Category: Protest

  • It is the professional responsibility of journalists to highlight any conflict or bias that could tilt their objectivity. You see it in The Washington Post whenever there’s a story about Jeff Bezos; somewhere in the body of the piece there is a parenthetical (“he’s my boss, owns this paper”) to inoculate the writer against accusations that they’re trying to get away with something. In that spirit, let me be as plain as I can be: My bias is that I love Gabe Kapler.

    My love affair with Kapler began when he was traded to my beloved Red Sox midseason in 2004 to shore up the defense. He hit nearly .300 and led the team in outfield assists thanks to the cannon dangling from his shoulder… and on October 27, on a night the moon turned red, Kapler was one of nine players on the field when the Red Sox won the World Series for the first time in 86 years.

    If you don’t follow baseball, though, Kapler’s name may have only recently crossed your screen. Today, he’s the San Francisco Giants manager who announced that he will be shunning the national anthem until something is done about the gun carnage in the U.S.

    Kapler informed the media of his intentions during a dugout press gaggle on Friday, where he told reporters, “I don’t plan on coming out for the anthem going forward… until I feel better about the direction of our country. That’ll be the step. I don’t expect it to move the needle necessarily. It’s just something that I feel strongly enough about to take that step.”

    Kapler channeled his feelings into an evocative blog post later that day:

    Every time I place my hand over my heart and remove my hat, I’m participating in a self congratulatory glorification of the ONLY country where these mass shootings take place. On Wednesday, I walked out onto the field, I listened to the announcement as we honored the victims in Uvalde. I bowed my head. I stood for the national anthem. Metallica riffed on City Connect guitars.

    My brain said drop to a knee; my body didn’t listen. I wanted to walk back inside; instead I froze. I felt like a coward. I didn’t want to call attention to myself. I didn’t want to take away from the victims or their families. There was a baseball game, a rock band, the lights, the pageantry. I knew that thousands of people were using this game to escape the horrors of the world for just a little bit. I knew that thousands more wouldn’t understand the gesture and would take it as an offense to the military, to veterans, to themselves.

    But I am not okay with the state of this country. I wish I hadn’t let my discomfort compromise my integrity. I wish that I could have demonstrated what I learned from my dad, that when you’re dissatisfied with your country, you let it be known through protest. The home of the brave should encourage this.

    Kapler’s stand wobbled almost immediately, however, when confronted with the monolithic patriotism of Memorial Day. White Sox manager and baseball Ent Tony La Russa had already criticized Kapler’s intentions with the same boilerplate militaristic rah-rah NFL players have been hearing since Colin Kaepernick took a knee. “I would never not stand up for the anthem or the flag,” said La Russa. “Maybe just because I’m older, and I’ve been around veterans more than the average person. You need to understand what the veterans think when they hear the anthem, or they see the flag and the cost they paid and their families paid.”

    On Memorial Day, Kapler posted a new blog regarding the day’s game: “Today, I’ll be standing for the anthem. While I believe strongly in the right to protest and the importance of doing so, I also believe strongly in honoring and mourning our country’s service men and women who fought and died for that right.”

    Kapler and the Giants are playing Philly tonight; we shall see where he is when the anthem begins. I reserve final judgment on this until then, but I do confess to disappointment. Kapler probably should have looked at the calendar if Memorial Day was a concern. If this was just some long-weekend grandstanding, I will be pretty grossed out… but I hope Kapler will follow through on his word, now that we have passed the most flag-happy day of the year this side of the Fourth of July.

    Kapler’s on-again, off-again activism this weekend probably feels like thin gruel to fans of Kaepernick. The former 49ers quarterback hasn’t played a snap since the 2016 season after leading a league-wide protest against police violence, motivated by the murders of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, the shooting of Charles Kinsey, and the acquittal of the officers who killed Freddie Gray.

    For all intents and purposes, Kaepernick lost his livelihood because of his peaceful public protests (though the Las Vegas Raiders and Seattle Seahawks are giving him an active look, finally). In this, he shares a special status with Muhammad Ali, who lost the best years of his fighting career when he heroically refused to be drafted into the Vietnam War.

    Athletes like Althea Gibson, Bill Russell, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, Jim Brown, Billie Jean King, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Martina Navratilova, Arthur Ashe and others joined Ali in an era of athlete social activism, and all of them paid a price for it. That — and the massive amount of money athletes can earn from corporate sponsorship today, so long as they make no waves (see: Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods) — is much of the reason why modern athlete activism seems so tepid compared to what came before.

    It feels like that may be changing, thankfully. Kaepernick has been the most visible athlete to take a costly stand on racial and social issues, but you cannot overlook people like pro soccer player Megan Rapinoe, whose fiery advocacy for equal pay for women’s soccer players recently won the day. Pro basketball player Brittney Griner has been an outspoken advocate for LGBTQ rights, and participated in several anthem protests as well. (Griner is currently incarcerated in Russia after being arrested on remarkably overblown drug charges.) The list does not match the hero’s roll call from the prior generation, but it seems to be growing every day.

    This is potentially significant. These athletes are, for the most part, swimming upstream against very strong currents. They face conservative league ownership and the hyper-conservative corporate megastructure (which is also a license to print money) that has grown around professional sports. Much of the public pushback against athlete activism comes from conservative fans, who facetiously lament the poisoning of their leisure time with politics as they shout “Stick to sports!” at any athlete or sports journalist who leaves their lane and swerves left.

    The anthem is politics. The military fly-overs are politics. The soldiers in dress uniform carrying flags onto the field before the game are politics… all politics blessed by the game’s powers-that-be. You don’t hear “Stick to sports” in regard to this deeply embedded indoctrinating bombast. Make a statement about police violence, racism, sexism and equal pay, homophobia or the horrors of an unjust war, though, and it gets loud real quick.

    “Screaming STICK TO SPORTS is just a cowardly way of voicing, in a highly political manner, that you cannot abide even the mildest of exposure to other political ideas — even just other people — whose very existence you resent,” Drew Magary wrote for Deadspin back in 2019. “You are siding with leaders who prefer their transgressions remain discreet and you are indulging in an easy sop; a way to butter up alt-right mouthbreathers by promising, often insincerely, to keep politics to a minimum, in particular politics that make them uncomfortable. It is an obvious way of demonstrating your conflicting political ideology by being like CAN’T WE ALL JUST ENJOY SOME GOLF?”

    Enter Gabe Kapler to the fray… maybe. I’ll be watching tonight to see if he matches action with words when it comes to guns and the anthem. Warriors coach Steve Kerr has his back, as does Celtics coach Ime Udoka. I have his back, too, and I hope he follows through. Big-time sports are a massive social influencer, and we need all the help we can get.

  • Four protesters have been arrested after gluing themselves together and spraying paint on a building in central London.

    Palestine Action activists were blockading a Holborn building where Israeli weapons company Elbit Systems has its London headquarters.

    Footage showed the entrance of 77 Kingsway covered in red paint as the four demonstrators, their arms locked together in cylinder tubes, chanted: “Shut Elbit down”.

    Shut Elbit down!

    According to a press release from Palestine Action::

    Today’s action has taken place at 77 Kingsway, host to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms company. The company’s London headquarters were again targetted by Palestine Action activists, in the ongoing campaign to Shut Elbit Down. Four activists, two of whom are themselves Palestinian, have pulled the shutters on Elbit for the day after they secured themselves to the site entrance using a body lock-on, preventing worker-access. Marking the human cost of Elbit’s business, activists also doused the building in red paint, representing the blood of the Palestinians and other peoples killed by Elbit weaponry. The headquarters plays an important role in facilitating Elbit’s operations in Britain, and have been hit with direct action for the sixth time in two months.

    Elbit’s British operations take place across 3 RAF Sites, 4 factories and 2 headquarters, amounting to 9 sites. The company, notorious for its production of arms destined for Israel, also holds extensive contracts with the British military. Just this month it was revealed that Elbit have been contracted by the Royal Navy to aid in providing training technologies for the Dreadnought nuclear submarine program. It’s plain to see that Elbit hold a firm stake in the business of warfare whether in Britain or in Palestine, Elbit describing its weapons as ‘battle tested’ on Palestinians.

    Palestine Action protest
    Four protesters have been arrested after gluing themselves together outside 77 Kingsway (Lindsey Masters/PA)

    A spokesperson for the group stated:

    The century plus campaign of terror and settler-colonialism inflicted on Palestinians is today enabled by Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms company. For Palestine, the ongoing occupation is tantamount to a constant, bloody war. Drones crawl the skies, clouds of tear gas rain down, sprays of bullets are fired – ceaseless colonial violence backed by Elbit. We’ve struck at Elbit’s London headquarters yet again, because whilst the British-backed military occupation continues, so do we. No more hollow promises for Palestine, only this promise for Elbit: Our activists and supporters will work day and night until we’ve shut you down for good

    Elbit Systems was contacted for comment.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Education secretary Nadhim Zahawi was heckled by LGBT+ protesters outside a talk he gave to a university’s Conservative Association.

    Members of Warwick University’s LGBT+ group, Warwick Pride, shouted “Tory scum” outside the talk on Friday, as well as waving flags and placards stating “Trans rights are human rights”.

    Trans rights are human rights

    In a statement issued by Warwick Pride before the talk, they referred to comments made by Zahawi regarding Kathleen Stock, a former lecturer at the University of Sussex who has been criticised for her views on trans rights and left the university following protests against her.

    The minister had said it was “unacceptable that a scholar of her calibre should be hounded out of university”.

    Warwick Pride said Stock is a “notorious transphobe”.

    The group added that Zahawi “plays a significant role in institutional transphobia as Education Secretary for the UK” in working alongside the Equality and Human Rights Commission to produce guidelines for how teachers should treat trans students.

    The minister has said parents should be “front and centre” in decisions regarding their trans children.

    Sunday Morning
    Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi has said parents should be ‘front and centre’ in decisions regarding their trans children (James Manning/PA)

    Warwick Pride said he “trivialises” the detrimental effects of outing LGBT+ young people to their parents, adding that he has used the “common transphobic dog-whistle ‘adult human female’.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • RNZ News

    Joe Hawke — the prominent kaumātua and activist who led the long-running Takaparawhau occupation at Auckland’s Bastion Point in the late 1970s — has died, aged 82.

    Born in Tāmaki Makaurau in 1940, Joseph Parata Hohepa Hawke of Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei, led his people in their efforts to reclaim their land and became a Member of Parliament.

    He had been involved in land issues in his role as secretary of Te Matakite o Aotearoa, in the land march led by Dame Whina Cooper in 1975, before Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei walked onto their ancestral land on the Auckland waterfront in January 1977 and began an occupation that lasted 506 days.

    He was among the 222 people arrested in May 1978 when police, backed by army personnel, ejected the protesters off their whenua.

    In archival audio recorded during the protest, he exhibited his relentless commitment to the reclamation and return of whenua Māori — his people’s land — and for equality.

    “We are landless in our own land, Takaparawha means a tremendous amount to our people. The struggle for the retention of this land is the most important struggle which our people have faced for many years. To lose this last bit of ground would be a death blow to the mana, to the honour and to the dignity of the Ngāti Whātua people,” Hawke said1977.

    “We are prepared to go the whole way because legally we have the legal right to do it.”

    In 1987, he took the Bastion Point claim to the Waitangi Tribunal and had the satisfaction of seeing the Tribunal rule in Ngāti Whātua’s favour] and the whenua being returned.

    He was a pou for protests and demonstrations thereafter — a prominent pillar in Māori movements.

    In the 1990s Hawke became a director of companies involved in Māori development, and in 1996 he entered Parliament as a Labour Party list MP, before retiring from politics in 2002.

    In 2008, he became a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit for his services to Māori and the community.

    Hawke’s tangi will be held at Ōrākei Marae this week. Wednesday marks the 44th anniversary of the Bastion Point eviction. His nehu will be on Thursday.

    E te rangatira, moe mai rā.

    The Bastion Point occupation protest lasted 506 days
    The Bastion Point occupation protest lasted 506 days … 222 people were arrested in May 1978 when police, backed by army personnel, ejected the protesters off their whenua. Image: NZ History – Govt
  • Weeks after the draconian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSC Act) became law, Priti Patel has written a letter to police forces lifting restrictions on stop and search powers.

    When a section 60 order is in place, officers have the right to search people without suspicion in an area where they expect serious violence. While home secretary, Theresa May imposed restrictions on its use due to concerns they were used discriminatorily.

    Stop and search powers disproportionately target Black and other ethnic minority people. Just last month, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) found:

    In year ending March 2021, people from a Black or Black British background people were seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than those from a White ethnic background.

    While people from an Asian or Asian British background, or mixed ethnic background, were approximately two and half times more likely to be stopped and searched than those from a white ethnic background.

    Nina Champion, director of Criminal Justice Alliance, said in 2021:

    Just 0.79 percent of section 60 searches resulted in police officers finding weapons over the last year.

    And, as The Canary’s Sophia Purdy-Moore argues:

    Stop and search, and policing in general, does not prevent crime. It doesn’t protect communities, and it only serves to traumatise and criminalise the most marginalised people in society.

    Even further expansion of search powers

    If this wasn’t bad enough, the government has recently introduced a new bill that will further expand the reach of section 60 searches to protests. This will give the police the power to use suspicionless stop and search powers if they think protest-related offences are going to occur. It is anticipated that, like the original section 60 powers, this will be used disproportionately against marginalised communities.

    Police do not keep people safe. If anything, the police cause harm to individuals and communities. But there are grassroots groups that monitor the police and help to hold them to account. Organisations like Bristol CopWatch provide examples of how we can use community monitoring to challenge the way we are policed.

    Meanwhile, at protests, legal observers monitor the police. Now, an important new report shows the importance of these volunteers. Legal observers are even more vital given the government’s plans to further stifle dissent in any way it can.

    Legal observers

    The Article 11 Trust, alongside the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol), have released a new report called Protecting Protest: Police Treatment of Legal Observers. According to the report, legal observers (LOs) are volunteers who:

    are independent and don’t participate in protest activity such as chanting or carrying placards. They monitor police operations and conduct, compiling independent notes as evidence of incidents including arrests, and distribute legal advice to protesters.

    So why are legal observers important for the right to protest? Legal observers are trained to independently monitor police behaviour at protests, and to give support to protestors. In the current climate, policing is becoming more aggressive. This includes restrictions on protestors, increased police powers that are proven to target minorities, and the use of excessive force.

    Findings

    The people who participated in the research had a cumulative experience of 135 years and 8 months as legal observers. The report found that:

    • 38% of LOs thought police had “poor or no knowledge” of legal observers.
    • 86% of LOs thought that police attitudes towards observers were “somewhat” or “strongly negative”.
    • 75% of LOs had experienced a threat of arrest.
    • 90% of LOs were met with “aggression or physical force”.

    And, worryingly:

    78% of LOs indicated experiencing police attempting to restrict or obstruct the activity or effectiveness of LOs, somewhat often to extremely often.

    The report also found that certain causes were policed more harshly:

    BLM, environmental groups, and Palestine solidarity movements were more harshly policed.

    LO 19 explained how: “The presence of mainstream media cameras is the number one thing that keeps you safe at a protest. As soon as nobody is watching police violence will follow”.

    Accountability

    It’s important to note that LOs support people who are arrested:

    This involves observing and taking detailed contemporaneous notes of arrests in case of, for example, excessive use of force or police misconduct, and reporting the arrest to a back office team that can follow up with the arrestee. Evidence from LOs can be used in criminal or civil proceedings.

    The use of phone cameras has been vital in holding police accountable. Of course, not everything can be filmed, and this is precisely why LOs are so important. LOs are able to empower protesters and hold police accountable through their work.

    This vital role has more general applications too. Under section 60, police are able to stop and search people at will. Whilst LOs are trained volunteers who observe during protests, it is also good practice for passers-by to take note of police behaviour. CopWatch groups around the country also offer training on the best ways to do this.

    Deterrent

    The report also highlighted the effectiveness of LOs.

    One particular LO said:

    I’ve seen it where it’s been clocked that LOs are present and it’s changed how the police have decided to police. You can see it’s deterred them. You can see they are about to do something and [when] it’s pointed out they stop” (LO 1).

    As the Article 11 Trust said:

    Article 11 rights are the right to peaceful assembly and the freedom of association with others. It includes both the right to form and to join trade unions, and the right to gather for peaceful protest.

    In effect, LOs make protests safer for the people attending them. They observe and note police behaviour, and act as deterrents. LOs are supposed to be visible and able to do their work freely.

    From Freedom of Information requests to police forces around Britain, the report concluded:

    Forces around the country seemed to demonstrate varying levels of awareness and perceptions of LOs.

    This is a problem because police knowledge about LOs makes it easier for LOs to do their vital work.

    Discrimination

    In fact, some LOs shared their experiences of being discriminated against by the police. The report stated:

    Class, ethnicity, height and gender were identified as particular indicators of discrimination.

    One LO shared:

    I have been sexually and otherwise harassed multiple times by police officers, who seem to particularly enjoy doing so in front of protesters I am supporting.

    Another LO said:

    I feel that the way I’m treated by police (being patronised and dismissed, told I know nothing or officers suggesting I didn’t train as an LO) is often related to my gender and age (female and young). I have often experienced very different treatment by Police compared to male LOs who I’ve had equal training and experience to.

    LO 19 said:

    I’ve found police behaviour sometimes but not always varies according to how they perceive my gender. I’ve gotten in the habit of dressing very androgynously while LOing (in part to protect my identity), and especially with a facemask and hat on have found that Police are less likely to allow me to move through police lines and more likely to obstruct me if I’m dressed ambiguously.

    The report also quoted two members of Black Protest Legal Support, who said:

    “The Police’s interaction with Black and Brown protesters and Legal Observers alike has been starkly different to their interaction with white protesters”

    From the experiences of these LOs, it is very clear that they are often restricted from doing their jobs and observing police actions because police discriminate against them.

    Democratic society

    The report stated:

    The treatment of protest by police as a public order threat to be managed, leaves Article 11 Rights at risk.

    Article 11 rights protect the basic functions of a democratic society. Because legal observers are not uniformly or officially recognised, it’s difficult to monitor police attitudes and compliance. This is also why this report from Netpol and the Article 11 Trust is invaluable.

    LOs are not protestors, and police forces must recognise this. As the report says:

    the best way to protect Article 11 Rights to freedom of Assembly and Association is for Police forces to have a proper benchmark – like the Charter for Freedom of Assembly Rights – that sets out what a Human Rights based approach to protest policing should look like in practice.

    We all need to hold the police to account

    This independent monitoring is even more vital with the new protest powers in the PCSC Act and the authoritarian Public Order Bill that the government has just introduced. This bill brings together the defeated amendments from the PCSC Act and will further criminalise protest. The expansion of stop and search powers to protest-related offences is also in this bill.

    In an explainer about the new bill, Netpol highlighted the concerning inclusion of Serious Disruption Prevention Orders:

    Crucially – because you do not need to be convicted of an offence to be issued with one – Serious Disruption Prevention Orders actively encourage the expansion of police intelligence gathering on a range of social and political movements.

    This is just one of a number of areas for concern for protestors and anyone who dissents from government action. The expansion of stop and search powers is part of a wider move from the government to continue to target, spy on, and punish civil disobedience, which is the cornerstone of any democracy.

    The abuse of protestors and arrestees has been widely documented. Alongside this, what’s also documented is that success that can come from collective action and cop watching. Whether it’s communities coming together to stop immigration raids or to de-arrest people, or the scrutiny of LOs, we can hold police to account.

    Patel’s decision to lift restrictions and expand stop and search powers is yet another example of the government stripping away safety for protestors and, in particular, minorities who are likely to be stopped by the police. It’s also exactly why cop watching and legal observers are so very needed.

    Featured image via Flickr/Tyler Merbler, resized to 770×403, via Creative Commons by 2.0

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On election night in 2016, Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya set fire to a bulldozer and construction equipment at a Dakota Access Pipeline construction site in Iowa. Over the next few months, the activists used oxy-acetylene torches to melt holes in pipeline valves at three other locations in the state. It was at the height of the Indigenous-led protests against the 1,172-mile-long pipeline, which opponents like the Standing Rock Sioux tribe argued would pollute local water sources and contaminate soil. When Reznicek and Montoya’s actions failed to halt pipeline construction, they held a press conference and publicly took responsibility for their actions. 

    The two women were subsequently indicted on nine felony counts of intentionally damaging energy infrastructure, and Reznicek ultimately pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to damage an energy facility. She was sentenced to eight years in prison by a district court in Iowa last year. 

    Reznicek is now appealing her sentence. Before an Iowa appellate court last week, her attorneys argued that the district court had inappropriately decided that her actions constituted a federal crime of terrorism and applied a “terrorism enhancement” to her sentence. Had the enhancement not been applied, sentencing guidelines would’ve capped her prison term at a little under four years. 

    Over the last few years, penalties for protesting pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure have increased dramatically. At the federal level, a provision of the 2001 Patriot Act, the national security law passed in the wake of 9/11, makes damaging energy infrastructure a federal crime.

    And at the state level, in part responding to the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, lawmakers in at least 17 states have passed legislation to increase jail terms and monetary penalties for offenses such as vandalizing and tampering with so-called critical infrastructure. In recent years, nonviolent climate protesters have been charged with trespassing, theft, and terrorism.

    At issue in Reznicek’s case is whether her conduct was “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” Prosecutors in the case argued that Reznicek’s conduct fit this description because she held a press conference in front of the Iowa Utilities Board office and used a crowbar to dismantle an Iowa Utilities sign.  

    “They were trying to say to the government, ‘If you do this kind of thing, we’re going to go out there and take the law into our own hands and end the pipeline one way or the other,’” the government prosecutor said at the hearing. “That is incredibly dangerous and exactly what this enhancement is designed to stop.”

    Robert Richman, Reznicek’s attorney, argued that her actions did not target the Iowa Utilities Board and that her statements and actions did not indicate she tried to “influence” or “retaliate” against the agency. “There’s no question that Ms. Reznicek was unhappy with the decision of the Utility Board to allow the pipeline, but the damage to private property was calculated to stop the pipeline, not to punish the board,” he said.

    In a 2021 statement to the court, Reznicek, who has long been associated with the Catholic Worker Movement, which promotes a social-justice oriented interpretation of Catholicism, said she is “not a political person” and “certainly not a terrorist.”

    “I am simply a person who cares deeply about an extremely basic human right that is under threat: Water,” she wrote.

    The appellate court is expected to issue a ruling in the coming weeks. 

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Jessica Reznicek set fire to Dakota Access Pipeline construction. Is she a terrorist? on May 18, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  •  

    WaPo: Leave the justices alone at home

    The Washington Post(5/9/22) calls for “appropriate action” against peaceful protesters at anti-Roe justices’ homes—which according to the law the Post cites means up to a year in prison.

    With the right to bodily autonomy on the line and protesters demonstrating outside of Supreme Court justices’ houses, the Washington Post editorial board (5/9/22) weighed in:

    The right to assemble and speak freely is essential to democracy. Erasing any distinction between the public square and private life is essential to totalitarianism. It is crucial, therefore, to protect robust demonstrations of political dissent while preventing them from turning into harassment or intimidation. An issue that illuminates this imperative in sharp relief is residential picketing—protests against the actions or decisions of public officials at their homes, such as the recent noisy abortion rights demonstrations at the Montgomery County dwellings of Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. The disruptors wanted to voice opposition to a possible overruling of Roe v. Wade, as foreshadowed by a leaked majority draft opinion last week. What they mainly succeeded in doing was to illustrate that their goal—with which we broadly agree—does not justify their tactics….

    A Montgomery County ordinance permits protest marches in residential areas but bars stationary gatherings, arguably such as those in front of the Roberts and Kavanaugh residences. A federal law—18 U.S.C. Section 1507—prohibits “pickets or parades” at any judge’s residence, “with the intent of influencing” a jurist “in the discharge of his duty.” These are limited and justifiable restraints on where and how people exercise the right to assembly. Citizens should voluntarily abide by them, in letter and spirit. If not, the relevant governments should take appropriate action.

    To be clear, the cited federal law states that the appropriate action taken against violators is that they “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

    A search of the Post‘s website turns up no other instances of the editorial board applying any variation of the word “totalitarian” to the domestic context. In the Post‘s view, then, those people protesting an attempt by unelected government officials to give the state control over one’s own body—including, by the way, various state laws that deputize neighbors to report on neighbors—are the ones putting our country at risk of totalitarianism, and they should be punished with a fine and/or prison.

    Madsen vs. Women's Health Center excerpt

    The Supreme Court ruled in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center (1994) that the government could not ban marches in front of the homes of abortion clinic employees.

    No one has seriously argued that the peaceful protesters were “harassing” or “intimidating” the justices; they were exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and speak freely. The Post also refused to consider that, as many observers have pointed out, the Supreme Court itself  (Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 1994) has ruled that requiring anti-choice protesters—who, by contrast, have a documented history of harassment and intimidation—to stay more than 300 feet from clinic doctors’ private homes violated their First Amendment rights.

    The Post‘s screed against protesters came days after the very same editorial board (5/3/22) charged that Samuel Alito’s draft opinion “would inaugurate a terrifying new era in which Americans would lose faith in the Court, distrust its members and suspect that what is the law today will not be tomorrow,” and that overturning Roe would be

    a repugnant repudiation of the American tradition in which freedom extends to an ever-wider circle of people. By betraying this legacy and siding with the minority of Americans who want to see Roe overturned, the justices would appear to be not fair-minded jurists but reckless ideologues who are dangerously out of touch and hostile to a core American ethic.

    The Washington (“Democracy Dies in Darkness”) Post presents itself as a great defender of democracy and freedom—unless, God forbid, your angry cries against attacks on those things might make a reckless, out-of-touch ideologue uncomfortable while enjoying his dinner.


    ACTION: Please tell the Washington Post that its call for repression of peaceful assembly is incompatible with democracy.

    CONTACT: You can send a message to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter @washingtonpost.

    Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread here.

     


    Featured image: Washington Post depiction (5/10/22) of protest outside the Fairfax, Virginia, home of Justice Samuel Alito (photo: Kent Nishimura/EPA-EFE).

    The post ACTION ALERT: WaPo Calls Peaceful Protest Against Roe Reversal ‘Totalitarian’ appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • The world has entered an epoch of escalating class struggle and mass popular protest as the global economy teeters on the verge of recession and international tensions reach the boiling point in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Revolt took off around the globe in the aftermath of the 2008 world financial collapse that put an end to two decades of the “globalization boom.” Popular insurgencies have since escalated on the heels of the pandemic and, although particular movements may rise and fall, there is no letup in sight. The first four months of 2022 saw mass labor strikes and unionization drives breaking out in industries and countries around the world.

    Meanwhile, civil strife and political conflict are spreading. As inequality increases exponentially and mass hardship and deprivation spread, global capitalism appears to be emerging from the contagion in a dangerous new phase, placing the world in a perilous situation that borders on global civil war.

    In the two years leading up to the COVID-19 outbreak, more than 100 major anti-government protests swept the world, in rich and poor countries alike, toppling some 30 governments or leaders and sparking an escalation of state violence against protesters. From Chile to Lebanon, Iraq to India, France to the United States, Haiti to Nigeria, and South Africa to Colombia, mass popular struggles appeared in some instances to be acquiring an anti-capitalist character (although others were driven by right-wing sentiments). Anti-capitalist struggles brought together students, workers and often migrant workers, farmers, Indigenous communities, anti-racists, prisoners and activists against mass incarceration, democracy and anti-corruption activists, those struggling for autonomy or independence, anti-austerity campaigners, environmental advocates, and so on.

    However, the “global spring” of 2017-2019 was but a peak moment in the popular insurgencies that spread in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse — a veritable tsunami of proletarian rebellion not seen in decades. The mass uprisings that followed the Great Recession, among them Occupy Wall Street (which started in the U.S. and sparked similar movements in dozens of countries), the Arab Spring, and the Greek workers movement, captured the worldwide popular imagination. Some of these struggles suffered setbacks and defeat. Still, the global revolt ebbed and flowed throughout the 2010s but did not die down, and a fresh wave broke out in 2017.

    The pandemic lockdown pushed protesters off the streets in early 2020. But the lull was momentary: Within weeks of the lockdown, protesters were out in force again despite the quarantine and the dangers of public congregation. Alongside these mobilizations, protests against the police murder of George Floyd in May 2020 sparked an anti-racist uprising that brought upwards to 25 million mostly young people into the streets of hundreds of cities across the country, the single largest mass protest in U.S. history. Many Black Lives Matter protesters called for the defunding of police departments — and for investment in a broad range of social services and supports. This call for expanding a social safety net posed a direct challenge to neoliberal capitalism, which funnels state dollars out of working class communities and social welfare programs and into policing, “defense,” and corporate welfare. Moreover, the BLM protests spurred solidarity actions throughout the world as 2020 wore on.

    The Pew Research Center has been conducting ongoing polls in the U.S. on views toward capitalism and socialism (although, of course, what people understand to be capitalism and socialism is not clear). According to its 2019 poll, a full 42 percent of U.S. respondents had a favorable view of socialism, although the Pew poll did not break down responses by age groups. But a 2018 Gallup poll found that 51 percent of those aged 18-29 had a favorable view of socialism. Seen in historical context, another Gallup poll found that support for socialism stood at 25 percent in 1942 among the U.S. population overall whereas this increased to 43 percent in 2019.

    Revealingly, yet another poll found that support for socialism in the U.S. jumped by nearly 10 percent among young people in 2020, in the midst of the pandemic. This poll found that a full 60 percent of millennials and 57 percent of Generation Z supported a “complete change of our economic system away from capitalism.” Worldwide, a 2020 poll found that a majority of people around the world (56 percent) believe capitalism is doing more harm than good. On a national level, according to the poll, lack of trust in capitalism was highest in Thailand and India (75 percent and 74 percent, respectively), with France close behind (69 percent). Majorities rejected capitalism in many Asian, European, Gulf, African, and Latin American countries. In fact, only in Australia, Canada, the U.S., South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan did majorities disagree with the assertion that capitalism currently did more harm than good.

    Masses expressed this anti-capitalist sentiment in an escalation of protest during the pandemic itself. A palpable radicalization appeared to take place among workers and the poor, a heightened sense of solidarity within and across borders that intensified during the pandemic. In the U.S., for instance, no less than 1,000 strikes ripped across the country in the first six months of the contagion. Workers mounted protests to demand their safety. Meanwhile tenants called for rent strikes; immigrant justice activists surrounded detention centers; anti-incarceration organizers demanded the release of prisoners; auto, fast-food and meat processing workers went out on wildcat stoppages to force factories to shut down; homeless people occupied empty houses; and health care workers on the front lines demanded the personal protective equipment they needed to do their jobs and stay safe. For the most part wildcat strikes were organized not by union leadership but from the rank and file.

    COVID-19 was thus the lightning bolt before the thunder. “Just a few weeks after lockdowns were widely imposed, protests began to reemerge,” noted the Carnegie Endowment. “Already in April [2020], the number of new protests rose to a high level; approximately one new significant anti-government protest every four days.” And there was no letup to mass protest in 2021, fueled, in the words of the Endowment, by an increasingly authoritarian political landscape and “rising economic insecurity” that “brought public frustration of the boiling point.” It added that many countries that did not previously appear in the tracker registered protests that year. Then, as the global class struggle heated up, the first four months of 2022 saw mass labor strikes breaking out in industries and countries around the world.

    Devastating Effects of Capitalist Globalization

    In all of their diversity, many of these fights had — and have — a common underlying denominator: an aggressive global capitalism in crisis that is pushing to expand on the backs of working masses who can tolerate no more hardship and deprivation. Capitalist states face spiraling crises of legitimacy after decades of hardship and social decay wrought by neoliberalism, aggravated by these states’ inability to manage the COVID contagion and the economic free-fall it triggered. The extent of polarization of wealth and power, of deprivation and misery among the world’s poor majority, already defied belief prior to the outbreak. In 2018, just 17 global financial conglomerates collectively managed $41.1 trillion dollars, more than half the gross domestic product of the entire planet. That same year, the richest 1 percent of humanity led by 36 million millionaires and 2,400 billionaires controlled more than half of the world’s wealth while the bottom 80 percent — nearly 6 billion people — had to make do with just 5 percent of this wealth.

    Worldwide, 50 percent of all people live on less than $2.50 a day and a full 80 percent live on less than $10 per day. One in three people on the planet suffer from some form of malnutrition, nearly a billion go to bed hungry each night and another 2 billion suffer from food insecurity. Refugees from war, the climate crisis, political repression and economic collapse already number in the hundreds of millions as the social fabric is torn apart and whole communities collapse in peripheral areas. The pandemic followed by the repercussions from the Russian invasion of Ukraine have heightened these conditions even further.

    The international development agency Oxfam reported this past January that during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic the 10 richest men in the world more than doubled their fortunes, from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion, while 99 percent of humanity saw a fall in their income and 160 million more people fell into poverty. The World Food Program (WFP) reported in May that “the outlook for global acute food insecurity in 2022 is expected to deteriorate further relative to 2021,” a year which, according to the WFP, “surpassed all previous records.” The war in Ukraine “is likely to exacerbate the already severe 2022 acute food insecurity forecasts, given the repercussions of the war on global food, energy and fertilizer prices and supplies.”

    Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people, have been displaced from countrysides in the Global South in recent decades by neoliberal policies, social cleansing and organized violence such the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror,” both of which have served as instruments of mass displacement and for the violent restructuring and integration of countries and regions into the new global economy. Those displaced stream into the megacities of the world that have become ground zero for mass protests.

    The International Labour Office reported that 1.53 billion workers around the world were in “vulnerable” employment arrangements in 2009, representing more than 50 percent of the global workforce, and that in 2018 a majority of the 3.5 billion workers in the world “experienced a lack of material well-being, economic security, equality opportunities or scope for human development.”

    As digitalization now drives a new round of worldwide restructuring it promises to extend the precariatization of workers who have employment and also to expand the ranks of humanity excluded from the labor market, while the climate crisis will generate water and food shortages, displace hundreds of millions more, and increase exposure to natural disasters.

    This social crisis is explosive. It fuels mass protest by the oppressed and leads the ruling groups to deploy an ever more omnipresent global police state to contain the rebellion of the global working and popular classes. As the global civil war heats up in the post-pandemic world, the social fabric is coming undone. The crisis generates enormous political tensions that must be managed by the ruling groups in the face of societal disintegration and political collapse in many countries. It animates geopolitical conflict as states seek to externalize social and political tensions and accelerates the breakdown of the post-World War II international order, increasing the danger of international military conflagration (witness the Ukraine conflict).

    Pandemic Repression and Global Police State

    COVID-19 was in certain respects a blessing in disguise for the ruling class. The contagion forced protesters off the streets momentarily and gave capitalist states a respite with which to gather their repressive forces and deploy them against restive populations. The wave of repression and brutality unleashed by these states against their own citizens simply cannot be explained by the need for these states to keep them safe. To the contrary, the pandemic provided an expedient smokescreen with which to push back against the global revolt.

    The case of India is revealing. Up to 150 million workers went on strike in January 2019. This was followed later that year by months of protest against proposed changes to a citizenship law that would discriminate against Muslims and by a second general strike in 2020 that brought out 250 million workers and farmers — the single largest labor mobilization in world history. The pandemic curfew imposed by the government conveniently undercut the civic uprising. When the government began to impose strict local lockdowns as the virus spread, it singled out neighborhoods identified with the protests. In these areas, heavy police barricades locked in residents for weeks. The government also forced tens of millions of striking migrant workers to march to their home villages for lockdown there, enduring on the way pitiless state repression, involving extreme dehumanization, deaths in custody, and mass arrests (all this while Mukesh Ambani, the richest man in India, increased his wealth by $12 million per hour during the pandemic).

    In the United States, a wave of worker mobilizations that spread even before the COVID-19 contagion, led by a number of mass teachers strikes in 2018 and 2019, exploded during the pandemic, thanks to dismal working and unsafe working conditions in schools amid the pandemic.

    The monumental 2020 Black Lives Matter uprisings were met with particularly brutal state repression. Fearful of losing control, the ruling groups left no holds barred in unleashing the state’s repressive apparatus against the largely peaceful protesters, leaving at least 14 dead, hundreds of wounded and some 10,000 arrested. (I myself participated in the protests in my city of residence, Los Angeles, where I witnessed the use by militarized police and national guard units of tear gas, stun grenades, taser guns, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and batons against protesters.)

    Governments around the world centralized the response to the pandemic and many declared states of emergencies, in effect, imposing what some called “medical martial law.” Such centralized coordination may have been necessary to confront the health crisis. But centralization of emergency powers in authoritarian capitalist states was used to deploy police and military forces, to censure any criticism of governments, to contain discontent, heighten surveillance and impose repressive social control — that is, to push forward the global police state. In country after country, emergency powers were used to selectively ban protests on the grounds that they spread COVID-19, harass dissidents, censor journalists and scapegoat minority groups. At least 158 governments imposed restrictions on demonstrations.

    In many countries, governments required citizens to carry documents verifying their “right” to be out of their homes during the lockdown. The idea seems to have been merely to get populations accustomed to producing papers on demand, to ask permission to exist in public space. In the Philippines, strongman President Rodrigo Duterte issued shoot-to-kill orders for anyone defying the stay-at-home lockdown, while his government stepped up its campaign of extra-judicial killing of thousands of supposed criminals. In Latin America, charged Amnesty International, governments turned to arbitrary, punitive and repressive tactics to enforce compliance with quarantine measures and clamp down on popular protest. “Added to the structural challenges and massive social and economic divides present prior to the pandemic, these measures only combine to perpetuate inequality and discrimination across the continent.” Such repression was widespread around the world. As I detail in my new book, Global Civil War: Capitalism-Post Pandemic, in country after country the pandemic provided capitalist states with a convenient pretext to crack down on the global revolt, tighten systems of mass surveillance and social control, and pass emergency legislation that gave them sweeping powers to repress the protest movements that had reached a crescendo on the eve of the outbreak.

    While a major government response may have been necessary from a public health point of view, it became clear that the “new normal” as the world emerged from the pandemic would involve a more extensive global police state, including permanent mass surveillance and a new biopolitical regime in which states could use “public health” as a new pretext for keeping a lid on the global revolt. States used what international relations scholar Kees van der Pijl referred to as a “bio-political emergency” to further normalize and institutionalize state surveillance and repressive control in a way reminiscent of the aftermath of the 2001 attacks. In the wake of those attacks, 140 countries passed draconian “anti-terrorist” security legislation that often made legal the repression of social movements and political dissent. The laws remained in place long after the 2001 events.

    Political Violence Pandemics

    A recent report by Lloyd’s of London, a global insurance and financial conglomerate, warned that “instances of political violence contagion are becoming more frequent” and headed towards what it terms “PV [political violence] pandemics.” It identified so-called “super-strains” of political violence. Among what Lloyd’s deems as these super-strains are “anti-imperialist” “independence movements,” social movements calling for the removal of an “occupying force,” “mass pro-reform protests against national government[s],” and “armed insurrection” inspired by “Marxism” and “Islamism.”

    State responses to this “political violence” are big business. According to a 2016 report, Global Riot Control System Market, 2016–2020, which was prepared by a global business intelligence firm whose clients include Fortune 500 companies, in the next few years there will be a multi-billion-dollar boom in the worldwide market for “riot control systems.” The report forecast “a dramatic rise in civil unrest around the world.”

    Historically, labor militancy and mass protest unfold in waves, calibrated to capitalist expansion and crises, wars and major political changes. The ruling groups managed to beat back the last major cycle of worldwide mobilization from below, in the 1960s and early 1970s, through capitalist globalization and the neoliberal counterrevolution. But this time circumstances are different. Global capitalism is reaching limits to its expansion, given the ecological meltdown and the escalating threat of nuclear confrontation. The crisis is unprecedented and also existential. In addition, the global economy and society are more integrated and interdependent than ever, and global communications connect communities in resistance with one another across borders and on a planetary scale.

    Short of overthrowing the system, the only way out of the social crisis for the mass of humanity is a reversal of escalating inequalities through a radical redistribution of wealth and power downward and through drastic environmental measures. The challenge for emancipatory struggles is how to translate mass revolt into a project that can challenge the power of global capital and bring about such a radical redistribution. To date, the global revolt has spread unevenly and faces many challenges, including fragmentation, absorption by capitalist culture, and for the most part the lack of coherent left ideology and a vision of a transformative project beyond immediate demands. To effectively fight back, disjointed movements must find ways to come together into a larger emancipatory project, and develop creative strategies to push such a project forward.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Joe Mosyjowski has watched a decade-long boom in oil and gas drilling unfold in the region surrounding his 50-acre farm in northeast Ohio. Mosyjowski, a 71-year-old retired engineer who once spent his days designing stormwater infrastructure, was surprised to learn that a byproduct of all that drilling was being spread on roads and streets near his property, which contains a football field-sized pond that he swims in every summer. Mosyjowski grew increasingly alarmed as he read that the product, a salty brine used to keep roads ice-free, can be radioactive

    “I don’t want this stuff spread anywhere near the roadways,” Mosyjowski told Grist in a phone call from his home in Portage County, a rural area about an hour south of Cleveland. “I don’t want it near my water, because the water runs into my pond. I just want to keep things clean.” 

    At least 13 states — including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan — allow oil and gas wastewater to be put to “beneficial use,” a category that includes road de-icing, dust suppression, and maintenance. This is an advantageous arrangement for oil and gas companies, because it’s cheaper to give brine to local governments for free rather than paying to dispose of waste in a landfill. Cash-strapped towns and counties, meanwhile, are reluctant to look a gift horse in the mouth — to the detriment of their residents’ health, according to Cheryl Johncox, an organizer with the Sierra Club and member of the Ohio Brine Task Force, a coalition of activists, scientists, and concerned residents. 

    “This is a way for the industry to push off their problems onto regular people and not be held accountable,” Johncox told Grist. 

    As awareness of the widespread practice of brine spreading grows, organizers like Johncox and concerned residents like Mosyjowski have joined forces to try to limit or ban the practice. Community activists have pushed for local laws to prevent oil and gas waste from being spread on roads as part of a larger movement against drilling in the state. When initiatives that would have allowed more local control of oil and gas extraction were not even allowed onto the ballot in several counties, a coalition of local groups sued the state. A bill that would prohibit the application of radioactive brine to public roadways was introduced in the legislature in March, though it faces an uphill battle with a Republican majority that’s friendly toward fossil fuels, Johncox said.

    A group of protesters carry signs saying "I don't have cancer yet" and "Who will speak for the Earth"?
    Community groups are trying to ban the spreading of oil and gas waste on roads in Ohio as part of an ongoing movement against drilling in the state, including this protest against fracking in 2011. Mark Stahl/Associated Press

    The process of drilling oil and gas wells requires lots of water, which is pumped in to assist heavy machinery cutting through rock. But when that water comes back up, it brings with it naturally-occurring radioactive elements — including radium and uranium — found in the earth’s crust, along with salt and toxic substances like lead and arsenic. The result is called “Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material,” or TENORM, and it’s typically contained in a salty mixture that the industry calls brine. 

    A 2020 investigation by Rolling Stone found that oil and gas companies use multiple methods to get rid of this waste without having to pay to send it to a landfill, despite concerns about its radioactivity. Aside from spreading it on roads, wastewater can be mixed with soil and applied directly to the ground in a process known as “land farming.” In Pennsylvania, drill cuttings containing radioactive particles can be “dusted” — forcefully blown onto the ground — and in California, oil and gas wastewater is used for irrigating crops

    Despite the risks of radioactivity, there are legitimate health and environmental benefits to the use of brine on many roads. Spraying the substance onto unpaved roads in the summer helps tamp down dust, a major source of airborne particulate matter that poses a risk to cardiovascular and respiratory health. Its high salinity helps prevent snow and ice from sticking in the winter, making it an alternative to highly-polluting road salt

    But once these substances enter the environment, they don’t go away. When the roads dry, dust containing lead and radium blows into the air people breathe, while excess brine leaches into the soil and runs off into nearby waterways. Radium is of particular concern because it is “bone-seeking,” meaning it collects in bone cells; long-term radium exposure can increase the risk of developing bone or lung cancer. 

    For this reason, according to Johncox, the brine “has no place being spread in our environment, on our roadways, near homes.”

    Testing conducted by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources found that average levels of two radioactive isotopes, radium-226 and radium-228, in one brand of commercially available brine, called AquaSalina, were more than 300 times higher than federal standards for drinking water. The levels were also 14 times higher than the state’s limit for how much radium can be released into the environment. 

    The company that makes AquaSalina, Nature’s Own Source, uses wastewater from oil and gas drilling conducted by Duck Creek Energy, which operates more than 150 wells in northeastern Ohio. The owner of both companies, David Mansbery, has dismissed claims about the brine’s toxicity in testimony before the Ohio legislature and interviews with local news outlets. He’s pointed to a 2019 report from the Ohio Department of Health that found the environmental health risks from AquaSalina were “negligible.” Nature’s Own Source markets AquaSalina as “ancient seawater” and proclaims on its label that it’s “Safe for Environment & Pets.” 

    Mansbery and company representatives from Nature’s Own Source did not respond to Grist’s requests for comment in time for publication.

    A truck with a sign that says "caution de-icing truck" drives down a street.
    Brine’s high salinity helps keep snow and ice from sticking to roads in the winter. Ted S. Warren/Associated Press

    No federal regulations exist to manage TENORM disposal. In the 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency excluded oil and gas waste from being classified as “hazardous” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which would have required companies to dispose of wastewater in special landfills equipped to handle radioactive material. Oil and gas waste is also exempt from federal “solid waste” regulations, leaving disposal requirements up to individual states. 

    A lack of regulation means data on brine spreading is scarce, according to a 2021 report from the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC. One study found that between 2008 and 2016, just two states, Ohio and Pennsylvania, spread a combined total of 95 million gallons of oil and gas wastewater onto roads. “Unfortunately, without adequate regulations, there is scant industry monitoring data or information about violations, so the full scope of health impacts facing nearby residents or workers from TENORM exposure remains unclear,” the NRDC report concluded.*

    According to data collected by the nonprofit Buckeye Environmental Network through public records requests, local governments have spread nearly 42 million gallons of brine on roads in Ohio since 2005. Teresa Mills, the organization’s executive director, said that’s likely an underestimate, as there is no centralized database to track brine spreading, and many towns and counties didn’t provide any information at all. The group’s count also does not include individuals who spread brine on private roads or driveways. 

    Research on the effects of radioactivity from oil and gas waste has also been limited. In 2018, researchers from Pennsylvania State University and the University of Alberta found that 45 percent of the radium contained in brine leaches into the soil after it’s applied to roads. Although their study noted that rainwater could dilute radium concentrations in nearby bodies of water to levels considered safe by environmental regulators, “further work is needed to investigate if the radium will migrate to groundwater” or accumulate in sediments over time. 

    Brine spreading is just one of the byproducts of oil and gas drilling that concern activists. Trucks containing brine have crashed and spilled thousands of gallons of radioactive material into waterways, while processing oil and gas waste through conventional wastewater treatment plants caused spikes in radioactivity in Pennsylvania rivers. In April, scientists found high levels of radioactivity outside one facility used to store and process oilfield waste in southeastern Ohio — a facility located close to a high school and municipal drinking water wells. 

    An oil rig stands in a field surrounded by trees and green grass.
    Ohio has experienced a boom in oil and gas drilling over the last decade, with rigs like this one popping up all over the eastern part of the state. Diana Kruzman/Grist

    Efforts to limit the practice have achieved mixed results. Pennsylvania banned oil and gas brine spreading following a lawsuit in 2018, but New York’s governor vetoed legislation that would have done the same late last year. The Ohio Department of Transportation agreed to stop purchasing new stocks of AquaSalina last year, while the Ohio Brine Task Force successfully pressured the superstore Lowe’s into pulling the product from its shelves, though it’s still available at other hardware stores. At the same time, bills that would deregulate brine spreading — exempting products such as AquaSalina from tracking requirements and limits on where they can be applied — have been introduced in Ohio’s legislature. 

    The Ohio Brine Task Force plans to continue pressuring lawmakers to reject those bills throughout the summer and into the fall legislative session, Johncox said. But even if those fail, Mosyjowski said more work will have to be done to end the practice entirely. He has been pressuring his town to ban brine spreading, and he thinks similar local laws will be needed around the state. 

    “This is just one one battle in a very long skirmish to leave something for future generations,” Mosyjowski said. “I wish we had a value system that respected water and the land far more than we do now.”

    *Editor’s note: The Natural Resources Defense Council is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Ohio residents fight to get radioactive oil and gas waste off their roads on May 13, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • 3 Mins Read

    Actor and activist James Cromwell, known best for his roles in Succession and Babe, superglued himself to a Starbucks counter in New York earlier this week. The act was a form of protest against the coffee chain’s continued implementation of a surcharge on all plant milk options. Cromwell participated alongside members of PETA, who coordinated the activity.

    Cromwell has been associated with the animal rights group PETA after becoming an ethical vegan while starring alongside pigs in the 1995 film, Babe. He has previously noted that he cared about the animal’s welfare during shooting and after seeing pork on the lunch menu, realised he needed to “go the full hog” and switch from being vegetarian to vegan.

    Courtesy of Guardian News, via YouTube.

    Sticking it to Starbucks

    Starbucks U.S. still charges around 70 cents extra for plant milk options in its drinks. This, despite the UK scrapping the practice in January this year and Paul McCartney making a personal plea last month.

    Honorary PETA director Cromwell took matters into his own hands and superglued himself to a serving counter to make his and the activist organisation’s feelings known.

    “My friends at PETA and I are calling on Starbucks to stop punishing kind and environmentally conscious customers for choosing plant milks,” Cromwell said in a press release from PETA. “We all have a stake in the life-and-death matter of the climate catastrophe, and Starbucks should do its part by ending its vegan upcharge.” 

    The protest carried on for 30 minutes before police arrived to clear activists from the Manhattan location. Cromwell had to remove glue from his hands with a knife before being escorted out. Despite the upset, Starbucks revealed that it is not anti-protest.

    “We respect our customers’ rights to respectfully voice their opinions so long as it does not disrupt our store operations,” a Starbucks spokesperson said in a prepared statement.

    Photo by Starbucks.

    Why the surcharge continues to disappoint

    Starbucks’ unwillingness to drop its surcharge is heralded as environmentally and socially obstructive. As an industry, conventional dairy is unethical and emissions-heavy. Cows are subjected to a lifetime of forced impregnantion and seperation from their calves, plus unsanitary conditions. 

    The realities of New Zealand’s sector specifically were highlighted by a recently released documentary, Milked. It calls the industry the country’s “biggest threat”, having once been a source of national pride. What started as an investigation into the environmental and health impacts of animal agriculture quickly transformed into a deep dive into the dairy sector.

    The 2021 Meat Atlas report revealed, earlier this year, that the top five meat and dairy companies in the world generated more emissions than major oil companies. A switch to plant-based meat and dairy has been suggested as a simple but effective change that could contribute meaningfully to reducing food production emissions. Unsurprisingly, given New Zealand’s connection to meat and dairy manufacturing, it protested against such suggestions in the latest IPCC report executive summary.

    Photo by Starbucks.

    Starbucks’ affinity for inconsistency

    Despite retaining its plant milk surcharge, Starbucks has appeared to align with vegan diners in other ways. Partnerships with meat-free companies such as Chile’s NotCo and Hong Kong’s Green Monday have put more plant-based dishes on the menu than ever before.

    It has even welcomed Perfect Day’s dairy-identical but animal-free milk to some of its Seattle locations. Interestingly, no information was available as to whether or not this was subject to the alt-dairy surcharge while being trialled for a limited time. If not, it raises extra questions about why some milk varieties are still being eyed with commercial prejudice.


    Lead image created using Canva.

    The post James Cromwell Stages ‘Glued-In’ Protest At Starbucks Over Plant Milk Surcharge appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • By Yance Agapa in Paniai

    Amnesty International Indonesia executive director Usman Hamid is asking the government to halt the planned gold mine at Wabu Block in Intan Jaya regency until there is agreement from the Papua indigenous people in the area.

    “We have asked that the planned mine be halted until the state obtains agreement from the Papuan indigenous people,” said Hamid in a press release received by Suara Papua.

    From the results of its research, Amnesty said that one of the largest gold reserves identified in Indonesia was located in an area considered to be a hot spot for a series of violent acts by Indonesian security forces against local civilians.

    Hamid explained that Papuan indigenous people reported that violence was often committed by security forces along with restrictions on personal and public life such as restrictions of movement and even the use of electronic devices.

    “Amnesty International Indonesia is quite relived by the attitude of the Papua governor who has officially asked the central government, in particular the ESDM [Energy and Mineral Resources] Ministry to temporarily hold the planned mining bearing in mind the security situation in Intan Jaya which is not favourable,” he said.

    Most of the area, which is inhabited by the Moni (Migani) tribe, is still covered with forest.

    According to official estimates, the Wabu Block contains 8.1 million tonnes of gold, making it the fifth largest gold reserve known to exist in Indonesia.

    Relieved after meeting
    Hamid also said he was relieved after meeting with Coordinating Minister for Security, Politics and Legal Affairs (Menkopolhukam) Mahfud MD in Jakarta.

    “We also feel relieved after meeting with the Menkopolhukam who explained that the plan was still being discussed between ministries and would not be implemented for some time”, said Hamid.

    Amnesty is concerned over the potential impact of mining in the Wabu Block on human rights, added to by the risk of conflict in the Intan Jaya regency.

    “So this special concern is obstacles to holding adequate and meaningful consultation with the Papuan indigenous people who will be impacted upon in order to obtain agreement on initial basic information without coercion in relation to mining in the Wabu Block”, said Hamid.

    Amnesty added, “We very much hope that the central government and the Papua provincial government will work together to ensure that the planned mine really does provide sufficient information, consultation and agreement obtained from the Papuan indigenous communities”.

    Based on existing data, the Indonesian government has increased the number of security forces in Intan Jaya significantly. Currently there are around 17 security posts in Sugapa district (the Intan Jaya regional capital) when in October 2019 there were only two posts.

    This increase has also been accompanied by extrajudicial killings, raids and assaults by military and police, which have created a general climate of violence, intimidation and fear.

    A Papuan protest over the Wabu Block plans
    A Papuan protest over the Wabu Block plans. Image: AI

    Restrictions on lives
    Based on reports received by Amnesty, said Hamid, indigenous Papuans in Intan Jaya faced restrictions on their daily activities and many had had to leave their communities in order to find safety in other cities or the forests.

    Hamid hopes that the government will pay attention to reports released by human rights organisations in Papua.

    “The government must pay attention to human rights reports which are conducted by human rights organisations such as ELSHAM [the Institute for Human Rights Studies and Advocacy] Papua,” he said, bearing in mind the recent situation in which there had been an escalation in conflict.

    Earlier, the central government was urged to halt the prolonged conflict in Intan Jaya by the Intan Jaya Papua Traditional Community Rights Advocacy Team (Tivamaipa) in Jakarta.

    During an audience with the House of Representatives (DPR), Tivamaipa revealed that the armed conflict in Intan Jaya over the last three years began with the deployment of TNI (Indonesian military) troops which were allegedly tasked with providing security for planned investments in the Wabu Block by Mining and Industry Indonesia (Mind Id) through the company PT Aneka Tambang (Antam).

    According to Tivamaipa, on October 5, 2020 Intan Jaya traditional communities declared their opposition to planned exploration in the Wabu Block.

    Four demands
    In order to avoid a prolonged conflict, the Tivamaipa made four demands:

    1. That the DPR leadership and the leaders of the DPR’s Commission I conduct an evaluation of government policies on handling conflicts in Papua and West Papua provinces involving the Coordinating Minister for Security, Politics and Legal Affairs, the Defense Minister, the Minister for Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM), the Minister for State Owned Enterprises (BUMN), the TNI commander and the Indonesian police chief.
    2. That the Commission I leadership invite the Papua and West Papua provisional governments, the Papua Regional House of Representatives (DPRP), the Papua People’s Council (MRP), the Papua and West Papua regional police chiefs, the Cenderawasih XVII and Kasuari XVIII regional military commanders, the regional governments of Intan Jaya, the Bintang Highlands, Puncak, Nduga, Yahukimo and Maybrat along with community representatives to attend a joint meeting.
    3. It urged the central government to withdraw all non-organic TNI and police security forces which have been sent to Intan Jaya regency.
    4. That the central and regional government must repatriate internally displaced people from Intan Jaya and return them to their home villages and prioritise security and peace in Intan Jaya by providing social services which are properly organised and sustainable.

    Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Usmad Hamid Minta Rencana Tambang Blok Wabu Dihentikan”.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By David Robie

    Sadly, the Philippines has sold its soul. Thirty six years ago a People Power revolution ousted the dictator Ferdinand Marcos after two decades of harsh authoritarian rule.

    Yesterday, in spite of a rousing and inspiring Pink Power would-be revolution, the dictator’s only son and namesake “Bongbong” Marcos Jr was elected 17th president of the Philippines.

    And protests immediately broke out.

    The Pink Power volunteers
    The Pink Power volunteers would-be revolution … living the spirit of democracy. Image: BBC screenshot APR

    Along with Bongbong, his running mate Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte, daughter of strongman Rodrigo Duterte, president for the past six years and who has been accused of human rights violations over the killings of thousands of alleged suspects in a so-called “war in drugs”, was decisively elected vice-president.

    On the eve of the republic’s most “consequential election” in decades, Filipina journalism professor Sheila Coronel, director of practice at the Columbia University’s Toni Stabile School of Investigative Journalism in New York, said the choice was really simple.

    “The election is a battle between remembering and forgetting, a choice between the future and the past.”

    Martial law years
    “Forgotten” … the martial law years

    Significantly more than half of the 67.5 million voters have apparently chosen to forget – including a generation that never experienced the brutal crackdowns under martial law in 1972-1981, and doesn’t want to know about it. Yet 70,000 people were jailed, 35,000 were tortured, 4000 were killed and free speech was gagged.

    Duterte’s erosion of democracy
    After six years of steady erosion of democracy under Duterte, is the country now about to face a fatal blow to accountability and transparency with a kleptomaniac family at the helm?

    Dictator Marcos is believed to have accumulated $10 billion while in power and while Philippine authorities have only been able to recover about a third of this though ongoing lawsuits, the family refuses to pay a tax bill totalling $3.9 billion, including penalties.

    In many countries the tax violations w

    President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in the Philippines in 1972 … killing democracy and retaining power for 14 years. Image: Getrealphilippines.com

    ould have disqualified Marcos Jr from even standing for the presidency.

    “A handful of other autocrats were also busy stealing from their people in that era – in Haiti, Nicaragua, Iran – but Marcos stole more and he stole better,” according to The Guardian’s Nick Davies.

    “Ultimately, he emerges as a laboratory specimen from the early stages of a contemporary epidemic: the global contagion of corruption that has since spread through Africa and South America, the Middle East and parts of Asia. Marcos was a model of the politician as thief.”

    Tensions were running high outside the main office of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in Intramuros, Manila, today as protests erupted over alleged voting irregularities and the expected return of the Marcoses to the Malacañang Palace.

    The Comelec today affirmed its dismissal of two sets of cases – or a total four appeals – seeking to bar Marcos Jr. from the elections due to his tax conviction in the 1990s.

    Ruling after the elections
    The ruling was released a day after the elections, when the partial, unofficial tally showed that the former senator was on the brink of winning the presidency.

    It wasn’t entirely surprising, as five of the seven-member Comelec bench had earlier voted in favour of the former senator in at least one of the four anti-Marcos petitions that had already been dismissed

    Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr
    Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr … commanding lead in the Philippine presidential elections. Image: Rappler

    One further appeal can be made before the Supreme Court.

    As mounting allegations of election fraud and cheating greeted the ballot result, groups began filing formal complaints.

    One watchdog, Bakla Bantay Boto, said it had received “numerous reports of illegal campaigning, militarised polling precincts, and an absurd [number] of broken vote counting machines (VCMs)” throughout the Philippines.

    “Intensified violence has also marked today’s election. Poll watchers have been tragically killed in Buluan, Maguindanao and Binidayan, Lanao del Sur, while an explosive was detonated in a voting centre in Kobacan, Cotabato.

    “The violent red-tagging of several candidates and party lists [was] also in full force, with text blasts to constituents and posters posted within polling precincts, insinuating that they are linked to the CPP-NPA-NDFP [Communist Party of the Philippines and allies].”

    Social media disinformation
    Explaining the polling in the face of a massive social media disinformation campaign by Marcos supporters, Rappler’s livestream anchor Bea Cupin noted how the Duterte administration had denied a renewal of a franchise for ABS-CBN, the largest and most influential free-to-air television station two years ago.

    This act denied millions of Filipinos access to accurate and unbiased news coverage. Rappler itself and its Nobel Peace laureate chief executive Maria Ressa, were also under constant legal attack and the target of social media trolls.

    A BBC report interviewed a typical professional troll who managed hundreds of Facebook pages and fake profiles for his clients, saying his customers for fake stories “included governors, congressmen and mayors.”

    Presidential candidate Leni Robredo
    Presidential candidate Leni Robredo … only woman candidate and the target of Filipino trolls. Image: DR/APR

    Meta — owners of Facebook — reported that its Philippines subsidiary had removed many networks that were attempting to manipulate people and media. They were believed to have included a cluster of more than 400 accounts, pages, and groups that were violated the platform’s codes of conduct.

    Pink Power candidate human rights lawyer Leni Robredo, who defeated Marcos for the vice-presidency in the last election in 2016, and who was a target for many of the troll attacks, said: “Lies repeated again and again become the truth.”

    Academics have warned the risks that the country is taking in not heeding warnings of the past about the Marcos family. Dr Aries Arugay, an associate professor of the University of Philippines, reflects: “We just don’t jail our politicians or make them accountable … we don’t punish them, unlike South Korean presidents.”

    As Winston Churchill famously said in 1948: “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Government to announce new offences to stop protesters from ‘locking on’ to infrastructure

    Boris Johnson’s government will force through police powers to prevent disruptive yet peaceful protests as one of 38 new bills in Tuesday’s Queen’s speech.

    In a move to reinstate measures thrown out by the House of Lords in January, the government will announce new offences to stop protesters from “locking on” to infrastructure, extend stop and search powers, and make it illegal to obstruct transport projects.

    New criminal offences of locking on, and going equipped to lock on to others, objects or buildings – carrying a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

    The creation of a new criminal offence of interfering with key national infrastructure, such as airports, railways and printing presses – carrying a maximum sentence of 12 months in prison and an unlimited fine.

    Measures to make it illegal to obstruct major transport works, including disrupting the construction or maintenance of projects like HS2 – punishable by up to six months in prison and an unlimited fine.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • RNZ Pacific

    A stand-off was averted on Norfolk Island today when a couple occupying a historic house chose to leave rather than face criminal charges.

    The couple had been occupying one of the old officers’ houses in the Kingston World Heritage Site and the Canberra administrator had had police flown in from the mainland to carry out an eviction.

    But one islander speaking for the couple, Mary Christian-Bailey, said they may have lost the battle but they intend to win the war.

    She was referring to plans to now bring legal action to prove that it is Norfolk Islanders who control the site, not the Commonwealth of Australia.

    “This now frees them to take the case to court to prove that it is not Commonwealth land, that it is Crown land in Norfolk Island’s name and belongs to the people here. It was sad but it was the best decision to make,” she said.

    Mary Christian-Bailey said relations with the police were very good with them suggesting the couple give themselves a couple of days to leave the property.

    In January 2020, The Canberra Times reported that the Australian government moved more than two decades ago to quash Norfolk Islanders’ hopes for independence, pointing to the island’s strategic importance deep in Canberra’s sphere of influence in the Pacific.

    “The move, revealed in cabinet documents released [in January 2020], provides insight into the final decision from 2016 to strip Norfolk of self-government, a move that has ignited the islands who are now asking the United Nations to intervene,” reported The Canberra Times.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Palestinian societies (PalSoc) at universities nationwide have issued an open letter condemning the “smear campaign” against incoming National Union of Students (NUS) president Shaima Dallali. They are also urging the NUS to call off its investigation into allegations of antisemitism against Dallali.

    A ‘smear campaign’

    On 13 April, the NUS announced plans to open an investigation into allegations of antisemitism against the union and Dallali, who is due to take up her post in July. This was in response to an onslaught of complaints by the Union of Jewish Students (UJS), some former NUS presidents and political figures following Dallali’s election.

    The issues raised included a comment Dallali made as a teenager, which she apologised for. She also welcomed the NUS investigation, and reaffirmed her commitment to working in solidarity with Jewish students.

    However, the coalition of Palestinian societies argues that the backlash against Dallali’s election is due to her condemnation of Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism, which human rights body Amnesty International has called “a crime against humanity”.

    A coalition of PalSocs from universities across the UK have issued an open letter in solidarity with the union’s incoming elected president, saying:

    We reject the smear campaign and harassment of Shaima Dallali and wish to make it clear that Shaima, as a dedicated and committed anti-racist organiser, has our full confidence to fulfil her duties as NUS President.

    Underlining the danger and inaccuracy of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, the coalition states:

    the liberation of Palestine is not at odds with the safety of Jewish students in the UK.

    Fears for her safety

    In April, Dallali – a young Black Muslim woman – spoke out about being subjected to racist and Islamophobic abuse online as a result of the pile-on. Violent threats resulted in the young activist fearing for her safety, and harmed her mental and physical wellbeing. 

    Dallali told the Guardian:

    Unfortunately, as a black Muslim woman, it is something that I expected because I’ve seen it happen to other black Muslim women when they take up positions in the student union or the NUS, where they are attacked based on their political beliefs or their pro-Palestinian stance.

    Indeed, Malia Bouattia faced similar backlash in 2016. Bouattia was the first Black Muslim woman to become NUS president, and was vocal about her pro-Palestinian stance

    Denouncing the NUS’ decision to investigate Dallali, the PalSoc coalition says:

    To continue with this investigation into a President who has continuously been outspoken on Israeli Apartheid is a direct decision to exclude those who stand for justice in Palestine and to ignore the grave concerns that Shaima Dallali has over her own personal safety and wellbeing.

    Hypocrisy

    Questioning the veracity of the UJS’ statement against Dallali, the PalSoc coalition highlights claims that a number of its signatories didn’t actually sign the letter, and don’t endorse its message. It also points to an open letter written by Jewish students denouncing the UJS’ response to Dallali’s election, stating that its views don’t represent the UK’s entire Jewish student body. 

    The letter in support of Dallali states that launching an investigation based on an unreliable source such as this “sets a deeply troubling precedent”.

    Furthermore, the Palestine solidarity coalition calls out the “hypocrisy” of the UJS’ “call for inclusion” while openly endorsing and defending Israeli settler-colonialism, and promoting inflammatory, Islamophobic views.

    It states:

     Quite simply, the UJS’ position to promote Zionism and claim to oppose racism is an untenable stance. 

    Hostile environment

    The open letter defending Dallali also calls attention to the fact that university campuses are increasingly unsafe places for those who condemn Israeli apartheid, occupation, and genocide.  

    Reflecting on this, the group says:

    Investigations launched across UK universities against students and academics have intensified a culture of surveillance, which combined with the expansive presence of the Prevent agenda within education, seeks to silence our voices against global injustices.

    Indeed, the University of Bristol sacked former sociology professor David Miller following a smear campaign in 2021. Sheffield Hallam academic Shahd Abusalama was subject to a similar campaign in January. 

    When London School of Economics (LSE) students protested their university hosting Israeli ambassador and Islamophobe Tzipi Hotovely, home secretary Priti Patel backed calls to criminalise those involved.

    Meanwhile, the UK government is trying to make boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) – a tactic once used against South African apartheid – illegal. 

    In April, former prime minister David Cameron praised an Islamophobic report targeting Muslim activists who oppose Prevent – the UK’s discriminatory counterterrorism policy. The policing bill – which is now law – will usher in further securitisation of university campuses. This will no doubt disproportionately harm marginalised students, particularly those who take a stand against injustices.

    A united front

    Denouncing the union’s failure to support victimised students, the PalSoc coalition states:

    the NUS has been routinely silent when students have most needed support from institutions that claim to stand for equality, freedom of speech and anti-racism. 

    It adds:

    An NUS that cannot protect its own President from the external pressures of groups who openly side with Apartheid is an NUS that has failed those who it seeks to represent.

    The coalition invites student societies to sign the open letter in support of its statement urging the NUS to call off the investigation, saying:

    We believe firmly in tackling all forms of discrimination and racism through a united front and call all student societies to support us in challenging an increased dependence on a culture of investigations and surveillance.

    If the NUS seeks to live its anti-racist values, it must take a stand against Islamophobia, white supremacy, settler-colonialism, and apartheid, and also must support students who vocally defend Palestinians’ right to live free from Israeli occupation.

    Featured image via Ömer Yıldız/Unsplash resized 770 x 403 px

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Abortion rights advocates geared up to mobilize in the nation’s capital and across the United States on Tuesday following the leak of a draft decision signaling that the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    While the decision outlined in the draft opinion — authored by Justice Samuel Alito — is not yet final, it would strike a devastating blow to reproductive rights in large swaths of the U.S. Experts at the Guttmacher Institute have estimated that if the landmark 1973 decision is overturned, 26 states are “certain or likely” to completely outlaw abortion.

    At least 13 states — including Arkansas, Kentucky, Utah, and Louisiana — currently have in place so-called “trigger laws” that would ban abortion in all or most cases automatically if the Supreme Court ends Roe.

    The high court’s final ruling in the closely watched case, which is centered on an abortion ban in Mississippi, is expected within the next two months.

    “We’re mobilizing,” Shaunna Thomas, co-founder of UltraViolet, tweeted in the wake of Politico’s report on the draft, which set off widespread outrage and spurred flash protests outside the Supreme Court Monday night.

    “Be at SCOTUS or any federal courthouse tomorrow at 5 pm,” Thomas wrote late Monday. “The leaked draft decision overturning Roe has confirmed everything we knew about this court’s intentions and it is giving us an opportunity to show them how ungovernable we will be if they follow through.”

    An end to Roe is an outcome that right-wing forces in the U.S., backed by corporate power and cash, have been working toward for decades — and they appear prepared to take full advantage should the high court ultimately rule in their favor.

    Citing a person familiar with the court’s deliberations, Politico revealed that “four of the other Republican-appointed justices — Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.”

    Hours before Alito’s draft opinion was made public, the Washington Post reported that “leading anti-abortion groups and their allies in Congress have been meeting behind the scenes to plan a national strategy that would kick in if the Supreme Court rolls back abortion rights this summer, including a push for a strict nationwide ban on the procedure if Republicans retake power in Washington.”

    “The effort, activists say, is designed to bring a fight that has been playing out largely in the courts and state legislatures to the national political stage — rallying conservatives around the issue in the midterms and pressuring potential 2024 GOP presidential candidates to take a stand,” the Post noted.

    Democratic attempts to enshrine Roe into federal law, meanwhile, have foundered as Senate Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) remain opposed to legislation that would do so. In late April, Manchin joined the unified GOP in filibustering the House-passed Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), refusing to even allow a vote on the measure itself.

    “As one of the 1 in 4 women in this country who have chosen to have an abortion, I am outraged and disgusted by the reported draft SCOTUS opinion,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said late Monday.

    “People should take to the streets across the country,” Jayapal added. “Right now, the Senate can pass an exception to the filibuster and codify Roe v. Wade. This is the most dramatic setback for women’s rights in decades.”

    Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, echoed that warning in a statement.

    “If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will be an unjustified, unprecedented stripping away of a guaranteed right that has been in place for nearly five decades,” said Northrup. “It would represent the most damaging setback to the rights of women in the history of our country.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Climate activists have blockaded an oil terminal to call for an end to new oil and gas projects and to demand funding for green alternatives.

    Just Stop Oil said its supporters blocked access to the Nustar Clydebank facility in West Dunbartonshire by climbing on top of tankers and locking on to the entrance at around 4am on Tuesday 3 May:

    Others entered the oil terminal, where 12 protesters are sitting on pipes and three are on the silos to halt operations.

    The activists said they are taking action in support of their demand that the UK government ends new oil and gas projects in the UK.

    Activists
    The activists staged a blockade of the entrance (Just Stop Oil/PA)

    It is the first action its kind in Scotland since the Just Stop Oil coalition began blockading fuel terminals south of the border on 1April, which has seen more than 1,000 arrests.

    Neil Rothnie, a retired offshore oil and gas worker from Glasgow, said:

    North Sea oil and gas does not offer energy security. The North Sea oil and gas industry has one priority and it is not the climate crisis. It’s not the future of North Sea oil and gas workers.

    And it’s certainly not whether the poor can stay warm. If the Government was serious about a just transition, we would be seeing it here in Scotland.

    Where are the turbine factories in Scotland? Where are the yards building platforms for offshore wind? Where are the projects to properly insulate our houses? When will we get free public transport?”

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On 27 April, a series of authoritarian and discriminatory bills passed through parliament. Having been granted royal assent on 28 April, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill; Judicial Review and Courts Bill; and Elections Bill  became law. This comes after a year of parliamentary “ping-pong” and widespread resistance to these oppressive bills.

    The controversial Nationality and Borders Bill and Health and Care Bill are also due to become law on 28 April.

    Each piece of legislation increases the government’s power while chipping away at our civil liberties and decreasing our ability to hold the state to account. The passage of these bills is devastating, but we must continue to fight for our fundamental freedoms.

    It’s official

    In spite of widespread opposition led by Sisters Uncut and the Kill the Bill coalition, both Houses of Parliament approved the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. It became law on 28 April.

    Calling this a “dark day for civil liberties in the UK”, Amnesty International CEO Sacha Deshmukh said that it:

    places profound and significant restrictions on the basic right to peacefully protest and will have a severely detrimental impact on the ability of ordinary people to make their concerns heard.

    This includes a ban on noisy protest and the introduction of other rules designed to limit effective protest. However, this does not mean a blanket ban on protests – we can still take to the streets to challenge the law.

    The new legislation also includes increased police powers and protections, harsher sentencing, new rules on trespass, and the introduction of ‘secure schools‘. It will disproportionately impact the most marginalised people in society, including Black and brown people; Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller people; and sex workers.

    Both Houses of Parliament have approved the Health and Social Care Bill, and it is awaiting royal assent. This bill seeks to accelerate NHS privatisation

    Other authoritarian laws

    The Elections Bill also received royal assent on 28 April. This means that the Electoral Commission – the watchdog responsible for holding UK governments to account on electoral matters – is no longer an independent body. As reported by the London Economic, this:

    could now give ministers new and unchecked powers over the elections regulator, undermining free and fair elections in the UK.

    This is an open attack on democracy.

    The government’s controversial plan to introduce voter ID is included in this bill. In effect, this is a tool for voter suppression, as over 2 million people don’t have the required ID under the new law.

    Unsurprisingly, this will disproportionately disenfranchise working class and marginalised people. Those hit hardest will include young people, Black and racially minoritised people, disabled people, trans people, homeless and nomadic people, and anyone who can’t afford steep photo ID fees.

    The Judicial Review and Courts Act also became law on 28 April. Campaigners have warned that the new legislation will make it harder to challenge the government in court, depriving vulnerable people of access to justice. This could include people challenging life-threatening deportations or those fighting against the unlawful denial of their benefits.

    More in the pipeline

    The Nationality and Borders Bill passed through parliament on 27 April, and is set to become law. This includes plans to detain and process asylum seekers overseas, and to empower the Home Office to remove people’s British citizenship without notice.

    United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi has warned that when it becomes law, the anti-refugee legislation will relegate asylum seekers to second-class citizenship in the UK. Other human rights bodies have accused the government of ‘abandoning its responsibilities’ under the international Refugee Convention.

    The Health and Care Bill is also awaiting royal assent before becoming law. Through this bill, the government seeks to accelerate NHS privatisation.

    Warning against the ‘catastrophic’ impact the legislation will have on NHS patients and staff, Keep Our NHS Public co-chair and retired paediatrician Dr Tony O’Sullivan said:

    This is an Act of intent, deliberately breaking up the NHS and facilitating the spread of parasitizing private interests, looking to make billions from funding for public services.

    O’Sullivan adds that the new legislation will limit patients’ access to free and safe care, with care costs putting some at risk of losing their home. This will inevitably hit the poorest hardest.

    But wait, there’s even more

    When parliament returns in summer, the government will try to push through its Online Safety Bill and human rights reforms.

    Setting out its concerns about the Online Safety Bill, civil society organisation ARTICLE 19 said:

    The Bill is an extremely complex and incoherent piece of legislation that will undermine freedom of expression and information, privacy and the rule of law and will ultimately be ineffective in achieving its stated goal of making the Internet a safer place.

    Through the bill, the government seeks to clamp-down on ordinary people’s right to free speech, and to increase surveillance of our online activity.

    Meanwhile, as barrister David Renton explains, the government’s proposed reforms to the Human Rights Act would essentially “make rights harder to enforce”. The act has helped a wide range of groups in their quest for justice and accountability, from the Hillsborough families to people fighting evictions.

    The proposed changes to the Human Rights Act would put barriers in the way of human rights claims, and limit our ability to seek justice from the state. This is particularly true for marginalised and working class people looking to hold the state to account.

    While the government continues to attack us on all fronts, our ability to defend our rights could not be more important.

    Time to become ungovernable

    The passing of these authoritarian and discriminatory bills shows that electoral politics won’t save us. Now more than ever, we must take to the streets and organise on the ground to seize our civil liberties and create the society we want to live in.

    Those who tirelessly organised against the government’s repressive bills are still hard at work, and committed to bringing about the changes we need to see.

    Feminist direct action group Sisters Uncut and Operation Withdraw Consent coalition members are urging the public to withdraw consent from policing and make the policing bill unenforceable. Join your local copwatching group to monitor and disrupt policing in your community.

    Civil liberties organisation Liberty is raising funds to provide legal advice and training for ordinary people fighting against the policing bill.

    Meanwhile, Refugee Action is building a movement to repeal the anti-refugee laws. Grassroots abolitionist group SOAS Detainee Support – which has been working in solidarity with detained people against the anti-refugee bill and policing bill – is welcoming new members.

    Elsewhere, groups such as We Own It  and Keep Our NHS Public have committed to fighting NHS privatisation.

    This week’s losses should energise us all to organise against the fascist state and its institutions. Freedoms are won on the streets. Resistance is built by communities. Our only hope for the future lies in widespread grassroots resistance. So tell your friends, family, and neighbours to get involved. We need everyone on board if we are to build a fair and just society.

    Featured image via Kyle Bushnell/Unsplash

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group (SYMAAG) has shared footage online of what appears to be South Yorkshire Police striking protestors and using pepper spray. SYMAAG said:

    This began, and should have ended, as a peaceful, calm protest showing solidarity with those in Kurdistan. Instead the police reacted in a way completely out of proportion to the protest and the actions of those present. This was a protest with families and young children.

    Instead, officers seem to drag one person away, whilst beating others back:

    SYMAAG also outline in an earlier tweet that Kurdish flags were ripped away from protestors:

    Sequence of events

    SYMAAG explain how the police made their presence felt at the protest. In a statement released on their social media, they explain why they held the protest:

    Since Sunday 17th April,  Turkey’s army -one of NATO’s largest armies has been invading parts of Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan. In response to this attack and in solidarity with Kurdish people resisting the invasion, the Sheffield Kurdish Community and its supporters came together for a rally in front of Sheffield Town Hall on the afternoon of the 24th of April.

    They detail how, as the rally was coming to a close, police asked the attendees to hand in their flags:

    As the rally ended and people started packing up banners and flags, two policemen approached one member of the community and asked him to hand in his Kurdish flags. The man refused and tried to continue collecting his things, helped by friends. After moving the conversation to the town hall stairs, the police insisted on getting the flags from the man. For about forty five minutes, police and rally attendees argued on the steps.

    Because the man held on to his flags, the police then acted forcefully:

    The police would not let people go home with the flags and banners they brought. After a while, the man asked if he was under arrest to which the police replied negatively. The police, seeing that people would not give their flags, tried to forcefully grab the flag and the flagpole, which ended up breaking. Police then decided to arrest the man in question and several extra policemen violently pushed away attenders including women, teenagers and younger children. This put families and children in a state of shock, with many crying for help. 

    This police violence continued:

    People followed, trying to support the man and stop the arrest. The police then indiscriminately used pepper spray and punched people in order to disperse the supporters. Several men, women and a teenager were badly affected by pepper spray with eyes and throat burning. An ambulance was almost called as the teenager could not stand up for a while, crying and disoriented. The man put under arrest was taken to the police station and released later in the evening.

    Sheffield Superintendent Benn Kemp said:

    We know there has been some community concern regarding the circumstances surrounding yesterday’s arrest.

    Footage of the incident and the events leading up to the arrest is currently being reviewed at Chief Officer level.

    More than concern

    Kemp’s comments do very little to inspire confidence in either the police or their review process. As SYMAAG’s statements show, protestors in Sheffield were met with heavy-handed policing. Concerningly, there’s also the implication of extremism or terrorism as a possible explanation for the police’s actions.

    As The Yorkshire Post report:

    A 44-year-old man from Sheffield was arrested shortly before 2pm at the protest, on suspicion of displaying articles suggesting support for a proscribed organisation, which is an offence set out in the Terrorism Act 2000. He was then released under investigation.

    It is commonplace for Kurdish people and their supporters to be immediately cast under suspicion. As The Canary’s Emily Apple reports from a trip to Bakur:

     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.

    The actions of South Yorkshire Police are frighteningly similar to the broader repression faced by Kurdish people in Turkey. It’s going to take far more than a review to address these injustices.

    South Yorkshire Police had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.

    Featured image shared with permission.

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A group of climate campaigners on Friday blockaded the entrance of a printing plant in New York City in an effort to hamper the distribution of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other corporate-owned newspapers to protest their failure to cover the planetary emergency with “the frequency it deserves.”

    The activists, operating under the banner of Extinction Rebellion, stressed in a statement that the blockade was targeted not at individual journalists, but “at the board of directors and senior management at these institutions that determine what to include and exclude in each publication.”

    “Extinction Rebellion stands behind the right to free speech and a free press, and views the breaking of certain concrete mundane laws as a public plea for societal change,” the statement reads. “The climate and ecological crisis is already here — destroying people’s homes and livelihoods with extreme weather, droughts, and fire — yet governments and corporations, influenced by mass media corporations, are complacent by continuing to ignore the root causes of the crisis and the dire situation humanity is facing.”

    The demonstration singled out News Corp, The New York Times Company, and Gannett — which respectively own the Journal, the Times, and USA Today — for “enabling the government’s gaslighting of the public” by burying critical climate stories below the fold or in later pages. The outlets have also come under fire for plastering fossil fuel company ads alongside their coverage and actively perpetuating climate disinformation.

    Such failures, the campaigners argued, make it “easy for government to act like the climate and ecological crisis is years away, ignore scientists’ urgent calls to action, and refuse to take the steps we need to start transforming our systems from finite and fragile to strong and resilient.”

    “They must be clear about the extreme cascading risks humanity now faces, the injustice this represents, its historic roots, and the urgent need for rapid political, social, and economic change,” the activists continued. “This includes more front-page coverage of the climate emergency.”

    The demonstration came as scientists and youth climate activists around the world, marking Earth Day, engaged in rallies and non-violent civil disobedience to condemn their governments’ continued support for fossil fuel production as accelerating warming wreaks havoc across the globe.

    “This is not a ‘happy Earth Day,’” Swedish activist Greta Thunberg tweeted Friday. “It never has been. Earth Day has turned into an opportunity for people in power to post their ‘love’ for the planet, while at the same time destroying it at maximum speed.”

    U.S. climate scientist Peter Kalmus, an expert who has taken direct action in recent days as part of a growing worldwide mobilization, wrote Thursday that “the more we threaten the fossil fuel status quo, the less the media covers it.”

    “Our experience with the global Scientist Rebellion was almost no media coverage, and then only a little after it had already gone viral,” Kalmus added. “The revolution will not be televised.”

    An online database unveiled earlier this week shows that financial institutions in G20 countries — many of which have pledged meaningful action to combat runaway warming — provided 2.5 times more financing for oil, gas, and coal projects than clean energy between 2018 and 2020, yet another example of governments’ refusal to heed the increasingly dire warnings of climate scientists.

    “The truth is, we have been poor custodians of our fragile home,” United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement Friday. “Today, the Earth is facing a triple planetary crisis. Climate disruption. Nature and biodiversity loss. Pollution and waste.”

    “This triple crisis is threatening the wellbeing and survival of millions of people around the world,” Guterres continued. “We need to do much more. And much faster. Especially to avert climate catastrophe.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • After two long years of the global COVID-19 pandemic, so many of us find ourselves tired and lacking energy for even basic tasks. Facing a new year does not fill us with the joy of possibility as it may once have done. Where, then, do we find hope?
    In this uplifting summer series, Ginger Gorman talks to six extraordinary women about how they found hope in unexpected places. This series was first written for HerCanberra and is republished here with full permission. (OK we know it’s not still summer, but we’re sticking with the original headline!)

    Harriet, 39, grew up on a sheep and cattle station outside Bombala, in far southern New South Wales, and the effects of the drought she lived through as a child imprinted themselves on her soul.

    “We had very low rainfall all throughout the 90s—from 1991 until 1999 and then the Millennium drought hit. So, it was dry for pretty much all of my formative years.”

    “I was constantly looking at the impact it has on the landscape, the complete drying up of waterways and the dust,” she says.

    “It was an anxious time, just getting through each day of loading up the trailer to feed stock to keep them alive and taking on debt to buy more feed,” she recalls, “…my parents are very determined but, of course, drought takes a toll on all families.”

    Harriet says that as a child she didn’t understand the relentless drought as climate change. However, her parents did teach her a love of nature and she imbibed the social and ecological impacts of the changing weather.

    Looking back now, she says those experiences set her on a path for life: “After I graduated from my masters, I worked for 10 years in corporate energy and climate consulting. I was working with big carbon-intensive companies to try and drive improved outcomes on climate.”

    But in the end, Harriet found this wasn’t enough: “When I was a consultant, I was limited in what I could do and say, due to the client base. And then when I was working in renewable energy with a government entity [and] I was limited based on who funded the program.”

    She says the urgency to act comes from both her own childhood experiences, but also being a parent of two young children herself: “My first child was born in 2014. He’ll be 36 in 2050. We all talk about net zero [carbon emissions] by 2050 as this far off thing.”

    “But he’ll be younger than I am now at that time. This is absolutely the dominant story and influence in our children’s lives.”

    Harriet’s son feeding poddies in much better times. Picture: Supplied

    Harriet’s son feeding poddies in much better times. Picture: Supplied

    Thinking back to the terrible summer Canberra and so much of the country experienced in 2020, Harriet says whilst the fires were horrifying in their scale and destruction, she was also haunted by the preceding drought and the animals “…coming closer and closer into Canberra looking for food [and] looking for water. I found it very unsettling.”

    “At the time I was not working in a role where I felt I could address my climate anxiety and I had nowhere to put it…I was feeling pretty lost.”

    Harriet’s father feeding stock during the Black Summer fires.

    Harriet’s father feeding stock during the Black Summer fires. Picture: Supplied

    After seeking the help of coach Liz Tilley, who happened to have firsthand experience of losing her home in the fires of 2003, Harriet realised she didn’t have to be an activist in her spare time—she could do it as a job.

    Now she’s Climate Lead Australia at the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility.

    Harriet explains her job like this: “Our key focus is on the biggest emitting companies in Australia that are listed on the stock exchange.”

    “We file shareholder resolutions at the AGMs of these companies, and we engage with their big investors to push them to align their climate change commitments with the science. That’s our primary goal.”

    “Before I joined the climate movement as an activist, hope was harder to find. For me, action really is the antidote to despair,” she continues. “I’m in this space where I can work on something that is completely true to me and my values.

    “I do feel for a lot of people in Canberra in the APS [public service] who are limited due to what is required of public servants—to not take public positions on issues. It just seems crazy that that is the case for something so existential as climate change…an issue that poses such a direct threat to our children.”

    Harriet and her children.

    Harriet and her children. Picture: Supplied

    In all this, I ask Harriet how she holds onto hope, given that the scientific consensus is that the planet is warming, and a “code red” has been issued for the planet.

    She says: “I don’t assume it’s a fait accompli yet. There are still choices in front of us [although] I admit the window is rapidly closing.”

    Harriet says that now she has taken “a seat at the table in the climate movement,” it’s clear to her that the fossil fuel industry is facing huge and unrelenting headwinds.

    “It’s why they are so desperate to extract public money to prop up their business model. This industry is in its last chapter. I do feel like [the fossil fuel companies’] social licence and power is finite, and the end of that is not as far away as we might think,” she says, “That’s the other source of hope.”

    Harriet’s children.

    Harriet’s children. Picture: Supplied

    Feature image at top: Supplied 

    BroadAgenda is a proud partner of HerCanberra. Everything you need to know about Canberra, one destination.

    HerCanberra_Logo_CMYK_1_BLK

    The post A Summer of Hope: Harriet’s story appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • As reported by The Canary on 14 April, the government has announced plans to process and detain asylum seekers in Rwanda. In spite of questions surrounding the legality of the offshoring plan, prime minister Boris Johnson maintains that the government can implement it using existing legislation.

    This comes as part of the Tories’ Nationality and Borders Bill which – if passed unamended – would empower the Home Office to revoke the British citizenship of anyone who can claim citizenship in another country.

    In spite of widespread resistance to the inhumane plans, MPs voted against a House of Lords amendment that would force the government to pass any offshore detention plans through parliament at a House of Commons debate on 20 April. The bill will return to the House of Lords on 26 April.

    Now is the time to resist this draconian anti-refugee bill.

    A racist and inhumane policy

    In July 2021, the UK’s international ambassador for human rights raised concerns about Rwanda’s failure

    “to conduct transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of human rights violations including deaths in custody and torture.

    Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, has questioned whether Patel’s offshore processing and detention plan complies with Britain’s human rights obligations under international law.

    More than 160 charities and campaign groups have signed an open letter urging the government to u-turn on its “shamefully cruel” plan.

    Meanwhile, the Guardian has reported that civil servants working in the Home Office may resist the unconscionable policy on ethical grounds.

    In spite of opposition to the policy, on 20 April MPs voted 303:234 against a proposed amendment that would require MPs and Lords to approve any offshore processing and detention plans. This amendment included requirements for home secretary Priti Patel to present the details and costs of her offshore detention plans before she can enforce them.

    Shocked by the vote’s outcome, Independent home affairs editor Lizzie Dearden tweeted:

     

    The anti-refugee bill will return to the House of Lords on 26 April for the last time before it passes.

    Contact your MP

    We must resist the government’s cruel and inhumane plan to send vulnerable asylum seekers to Rwanda, a much smaller and more densely populated country than the UK. This begins by putting pressure on those in power.

    Refugee rights group Safe Passage has drafted a template letter for people to put pressure on their MPs to oppose the anti-refugee bill. Ahead of the House of Commons debate, the group shared:

    Alongside this, human rights organisation Detention Action shared a link to their petition against the draconian legislation:

    Support groups working on the ground

    Grassroots groups continue to do fantastic work supporting refugees and asylum seekers, and organising against the government’s anti-refugee legislation.

    Detention Action directly supports those in detention, while also campaigning for policy and legislative change:

    Freedom From Torture provides therapy and support for torture and trafficking survivors in the UK:

    And SOAS Detainee Support is a grassroots abolitionist group working in solidarity with detained people in the UK to resist imprisonment and deportation:

    Supporters can donate to sustain their frontline work via PayPal.

    Meanwhile, Brighton-based charity The Hummingbird Project provides trauma-informed support for young refugees:

    Take to the streets

    Highlighting the vital role of protest in undermining such legislation, policy and advocacy manager for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants Zoe Gardner shared:

    Protests against government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda are due to take place on Saturday 23 April.

    Londoners can join Stand Up To Racism in Croydon:

    According to the Bristol Defend Asylum Seekers CampaignBristolians are coming together at midday: 

    People can keep an eye on Collective Action London‘s page for the latest updates on upcoming protests in other locations this weekend.

    Now is the time to resist Britain’s outsourcing of border control, and to demand an end to its anti-refugee policies altogether. We must use our collective power to demand that our government treats refugees and asylum seekers with the dignity and respect that every human being is entitled to.

    Featured image via Philip Robins/Unsplash – resized to 770×403, via Unsplash License

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    The Humanitarian Coalition for Papua says that the unilateral creation of three new provinces in Papua by the Indonesian central government is like repeating the management model of Dutch colonial power.

    National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) head researcher Cahyo Pamungkas, who is part of the coalition, said that this policy would cause greater mistrust among the Papuan people against the government, reports CNN Indonesia.

    “This top-down decentralisation which is being done arbitrarily by the central government is like repeating the model of Dutch power in order to continue exploiting natural resources and controlling the land of Papua,” said Pamungkas in a media release.

    Pamungkas, who is also a member of the Papua Peace Network (JDP), said that the new Papua Special Autonomy Law (Otsus) and the policy on creating new provinces would be counter-productive.

    Amnesty International Indonesia executive director Usman Hamid said that creating new provinces must involve the Papuan People’s Council (MPR) which represents the cultural interests of indigenous Papuan (OAP).

    This is a mandate of Law Number 2/2021 on Papuan Special Autonomy (Otsus Law) as a form of protection for the rights of indigenous Papuans.

    “Decentralisation in Papua must involve the MRP as the cultural representatives of OAP. This is regulated under the Otsus Law as a form of protection for the rights of indigenous Papuans,” said Hamid.

    Call to wait for court ruling
    Public Virtue executive director Miya Irawati said that the government must cancel or postpone the planned creation of new provinces in Papua until there was a ruling by the Constitutional Court (MK) on a challenge against the revisions to the Otsus Law which had been launched by the MRP.

    According to Irawati, the move by the House of Representatives’ (DPR) Legislative Body (Baleg) and the government in agreeing to the draft law on the creation of three new provinces in Papua was a setback for democracy in Papua.

    “We also urge the government to cancel the planned creation of new provinces in Papua or at least postpone the plan until there is a ruling by the MK in several months time,” said Irawati.

    Indonesian Human Rights Watch (Imparsial) researcher Hussein Ahmad is concerned that the policy will be used to justify adding more military commands in Papua which have the potential to increase the level of violence and human rights violations.

    “If there are three new provinces then usually this is followed by the formation of three [new] Kodam [Regional Military Commands] and new units underneath it which of course will impact on increasing the number of military troops in Papua,” he said.

    The Papua Humanitarian Coalition is a voluntary partnership made up of a number of organisations and individuals including Amnesty International Indonesia, the Indonesian Communion of Churches (PGI) Papua Bureau, Imparsial, the Jakarta Institute for Public Research and Advocacy (Elsam), the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), the Democracy Alliance for Papua (ADP), the Land of Papua Peace and Unity of Creation Synod of the Papua Injili Christian Church (KPKC GKI-TP), the Jayapura Diocese Peace and Unity of Creation Justice Secretariat (SKPKC Keuskupan Jayapura), the Public Virtue Research Institute, the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI) and BRIN researcher Cahyo Pamungkas.

    Aim to ‘improve public services’
    DPR Speaker Puan Maharani claimed that the formation of three new provinces was to improve public services and social welfare.

    Maharani said the additional provinces were aimed at accelerating even development in the Land of Cenderawasih as Papua is known.

    “The additional provinces in the eastern part of Indonesia are intended to accelerate even development in Papua and to better serve the Papuan people,” said Maharani in a media release.

    The chairperson of the ruling Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) Central Leadership Board said that the additional provinces were aimed advancing Papua and increasing the level and dignity of the Papuan people.

    Maharani confirmed that the deliberations on the draft law on the creation of the new provinces will still be in line with Law Number 2/2021 on Otsus.

    “In the deliberations on this draft law later it will pay attention to the aspirations and needs of the Papuan people”, said Maharani.

    Baleg DPR Deputy Chairperson Achmad Baidowi said that the names of the three new provinces could still be changed.

    Changed names
    Earlier, it had been decided that the names would be Anim Ha for South Papua, Meepago for Central Papua, and Serta Lapago for the Papua Central Highlands.

    “If there is a wish to change them, it can be done during the deliberations”, Baidowi told journalists.

    Baidowi explained that the traditional names used for the prospective provinces were a recommendation from the Baleg. He claimed that the names were chosen in accordance with the wishes of the public and academic studies.

    “Certainly we recommended that the traditional names be included in the draft law. For example Papua Central Highlands would be what, then Central Papua what, South Papua what”, he said.

    Earlier, the Baleg agreed to the Draft Law on the Provinces of South Papua, Central Papua and Papua Central Highlands during a plenary meeting held on Wednesday April 6. The draft law will then be taken to a DPR plenary meeting for deliberation.

    The draft law regulates the creation of three new provinces which will cover a number of existing regencies.

    South Papua will have Merauke as the provincial capital and cover the regencies of Merauke, Mappi, Asmat and Boven Digoel.

    Central Papua province’s provincial capital will be Timika and cover the regencies of Mimika, Paniai, Dogiyai, Deyiai, Intan Jaya and Puncak.

    Papua Central Highlands provincial capital will be Wamena and cover the regencies of Jayawijaya, Puncak Jaya, Lanny Jaya, Mamberamo Tengah, Nduga, Tolikara, Yahukimo, and Yalimo.

    Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was Koalisi: Pemekaran 3 Provinsi Baru Papua Ulangi Model Belanda.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

    Louis McKechnie is the face that launched a thousand British football memes. In March, the 21-year-old caused play to stop when he ran onto the pitch at Goodison Park in Liverpool, England during a match between Everton and Newcastle and zip-tied himself to a goalpost by his neck.

    If anything could have enraged the 40,000 jeering football fans more, it was the solemnity with which he did it. But while for many the episode will have merely been jotted down as another entry in the annals of absurdity, his cause was deadly serious.

    A day earlier, Maddie, 21, and Kai, 20 – who did not give their surnames – attempted to stage a similar action at Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium in north London. Kai took a long pause and looked around him at the slowly filling stands before describing how he felt about what they had planned.

    “Every single second I spend here, I want to do what I’m going to do less, because I can see everyone just trying to have a nice time,” he said. “But I know it’s what is right; I know that it has to happen.”

    Louis, Maddie, and Kai are all young activists with a climate group called Just Stop Oil, or JSO. They have called on the U.K. government to halt all new fossil fuel projects in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. If their efforts fail, they intend to paralyze the supply chain themselves, using non-violent direct action to disrupt the strategic oil and gas infrastructure that keeps the U.K. moving.

    The ambition is big. “We are mobilizing upwards of 1,000 people,” one JSO activist told the Guardian. “This is going to be a fusion of other large-scale blockade-style actions you have seen in the past.”

    Just Stop Oil say they are taking inspiration from U.K. lorry drivers’ protests in 2000, when, furious at a rise in fuel duty, haulers, and farmers staged blockades that paralyzed petrol distribution. Hundreds of petrol stations ran dry, leading to empty shelves in supermarkets, delays to mail deliveries, and schools being closed. Protests ended after the government said it would order soldiers to secure deliveries, but they won: then-chancellor Gordon Brown announced in that year’s budget that fuel duty would be frozen.

    Activists from 'Just Stop Oil' close down the Gray's Inter Terminals by boarding fuel haulage vehicles on April 1, 2022 in Grays, England
    Activists from ‘Just Stop Oil’ close down the Gray’s Inter Terminals by boarding fuel hauling vehicles on April 1, 2022 in Grays, England. Guy Smallman / Getty Images

    But where 20 years ago those protesters enjoyed public support in their campaign against rising prices, Just Stop Oil’s target is the fossil fuel system itself. While polling shows large majorities regard the climate as one of the most important issues of the moment, it’s unclear whether that understanding would continue if the pumps were empty.

    At a recruitment meeting last Thursday in Camden, north London, Larch Maxey, a veteran eco-campaigner, said the aim was “to build a community of civil resistance in response to the climate change science”.

    “In 2022 you have got tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers spelling out the climate science,” he said. Authorities such as David Attenborough and David King, the former government chief science officer, were in agreement, he said: There is a narrow window of two to three years in which to act. “We are facing the end of civilization if we do not act on the climate emergency. We are heading towards societal collapse.

    “When your house is on fire, you stop pouring petrol on the flames,” he said. “That’s basically the demand – no new licenses. We are in a crisis. Let’s stop digging out new oil and gas.”

    Just Stop Oil doesn’t just share rhetoric with Extinction Rebellion, it sits within an arc of escalation that began with that group’s blockades of five Thames bridges in 2018. Since then, the environmental movement has continued to explore new non-violent tactical provocations to draw attention to its demands.

    Many of those involved are, like Maxey, veterans of XR and the HS2 protests; McKechnie is one of a number who took action with Insulate Britain. As with those groups, the silhouette of Roger Hallam also looms behind Just Stop Oil. Although the Guardian has been told it is wrong to describe Hallam as the mastermind of this latest campaign, he featured prominently in early coverage of its activities.

    The key shift in Just Stop Oil is what its supporters say is a move from civil disobedience and into civil resistance. What that means, as Jess Causby, 25, a supporter of the campaign, told the Guardian last month, “is stopping pointing out what the government should or shouldn’t be doing [and instead] actively stopping government doing what they shouldn’t be.”

    The question is whether they can pull it off. The record of actions attended by Guardian reporters has not immediately seemed propitious. Young activists who tried to storm the red carpet at the Baftas two weeks ago misjudged how difficult it would be to reach, and ended up blocking its road-entrance instead. Kai and Maddie were intercepted before they could prove a nuisance at Arsenal. A small group who tried to disrupt play at Tottenham were also swiftly handled.

    Their next plan is to tackle a much bigger target, and they can expect to be anticipated. Oil companies have already begun to make preparations. What will happen next remains to be seen.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Inside Just Stop Oil, the youth climate group blocking UK refineries on Apr 11, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Guatemala City, April 1, 2022 — Guatemalan authorities should immediately drop criminal charges against journalist Carlos Ernesto Choc, a correspondent for local news outlet Prensa Comunitaria, and stop using the country’s justice system to harass and silence the press, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Friday.

    On January 14, a criminal court judge in Puerto Barrios, in the eastern Guatemalan department of Izabal, issued an arrest warrant for Choc based on a complaint from 13 police officers who accused the journalist of “instigation to commit a crime” after he reported on an October 2021 demonstration against mining activities in El Estor, Izabal, according to Prensa Comunitaria and the Guatemalan Association of Journalists.

    Although the arrest order dates back to January, Choc and Prensa Comunitaria only learned that his name was included on the warrant last week, according to the outlet. As of April 1, Choc had not been arrested.

    In the complaint, filed on December 1, 2021, the police officers allege that 12 people, including Choc, attacked them during the demonstration, Prensa Comunitaria reported. Choc said police officers shoved him and confiscated his phone and microphone while he was attempting to cover the protests, according to a video from that day taken by Prensa Comunitaria and as CPJ documented.

    “Once again, Carlos Choc is facing criminal charges simply for being one of the few reporters documenting the state response to demonstrations,” said Natalie Southwick, CPJ’s Latin America and the Caribbean program coordinator, in New York. “Guatemalan authorities must immediately drop the absurd charges against Choc, stop treating community journalists like criminals for doing their job, and put an end to their campaign to intimidate and threaten the press.”

    Police spokesperson Jorge Aguilar did not respond to a request for comment sent via messaging app, and the attorney general’s office did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

    In August 2017, Choc was charged with incitement to commit crimes, illegal protests, and illegal detention during protests, and was subsequently forced to go into hiding for several months for his safety, as CPJ documented. He remains under “substitute measures” stemming from that case, which require him to check in with authorities once a month, according to news reports.

    In April 2020, an unidentified individual broke into Choc’s home in El Estor and stole his reporting equipment, including a camera and two phones, as CPJ documented.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Judges direct conviction of Elliott Cuciurean in what is being seen as blow to right to protest

    The high court has directed that a protester against the HS2 rail line who was originally acquitted of aggravated trespass should be convicted after an appeal by the director of public prosecutions.

    In a decision that will come as a blow to protesters more widely, two judges, including the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett, ordered that the case of Elliott Cuciurean be remitted to the magistrates court with a direction to convict.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Hundreds of thousands of students skipped school on Friday, marching through the streets of more than 750 cities and towns to call for decisive action on climate change and to demand justice for the people most severely affected.

    Friday’s protests, the largest mass youth climate strike since 2019, show that the movement is rebounding from the setbacks posed by the pandemic, which forced young people to do most of their organizing remotely.

    Large group of people in Nairobi, Kenya, walking down a street holding signs protesting climate change
    Activists march in Nairobi, Kenya. Elizabeth Wathuti

    In Stockholm, Sweden — where Greta Thunberg’s solitary 2018 strike ignited an international movement — protesters chanted “We are unstoppable! Another world is possible!” In Feni, Bangladesh, young people stood waist deep in water and one boy held a sign that read: “Like the sea, we are rising.” In Nairobi, Kenya, activists marched through the street, accompanied by blaring music and car horns. Even in Antarctica, researchers posed on the snow with signs urging the world to stop climate change.

    8 people in red snow suits holding signs protesting climate change in front of station in Antarctica
    Researchers in Antarctica join the global protest. Michael Trautmann

    The rallying cry that united all of these demonstrations was “people not profit.” While youth activists still insist that we must cut carbon emissions in line with what scientists say is necessary, in recent years, they have also placed a strong emphasis on climate justice.

    Large group of people holding large banner protesting climate change with historic buildings on either side in Rome, Italy
    An estimated 20,000 people marched in Rome, Italy. Matteo Trevisan / NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Fridays for Future, the youth-led organization that coordinated the strike, wrote, “The catastrophic climate scenario that we are living in is the result of centuries of exploitation and oppression through colonialism, extractivism and capitalism,” and called for climate reparations.

    Large group of people in New Delhi sitting holding signs protesting climate change
    Activists display protest signs during the global climate strike in New Delhi, India. Xavier Galiana / AFP via Getty Images

    In a recent opinion piece, Bangladeshi climate activist Farzana Faruk Jhumu agreed: “Climate reparations are the compensation that the Global North must pay the Global South for the destruction they have caused through huge carbon emissions.”

    A girl holds a megaphone in front of a crowd with signs and banners
    Students rally in Sydney, Australia. Ruth Goodwin / Getty Images

    The first wave of international climate strikes in 2019 attracted an estimated 6 million people in thousands of cities and towns across the world. While Friday’s protests weren’t as large, they do signify a resurgence of the youth climate movement now that many countries have eased pandemic restrictions.

    Woman with green hair and mask holding cardboard sign with leaves and flames that reads "emergencia climática"
    A climate activist holds up a sign in Santiago, Chile. Martin Bernetti / AFP via Getty Images

    Liv Schroeder, national coordinator and policy director for Fridays for Future U.S., told Inside Climate News, “We’ve been incredibly isolated and while the climate movement has continued during Covid, we need to reignite hope and strikes to push our leaders to act.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘We are unstoppable’: Youth climate strikes return in full force on Mar 28, 2022.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • Campaigners write manifesto in broadest anti-war statement by Russian human rights community

    A group of veteran Russian human rights activists plan to publish an open letter calling on Russia to end its war in Ukraine, declaring it “our common duty” to “stop the war [and] protect the lives, rights and freedoms of all people, both Ukrainians and Russians”.

    The “manifesto”, signed by 11 prominent activists including Lev Ponomaryov, Oleg Orlov and Svetlana Gannushkina, announces the creation of a new anti-war council of Russian human rights defenders and is the broadest collective statement against the war by the Russian human rights community to date.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Deadly catalogue of killings continues unchecked despite hopes raised by election of centre-left female president

    One Sunday morning in January, Pablo Isabel Hernández set off to walk to church in San Marcos de Caiquín, a remote part of Honduras, but never arrived. One of Hernández’s brothers, who followed later, found Pablo, 33, dead on the road. He had been shot in the back.

    The next day, as Thalía Rodríguez, 46, lay in bed with her partner 500 miles (800km) away in the capital, Tegucigalpa, masked armed men stormed into her flat and shot her in the head.

    Continue reading…