media release that the survey results were unsettling.

    “Journalists know that their work will always be under scrutiny and expect it to be criticised, but they are entitled to a safe workplace like all other workers,” he said.

    “But in recent years, and encouraged by politicians, journalists are being exposed to much more than an acceptable critique of their work.

    “They are threatened and sometimes assaulted at public events, while social media has now evolved into a vehicle for abuse, harassment and threats against journalists. Sometimes these attacks are one-offs but increasingly they are part of a torrent of abuse, which is a weapon to hurt and to harm.

    “The polarisation of politics is a key feature in much of this abuse.

    Urgent action needed
    “Urgent action is needed to ensure journalists can carry on their duties to our communities free from abuse, harassment, arrests and violence.”

    Overall, MEAA says that there has been little improvement in press freedom in Australia over the past 12 months, although the union welcomed the decision by the Australian Federal Police not to prosecute three journalists on national security grounds following raids in 2019.

    MEAA is hopeful that reform is slowly approaching towards a national uniform defamation regime, and there are positive signs that the Queensland government will finally adopt journalist shield laws, bringing it into line with all other jurisdictions.

    MEAA will release its 2021 report into the state of press freedom in Australia, Unsafe at Work – Assaults on Journalists, on UNESCO World Press Freedom Day today – Monday, May 3.

    The annual report catalogues MEAA’s press freedom concerns in Australia, and the region.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • World Press Freedom Day 2021: Hostility towards journalists on rise

    Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    Journalists are fearful that increased harassment, abuse and violence directed towards them during the covid-19 pandemic could become the new normal, says the union for Australian media workers.

    Releasing its 2021 report into the state of press freedom in Australia, Unsafe at Work – Assaults on Journalists, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance says attacks on journalists increased both globally and and in Australia throughout 2020.

    MEAA has been cataloguing the decline of press freedom in Australia now for 20 years.

    MEAA says political polarisation caused by the pandemic was behind much of the rising animosity towards journalists, particularly through social media.

    But the union also warns that law enforcement agencies have become more heavy-handed in their treatment of journalists.

    According to MEAA’s 2021 press freedom survey – the fourth year it has been conducted – Australian journalists are fearful of an increasingly hostile working environment where physical assaults, online abuse and harassment by law enforcement agencies are becoming common.

    Although most working journalists who completed the survey said they had not been physically attacked or harassed themselves, 88.8 percent said they were fearful that threats, harassment and intimidation was on the rise.

    Assaults on journalists
    A quarter of all journalists surveyed said they had been assaulted at least once during their career, and one-in-five said they had been harassed by police while reporting over the past 12 months.

    A larger number – 35 percent – have been subjected to threats to their safety online and 70 percent said they did not believe their employer provided sufficient training or support in situations where they faced threats or assaults.

    MEAA chief executive Paul Murphy said an MEAA media release that the survey results were unsettling.

    “Journalists know that their work will always be under scrutiny and expect it to be criticised, but they are entitled to a safe workplace like all other workers,” he said.

    “But in recent years, and encouraged by politicians, journalists are being exposed to much more than an acceptable critique of their work.

    “They are threatened and sometimes assaulted at public events, while social media has now evolved into a vehicle for abuse, harassment and threats against journalists. Sometimes these attacks are one-offs but increasingly they are part of a torrent of abuse, which is a weapon to hurt and to harm.

    “The polarisation of politics is a key feature in much of this abuse.

    Urgent action needed
    “Urgent action is needed to ensure journalists can carry on their duties to our communities free from abuse, harassment, arrests and violence.”

    Overall, MEAA says that there has been little improvement in press freedom in Australia over the past 12 months, although the union welcomed the decision by the Australian Federal Police not to prosecute three journalists on national security grounds following raids in 2019.

    MEAA is hopeful that reform is slowly approaching towards a national uniform defamation regime, and there are positive signs that the Queensland government will finally adopt journalist shield laws, bringing it into line with all other jurisdictions.

    MEAA will release its 2021 report into the state of press freedom in Australia, Unsafe at Work – Assaults on Journalists, on UNESCO World Press Freedom Day today – Monday, May 3.

    The annual report catalogues MEAA’s press freedom concerns in Australia, and the region.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.