radiofree.asia

Category: Protest

  • Five Kill The Bill protesters were just sentenced to over 14 years in jail. They need our support.

    On Friday 30 July, five Kill the Bill protesters were collectively sentenced to over 14 years in jail. Four people pleaded guilty to riot in relation to protests in Bristol on 21 March. They received sentences ranging from 3 years and 3 months to 3 years and 11 months. One person pleaded guilty to public indecency and was sentenced to five months.

    In response, Bristol Anarchist Black Cross (ABC) and Bristol Defendant Solidarity (BDS) have issued a joint statement. It sets out exactly why we all need to act in solidarity with those imprisoned and those still facing charges.

    Entitled We are proud of those who fought back against the police, the purpose of the statement is:
    to make clear that we support those who have been sentenced today, and that we are proud of them for fighting back. We need to be ready to defend ourselves against the police, and stand with those facing repression and criminalisation.
    The bill

    On 21 March, people in Bristol took to the streets to protest the Police Crime and Sentencing Bill. ABC/BDS describe it as:

    a bill which aims to give the police even more power to repress political dissent, and which will destroy the ways of life of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Communities in the UK. Those who have been struggling against the Bill across the UK are resisting the expanding imbalance of power between the state and the people, and against the further criminalisation of one of the UK’s most marginalised communities.

    This oppressive piece of legislation will give the police unprecedented draconian powers to arrest protesters. Moreover, it will criminalise trespass – effectively outlawing the lives of the UK’s Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.

    And as ABC/BDS explain:

    The Policing Bill aims to further criminalise those who defend themselves against police violence, doubling the maximum prison sentence for assaulting a police officer, while the police are able to use violence and even kill with impunity. Sentences for damaging ‘national monuments’ such as statues of slave traders will be increased to a maximum 10 year prison sentence.

    The Bill also aims to massively increase the number of people in prison in the UK. At the moment, most people are released from prison after they have served half their sentence. If the Bill is passed some defendants will have to serve two-thirds, and courts will have more powers to impose long sentences against those under the age of 18. These measures to lock up more people go hand in hand with state plans to employ 20,000 more police, to build six new mega prisons and 18,000 more prison places in the UK.

    The siege of Bridewell

    On 21 March, the protests were peaceful until the police started attacking the crowd. The Canary‘s Sophia Purdy-Moore reported:

    I saw police in riot gear hitting protesters round the head with batons. I did also see people at the front throwing bottles at police, but the response seemed disproportionate. The power imbalance felt completely off. At one point it looked as though their horses were going to charge into the crowd of peaceful protesters. The atmosphere was horrendous. There was a real sense of unpredictability and danger in the air after what had been an uplifting day. This all happened while there were still hundreds of people in the crowd (including children), many sitting down shouting: “this is a peaceful protest” in an attempt to de-escalate the situation. It soon became clear that the police were not going to listen. I’m not sure what response they expected.

    People are sick and tired of the police acting with impunity. This is what happens when the state refuses to listen to our demands for justice.

    And as the ABC/BDS statement sets out:

    What happened on 21st March was an outpouring of rage against the violence of the police. The crowd fought back after police officers attacked the crowd with batons and riot shields. Pepper spray was used indiscriminately, people were charged with police horses. The protesters fought back, seizing police riot shields, helmets and batons to defend themselves. By the end of the evening several police vehicles had been set on fire.

    The statement also highlights the context of what happened:

    The clash with the police on 21 March happened in the context of rising anger and action against the British police’s racist, classist and misogynist violence, and a government response to the coronavirus pandemic which left the UK one of the worst hit countries. The brunt of the Covid-19 crisis has been felt by working people and those seen as disposable by the government.

    ‘You dehumanised them’

    Sentencing the defendants to a total of over 14 years in prison, the judge asserted that the police:

    are all public servants, they are all human beings, what you did dehumanised them.

    This reflects the language that Priti Patel used at the time of the unrest, as ABC points out:

    Those who defended themselves against the police have been branded ‘thugs’ and ‘wild animals’ by both Priti Patel and the police spokesperson. The police have been out for revenge for what happened at Bridewell ever since. That revenge has come in the form of the brutality used against the Kill the Bill protests in Bristol on March 23rd and 26th. And in the use of riot charges – the most serious public order charge available in English law punishable by a maximum of ten years in prison – against those who fought back on March 21st.

    But it wasn’t those protesting on the streets of Bristol who were guilty of dehumanisation – it was the police. They attacked people indiscriminately. They didn’t care about the humanity of the people they battered. During protests that took place in Bristol between 21 and 26 March, the police injured at least 62 protesters. Meanwhile, the police lied about injured officers. And they were forced to retract claims made in a press release that officers had suffered broken bones.

    “They only call it violence when we fight back”

    Undoubtedly, the issues go deeper than this. This isn’t just about the policing of that night or policing of protests. It’s the policing that Communities of Colour and working class communities face on a daily basis. As the ABC/BDS statement says:

    Yet the police’s racist violence continues unabated. This year two Black men – Mohamud Hassan and Mouayed Bashir – both died after being detained in police custody in Cardiff and Newport. This is nothing new, there have been 1792 deaths in police custody or following contact with the police in the UK since 1990. And in Bristol, if you’re Black you are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police.

    As ABC highlights:

    Communities across the UK face violence at the hands of the police every day, but they only call it violence when we fight back!

    No ifs, no buts. Our solidarity must be absolute.

    These cases are just the beginning. Over 75 people have been arrested, and 28 of them have been charged. In addition to the five people who on 31 July woke up to their first weekend in prison, a further two people are already on remand. Over the coming year, more and more people are going to be facing trials and potentially long prison sentences following the events of that night.

    There are ways to support those in prison or facing prison. ABC has a crowdfunder to raise money to support prisoners and their friends and families. People can also write to those who’ve been incarcerated.

    Our solidarity with defendants must be absolute. There are no good defendants and bad defendants. There are only people targeted by the state for daring to say enough is enough and standing up against police brutality.

    We should all be proud of those who fought back against the police.

    Featured image via Shoal Collective

    By Emily Apple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Headache for Keir Starmer as trade union pulls funding from Labour in London

    The GMB Union has pulled its funding of Labour in London. It’s because a Labour council sacked an employee who is one of the union’s members. The GMB says it looks like potential “political victimisation”. But does the move show a wider disquiet in the trade union movement with Keir Starmer’s party?

    Meet Gary Bolister

    As the GMB tweeted:

    Gary Bolister worked as a caretaker for Labour-run Islington council for 24 years. But a mistake during a protest in 2020 has now cost him his job. As the GMB wrote:

    During the summer of 2020, Gary had been taking part in regular protests against Islington’s road closures which had been introduced by the Council without consultation. On 21 November 2020, Gary took part in a spontaneous Facebook live video in his own time on a public highway. The video captured a councillor and some of her family in their home and when Gary realised, he moved the video maker away from the property.

    Bolister took part in the protest just a week after his father’s funeral. After the incident, he expressed “remorse” and offered to write an apology letter to the councillor. But the council sacked him anyway.

    Sacked for protesting?

    As the GMB wrote:

    A formal complaint was made by the councillor and Gary was investigated under the disciplinary procedure. The investigation was flawed and prejudiced. Despite these issues being raised, Islington Council went ahead with the hearing and dismissed Gary for gross misconduct on the basis that he had breached the code of conduct and the social media policy.

    Bolister appealed the decision. The incident was the only “misdemeanour” across 24 years of service. But as the GMB wrote:

    Islington Council decided not to uphold the appeal. We argued that the decision was not reasonable and the penalty was unduly harsh. Islington Council took no notice.

    Islington council: “no compassion or humanity”

    Bolister said in a statement:

    I’m absolutely gutted – I’ve spent half my life serving the council and this is how they’ve thanked me.

    I wasn’t even filming and I didn’t even know who the councillor was. I’ve said sorry over and over again.

    Losing my job has had a massive effect on my mental health and my family life. I feel like Islington council has shown me no compassion or humanity.

    You can sign a petition in support of Bolister here.

    Hitting the “party coffers”

    Now, the GMB is now taking things one step further.

    As it tweeted:

    The union said in a statement it has “withdrawn funding” from Labour in London because of Bolister’s situation. GMB regional secretary Warren Kenny said:

    Gary is utterly devastated by his sacking – working for Islington council, where he was born and raised, was his passion and his vocation. His callous sacking over an honest error is beginning to look like political victimisation.

    GMB will always back our members and if Islington Labour refuse to listen to reason we will hit them where it hurts – in the party coffers.

    Wider implications?

    As SKWAWKBOX noted, the GMB’s action may represent a wider disquiet among trade unions over the Labour Party’s current leadership and direction:

    Unite, another giant union affiliated to the party, has already reduced its funding over Keir Starmer’s leadership. If the Labour right expected GMB to tamely fall in line after its recent general secretary election, it assumed wrongly. GMB boss Gary Smith has already ordered a complete review of the union’s donations to Labour – and GMB and Unite recently joined forces to condemn Labour’s shoddy treatment of staff put at risk of redundancy.

    Will we see more actions like those of the GMB in the future? Quite possibly.

    Featured image via the Telegraph – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Why does the Squad oppose a bipartisan energy security bill?

    An energy security bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last month has alarmed some environmental and Indigenous activists who say the legislation could fund states’ efforts to stifle protest against pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure. The bill’s opponents, which include the left-wing lawmakers of the so-called Squad, have said it complements the controversial “critical infrastructure” laws enacted in over a dozen states since the 2016 protests against the Dakota Access pipeline. Though the bill’s primary stated purpose is to incentivize states to engage in thorough emergency planning, its requirement that participating states coordinate with “energy providers from the private sector” has emerged as its most controversial provision.

    The bill, known as HR 1374, provides financial assistance through the Department of Energy’s State Energy Program to help states formulate plans to secure energy infrastructure against “all physical and cybersecurity threats.” Sponsored by Democratic Representative Bobby Rush of Illinois, the bill passed the House of Representatives with broad bipartisan support by a vote of 398-21 on June 22, despite opposition from high-profile representatives on both sides of the aisle. It has not yet been introduced in the Senate.

    Backers of the bill say it will help states protect essential resources against cyberattacks (like the recent Colonial Pipeline hack) and natural disasters, and they strongly deny any intention to target protesters. However, its opponents argue that encouraging states to counter unspecified physical threats could be read as an invitation to quell or even criminalize protests against fossil fuel pipelines, like those currently targeting construction of Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement pipeline in Minnesota.

    Collin Rees, a campaigner at the environmental advocacy group Oil Change International, said the bill’s “overly broad language” provides “a blank check to do almost anything that a state wants to do and claim is even vaguely related to energy.”

    Representative Cori Bush, a Missouri Democrat who voted against HR 1374, echoed Rees’ concern. “We cannot afford ambiguous language that allows space for state and local governments to further criminalize people protesting against environmental injustices,” she told Grist, apparently referring to the recent efforts of Republican-controlled states to use critical infrastructure laws to expand criminal penalties that can be used against protesters.

    Representative Cori Bush
    Rep. Cori Bush testifies during a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing in May. Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

    The bill’s proponents say these concerns are based on a misunderstanding of the capabilities HR 1374 grants states. David Terry, executive director of the National Association of State Energy Officials, or NASEO, a nonprofit which helped draft the bill, contended in a phone interview that there is no legal pathway for states to use the funding provided through the bill to target protesters.

    Terry said that the bill encourages states to formalize plans for how to protect vulnerable communities, hospitals, and food supply chains in the event of an energy disruption. “What it says in broad terms is look at the hazards in your state — not protesters, that’s not a hazard — look at the natural disaster hazards, look at the cybersecurity hazards,” he told Grist. “How would you respond if your power was out, if your fuel was out?”

    A number of states already have such plans in place, and Terry said this bill would “raise the bar for everybody” by encouraging states that have had little historical experience of natural disasters — but will likely see more of them due to climate change — to prepare adequately. NASEO has been advocating for this legislation for about four years, and last year a version of the same bill passed the House but faced opposition from the Trump administration; ultimately it was not introduced in the Senate. Earlier this year, the ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline, which supplies fuel to nearly half of the East Coast, gave the bill’s supporters a renewed sense of urgency.

    James Tager, research director of the free speech advocacy group PEN America, said the controversy over what he sees as an ostensibly well-intentioned bill is best understood in the context of an ongoing state-level onslaught on protest rights, which has often been undertaken in the guise of protecting energy security.

    “I certainly can accept the contention that this bill was written with zero intent to degrade the right to protest and protest-related rights, but we are at a political moment where we are seeing state after state attempt to restrict the right to protest in the context of protest against pipelines, in the name of protecting critical energy infrastructure,” said Tager, who co-authored a report last year documenting 116 bills restricting protest rights introduced in state legislatures since 2015. “So if I were an activist on this issue, I would indeed read this and say, ‘OK, this will incentivize states to consider new measures along those lines.’”

    To Tara Houska, a prominent Indigenous activist and founder of the Giniw Collective, a pipeline resistance group, the provision mandating coordination with private energy providers seemed to indicate federal support for partnerships between oil companies and law enforcement, such as that undertaken by the Canadian multinational Enbridge, which has funded Minnesota law enforcement agencies to cover the costs of policing demonstrations against its Line 3 pipeline route. (Editor’s note: Houska was selected as Grist 50 Fixer in 2017.)

    Houska, who is also a tribal attorney, said the passage of this bill would “create a legal basis for states to start entering into financial relationships with foreign or corporate actors who have none of the public’s interest in mind.”

    She is no stranger to the consequences of such privately-funded policing: The driveway leading to her private residence, on which she hosts a pipeline resistance camp, was blockaded last month by her county’s sheriff, who has drawn from the escrow account Enbridge provided for Minnesota police. On Friday, a Minnesota court ordered police to end the blockade and granted Houska and other pipeline opponents a restraining order against the sheriff.

    Terry, the NASEO director, defended the requirement that states consult with energy providers in drafting security plans as a commonsense measure — and even a redundant one, given the longstanding existing partnerships between state authorities and energy companies.

    In Tager’s view, the disagreement over whether HR 1374 could be used against protesters reflects the fact that “it’s difficult to write such a bill in a way that forecloses the possibility that state-level actors will be able to use it in ways that advance the war on protest rights.”

    “This demonstrates some of the harms that the assault on our rights creates — that it actually makes it more difficult for leaders who are concerned about threats like hurricanes, or threats of foreign hacking, to create policies that protect us against such threats, while at the same time ensuring that our rights are safeguarded,” Tager added.

    The bill moved through Congress quietly, in part due to its introduction under “suspension of the rules,” a procedure that allows for the quick passage of ostensibly uncontroversial bills without a recorded vote. Only late in the process did some progressives flag that the bill might present concerns for pipeline protesters; Representative Bush’s staff marshaled the Squad and other progressives to demand a recorded vote on the day of the bill’s passage. Their opposition blindsided NASEO and the bill’s backers in Congress, who had not heard any of these critiques brought up during the legislative process.

    Nine of the 21 votes against the bill were cast by Republicans, for reasons that remain largely unclear. Representative Chip Roy of Texas told Grist that the bill would waste federal funding and could support “misguided Green New Deal-style programs.” None of the bill’s other Republican opponents responded to Grist’s requests for comment.

    “States should be solely responsible for developing and implementing energy security plans if they so choose,” Roy added.

    Representative Bush, for her part, defended her opposition to the bill as a precautionary measure to protect civil rights and advance environmental justice: “As lawmakers, we must legislate intentionally to protect every community from environmental harm, and we must speak up when legislation falls short of our values.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why does the Squad oppose a bipartisan energy security bill? on Jul 27, 2021.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • 1981 Springbok tour protests revisited – and now Palestine is the new struggle

    Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    After his release from prison in South Africa and he became inaugural president of the majority rule government with the abolition of apartheid, Nelson Mandela declared in a speech in 1997: “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

    Founding Halt All Racist Tours (HART) leader John Minto invoked these words again several times in Hamilton on Sunday as veterans and supporters of the 1981 Springbok Rugby Tour anti-apartheid protests gathered to mark the 40th anniversary of the historic events.

    Starting at the “1981” tour retrospective exhibition at the Hamilton Museum – Te Whare Taonga o Waikato, the protesters gathered for a luncheon at Anglican Action and then staged a ceremonial march to FMG Stadium – known back then as Rugby Park – where they had famously breached the perimeter fence and invaded the pitch.

    The exhibition features photographs by Geoffrey Short, Kees Sprengers and John Mercer of that day on 25 July 1981 when about 2000 protesters halted the second match of the tour.

    “The Kirikiriroa protests were the outcome of months of planning, counter-planning and public discontent,” said curator Nadia Gush.

    “1981 documents a period of unrest, with New Zealanders of all ages expressing their solidarity with marginalised black South Africans.”

    Hamilton Springbok protest march 2021
    The 1981 anti-apartheid protest march reenactment from Hamilton’s Garden Place to Rugby Park (FMG Stadium Waikato) on 25 July 2021. Image: David Robie/APR

    Their courage and determination led to a tense stand-off in the middle of the park with about 500 protesters huddled together with linked arms and defiantly facing both police squads and a 30,000 crowd baying for their blood.

    Match called off
    The match was called off by the authorities – interrupting the first ever live broadcast of a South African rugby match from New Zealand. And this triggered unprecedented violent scenes when rugby enthusiasts attacked protesters.

    “Amandla Ngawethu!” – “power to the people!” (the cry of the African National Congress) – chanted John Minto, who has lost none of his powerful protest voice, amplified by a megaphone, as the crowd left Garden Place 40 years on.

    “Remember racism… Remember Soweto… Remember Mandela,” came other cries from march marshals.

    And a fresh addition this time was “Remember Palestine … Remember Gaza. … Freedom for Palestine” in recognition of the new struggle over Israeli apartheid in the Palestinian Occupied Territories and Gaza under military siege.

    John Minto and Nelson Mandela
    “Remember Mandela” … John Minto talking about apartheid at the FMG Stadium Waikato, formerly Hamilton’s Rugby Park. Image: David Robie

    Marchers were decidedly much slower than in the original protest four decades ago and a cloudburst dampened the straggling ex-protesters. However, they were revived by the sight of a Tristram Street mural at the stadium devoted to the Springbok tour and the cancellation of the game.

    Among the stragglers was Invercargill mayor Sir Tim Shadbolt who described the protests against 1981 Springbok Tour as an important historical event for Aotearoa New Zealand.

    “I’ll remember those days for the rest of my life,” Shadbolt told Stuff reporter Aaron Leaman.

    ‘Victory for better NZ’
    “It was a victory in a way and changed New Zealand for the better.”

    John Miller and Nelson Mandela
    Protest photographer John Miller with tour images of his, including a photo of President Nelson Mandela when he visited New Zealand in 1995. Image: David Robie/APR

    Stuff also quoted Angeline Greensill, who along with her mother, the late Eva Rickard, was among the group of anti-tour protesters who made their way onto the pitch at Rugby Park.

    Standing up to the “icon of rugby” took courage, Greensill said.

    The group passed around three sides of the stadium in the rain as Minto pointed out the “safe house” across the road – “opened up by a courageous man, Dr Anthony Rogers” – where he, Mike Law, Dick Cuthbert and many others were bashed by rugby supporters. A makeshift ambulance driving injured people to hospital was also attacked.

    Twenty three people were treated for injuries in Waikato Hospital and police arrested 73 people.

    1981 Hamilton Springbok tour protest Patu!
    Then, 1981 … the protester huddle in the middle of Hamilton’s Rugby Park. Image: Screenshot from Merata Mita’s documentary Patu!
    Police at Hamilton's Rugby Park
    Then, 1981 … police position themselves for the baton charge order against protesters that never came at Hamilton’s Rugby Park. Image: David Robie of stadium historical display/APR

    Minto praised the Waikato Rugby Union for recognising this vital event in New Zealand history.

    Then the entourage moved into the stadium’s Bronze Room for speeches and sharing of memories of that fateful day.

    Cheered loudly
    They cheered loudly as they marked 3.10pm – the exact time that the match between the touring Boks and Waikato had been called off.

    Speakers, including Minto, spoke about both apartheid and the 1981 Springbok tour and 70 years of apartheid and Israeli oppression in Palestinian.

    FMG Stadium
    Now, 2021 … FMG Stadium Waikato … renamed from Rugby Park. Image: David Robie/APR

    Speakers, including Minto, spoke about both apartheid and the 1981 Springbok tour and 70 years of apartheid and Israeli oppression in Palestinian.

    “Both Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu said, ‘Our freedom in South Africa will not be complete without the freedom of the Palestinians’,” declared Minto.

    “It’s unfinished business.”

    “This is the new anti-apartheid struggle,” added Minto, who is also national chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSN). He challenged participants to join him in this ongoing campaign.


    PSNA’s John Minto talks about the ongoing apartheid struggle over Palestine. Video: David Robie/APR

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The truth about the Tories’ NHS pay ‘rise’ was just exposed

    A trade union organisation has just exposed the Tories’ contentious pay rise for NHS workers for what it is: a pay cut. Because the meagre 3% the government is offering doesn’t make up for over a decade of pay freezes.

    NHS pay chaos

    This year, the Tory government has been at the centre of a storm over NHS pay. First it was only going to give them a 1% pay rise. Now, the Tories are reportedly considering a 3% rise instead. Wow.

    On Wednesday 21 July, the Tories “scrapped” their announcement on the pay rise. People were saying that the announcement may be delayed until September. But then, at around 6pm on the same day, the Tories backtracked again – announcing the 3% pay rise would go ahead, backdated to April.

    On face value, the 3% is clearly better than the 1%. But the reality is that according to one group, even the Tories’ updated pay rise is actually a cut.

    Real-terms cutting

    The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has done some number-crunching. It’s worked out that even with the 3% pay rise, actual pay will have fallen 7.3 to 7.6% in real terms since 2010 for the following jobs :

    • Nurses.
    • Community nurses.
    • Medical secretaries.
    • Speech therapists.
    • Physiotherapists.
    • Paramedics.
    • Radiographers.

    TUC boss Frances Grady told the Observer:

    It’s easy to understand the anger from NHS staff when you see what’s been done to their pay. It’s not just about the 3% – it’s the way their wages have been held back year after year.

    All our key workers deserve a decent standard of living for their family. But too often their hard work does not pay. And after the hardest year of their working lives, they deserve better.

    Grady is right: NHS staff are angry.

    NHS workers: already had enough

    As The Canary previously reported, grassroots campaign group NHS Workers Say No has been running a petition. It calls on the Tories to give NHS staff a 15% or £3k pay rise – whichever is the greater. As of 3pm on Sunday 25 July, over 817,000 people had signed the petition. You can add your name here.

    On 20 July, NHS Workers Say No took some forthright action. The group held a rally outside parliament before taking the petition to Downing Street with Jeremy Corbyn:

    NHS Workers Marching to Downing Street

    NHS Workers and Jeremy Corbyn outside Downing Street

    Enough is enough

    The fight for decent pay will continue. NHS Workers Say No are holding another march at 5pm on Friday 30 July. It’s from St Thomas’s hospital to Downing Street:

    Holy Turner from the group told The Canary:

    These figures come as no surprise to us. They’re just further evidence of how little this government care about the recruitment crisis we are facing. Why would people work or remain in a job where year on year your wages aren’t keeping pace with the rate of inflation? We are highly skilled graduate professionals.

    To see that our public sector colleagues are having their pay frozen is an utter disgrace. These are the people who have literally kept the country running throughout the pandemic. We stand in solidarity with them and will support our colleagues in their fight for pay justice too.

    As Labour MP Dawn Butler said, it seems that Boris Johnson and the Tories ‘have no heart’. Because not only are they delivering a real-terms pay cut to NHS staff, they’re also freezing most teachers’ pay too. But if the Tories think workers will take this lying down, they’re sorely mistaken.

    Featured image via SLaMNHSFT – Wikimedia and Wikimedia – additional image via The Canary 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • ‘Tumindig’ – artists dare to dissent in Filipino online campaign

    By Gaby Baizas in Manila

    What started out as a simple image has inspired Filipino artists across the nation to “stand up” for what they believe in.

    Satirical cartoonist Tarantadong Kalbo posted a digital drawing on Saturday, July 17, of “fist people” bowing down to seemingly resemble the fist bump gesture used by President Rodrigo Duterte and his allies.

    The focus of the drawing is on the one fist person, reminiscent of the raised fist used by activists everywhere, who dared to stand up and stand out from the crowd.

    Several artists have since joined in and added their own fist people to the drawing, slowly populating the artwork with more “dissenters.”

    Kevin Eric Raymundo, the artist behind Tarantadong Kalbo, said he didn’t expect anyone to answer his call to action.

    “’Yung sa artwork na ginawa ko, hindi ko siya na-envision as a campaign or a challenge (I didn’t envision my artwork as a campaign or a challenge). I was simply expressing my thoughts as an artist,” Raymundo said in a message to Rappler.

    ‘Deluge of trolls’
    “At that time kasi, ang daming lumalabas na bad news…. And then as a satire artist, the deluge of trolls on my page…napapagod na ako.”

    (At that time, there was a lot of bad news going around…. And then as a satire artist, I got tired by the deluge of trolls on my page.)

    “But at the same time I also felt that I have this responsibility as an artist with a huge following to use my platform for good,” he added.

    Three days after he posted his artwork, Raymundo tweeted about the overwhelming support he has received from fellow artists. He started retweeting artists who posted their own versions of the drawing, and he later compiled several entries all in one image.

    But before his artwork went viral, Raymundo actually shared that his frustration with the local art community was one of the triggers that prompted him to draw the image.

    “Mayroon kasing disconnect ’yung nakikita kong art [ng local art community] sa nangyayari sa bansa. So siguro I wanted to jolt people na, ‘Makialam naman tayo sa nangyayari,’” he explained.

    (There’s a disconnect between the art [of the local art community] and what’s happening in the country. I guess I wanted to jolt people as if to tell them, “Let’s get involved with what’s happening.”)

    Hoped for inspiration
    Raymundo hoped the artwork inspired Filipinos to gather the strength and courage to take a stand, even if it means starting small.

    “I guess the message is to not be afraid of speaking out, of standing up for what is right, even if it feels like you’re the only one doing it. All it takes [is] one drop to start a ripple,” he said.

    Artists can post versions of Raymundo’s artwork featuring their own fist drawings using the hashtag #Tumindig.

    Gaby Baizas is a digital communications specialist at Rappler. Journalism is her first love, social media is her second—here, she gets to dabble in both. She hopes people learn to read past headlines the same way she hopes punk never dies.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Tories’ 3% NHS pay rise is even worse than it sounds

    NHS workers and unions have responded to the government’s confused, last-minute announcement of an “insulting” 3% pay rise with outrage. After inflation, the proposed pay ‘rise’ amounts to about 0.6%. The government has left many NHS staff – such as junior doctors – out of the proposed rise in pay. This means that they’re getting yet another real terms pay cut.

    Unhappy with the pay deal, nurses and trade unions are considering industrial action. As nurses and unions have highlighted, this really is a kick in the teeth after a decade of underfunding, privatisation, falling wages, and the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.

    Sticking two fingers up at NHS staff

    On 21 July, health secretary Sajid Javid said that the merger pay rise should show NHS workers how much the Tories “value and respect their incredible contribution to our nation”. In a sense, he wasn’t lying. Responding to the government’s announcement, this parody Boris Johnson account summarised:

    Highlighting that claps and rainbows won’t pay NHS workers’ bills, the Green Party’s spokesperson on work and welfare Catherine Rowett shared:

    Reflecting calls led by grassroots campaign group NHS Workers Say No for a 15% pay rise, Unite assistant general secretary for politics and legal Howard Beckett said:

    This isn’t a pay rise

    The government’s last-minute offer of a 3% pay rise for NHS staff actually equates to another real terms pay cut. According to the GMB Union, in the past decade, NHS workers have lost up to £9k a year through real terms pay cuts. This comes alongside a decade of cuts and privatisation, overworked staff and understaffed services, and 18 months of a pandemic which killed hundreds of frontline health and care workers. Highlighting the profound injustice of the proposed pay ‘rise’, campaign group EveryDoctor shared:

    The Green Party Trade Union Group added:

    MP for Leicester East Claudia Webbe shared:

    Dr Julia Patterson added:

    What about junior doctors?

    Although the inadequate pay deal covers nurses, paramedics, consultants, dentists, and salaried GPs, it doesn’t apply to all NHS staff – including junior doctors. Grassroots campaign group NHS Million shared:

    Highlighting the broad range of staff and responsibilities covered by junior doctors, Dr Samantha Batt-Rawden shared:

    It’s time for the government to cough up

    NHS workers and trade unions – including grassroots campaign group NHS Workers Say No – are considering industrial action, and calling on the government to give NHS staff the 15% pay rise they deserve:

    Suggesting that the government has enough money to pay health workers a decent wage, David Schneider listed the government’s priorities:

    Labour MP For Hemsworth Jon Trickett added:

    Solidarity with all NHS workers

    Calling the government’s proposals a ‘kick in the teeth’, journalist Owen Jones expressed solidarity with NHS workers campaigning for a fair pay rise:

    Setting out just how important it is for us all to support NHS workers’ campaign for decent pay, London Green Party trade union liaison Matthew Hull said:

    This is just another case of the Tory government putting profits before people. We must stand in solidarity with NHS workers and unions, and demand that the government gives them the rights, pay, and conditions they deserve.

    Featured image via Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona/Unsplash

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Keir Starmer’s probably glad he’s self-isolating after angry visitors descend on Labour HQ

    Poor Keir Starmer. Not only are his party’s finances reportedly down the toilet; not only is he having to self-isolate, but Labour HQ was the site of a protest on Tuesday 20 July. Starmer may well be glad he’s holed up at home.

    Labour: expulsion central

    As The Canary previously reported, Labour planned to ban four groups involved in the party:

    • Socialist Appeal.
    • Labour in Exile Network (LIEN).
    • Labour against the Witchhunt.
    • Resist (the Chris Williamson-founded group).

    SKWAWKBOX noted that the banning of these groups would make:

    mere membership of them an automatic expulsion offence even though they do not breach Labour’s rule about standing candidates against the party.

    But the groups and members were not taking the news lying down. So, on 20 July, several of them organised a protest.

    Not having it

    It took place right outside Labour HQ in central London:

    A shot of people protesting at Labour HQ

    Several hundred people from around the UK turned up:

    People protesting outside Labour HQ

    Socialist Appeal, LIEN, Labour against the Witchhunt, Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL), and Labour Black Socialists were all there. What stood out was the broad age-range of activists, from young to old and of many ethnicities. Various people spoke, including former South African MP Andrew Feinstein:

    Andrew Feinstein speaking at the Labour demo

    “Resist… by all means”

    Dylan Cope from Socialist Appeal told The Canary:

    We’re certainly going to fight this purge. I think the whole left needs to come together and resist this by all means… Apparently, [fighting for public services] makes us “toxic”, as they’ve called us – which is disgraceful. Starmer’s doing the Tories’ job by getting rid of socialists. So, we say we need to get rid of him… We’ve got a rule change to push at this year’s conference… so we can remove Starmer with a vote of no confidence… We need to fight this all the way. So, we hope the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs and the unions will take up this fight as well. Because really, this is just the thin end of the wedge. First it’s us, the Marxists, then it will be Momentum and JVL.

    Socialist Appeal told The Canary that the rule change would allow members to vote out the leader. It has been submitted to conference by “several” Constituency Labour Parties (CLPS). So, we’ll wait and see how that pans out.

    Meanwhile, film director and activist Ken Loach sent the demo a message of support:

    Some unwelcome guests

    There was a small group of anti-Jeremy Corbyn activists present. They accused him of being an antisemite:

    Anti Corbyn activists at the Labour demo

    Anti-lockdown and coronavirus-denying activists also turned up. One of them was Corbyn’s brother Piers Corbyn:

    Piers Corbyn at a Labour demo

    The majority of the Labour activists present weren’t happy with the arrival of these unwanted guests. There was also a small police presence, which seemed to be targeted at the coronavirus-deniers.

    Unwanted guests aside, many people gave rousing speeches. Tina from Labour against the Witchhunt said that if the party didn’t expel members, then people must “try to stay” with it – “but if you stay you have to fight”:

    The banning begins

    Late into Tuesday afternoon, the news broke that Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) had voted to ban the groups. As PA reported, as many as 1,000 members could see their membership revoked as a result of the purge. The NEC agreed the move in a nine-hour meeting. It also discussed the full scale of the party’s dire financial state, with a voluntary redundancy process under way for staff. A Labour spokesperson told PA:

    Labour is a broad, welcoming and democratic party and we are committed to ensuring it stays that way.

    The NEC has decided that these organisations are not compatible with Labour’s rules or our aims and values.

    Williamson gave his reaction to the news on RTUK:

    At the demo, people were furious with what was happening to their party.

    The end-game for socialism?

    Terry Deans from LIEN told The Canary:

    The result of all this will be that the working class people of this country will have no socialist agenda to work with and no rescue from the brutality of the Tory regime

    The bottom line here is that this looks like the end-game for any form of socialism in the Labour Party. This purge has been ongoing almost since Starmer took over. Now, by proscribing the only groups that were a vehicle for persecuted members, it’s almost game over. If the likes of Momentum think they’re safe, then they’d best watch their backs. Because it seems Starmer and the Labour machinery won’t stop until a full cleansing of the party has taken place – even if it means leaving a hollowed-out, financially annihilated husk in its place.

    Featured image via The Canary and the Telegraph – YouTube 

    Additional reporting by PA

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Our NHS nurses just did 800,000 people proud

    On Tuesday 20 July, a group of NHS workers visited Downing Street. And on behalf of over 800,000 people, they told Boris Johnson that enough is enough over the dire state of NHS pay. Oh, and a certain former Labour leader also helped out.

    NHS Workers Say sign our petition

    This year, the Tory government has been at the centre of a storm over NHS pay. First, it was only going to give them a 1% pay rise. Now, the Tories are reportedly considering a 3% rise instead. Wow.

    So, the grassroots campaign group NHS Workers Say No has been running a petition. It calls on the Tories to give NHS staff a 15% or £3,000 pay rise – whichever is the greater.

    As of 1pm on Wednesday 21 July, over 812,000 people had signed the petition. You can add your name here. On 20 July, NHS Workers Say No took some forthright action over it. They held a rally outside parliament before taking the petition to Downing Street. And the event was heart-warming and well-executed:

    The NHS Demo outside parliament

    NHS workers with MPs

    Rallying for the cause

    NHS nurse Matthew Tovey started the petition around a year ago. He told the rally that:

    My journey here to parliament started a year ago to the day. Rishi Sunak announced a public sector pay rise for all workers… But NHS staff got nothing, despite the weekly clapping; despite the praise from ministers… We were all hailed as heroes and angels, working in unimaginable conditions with limited resources and scarce PPE. It was a terrifying experience.

    He continued:

    Instead of a pay rise, we get a pay restraint… [The pay offer] is pathetic, pitiful and poor. We’re merely asking this government to pay healthcare workers a decent wage… Claps don’t pay the bills.

    Unbelievable abuse

    The rally also got the support of several left-wing MPs. Jon Trickett, Ian Byrne, Richard Burgon, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, and Dawn Butler all joined it. Butler was abused by anti-lockdown, coronavirus-denying protesters. But she carried on regardless:

    It should be noted these protesters also disrupted the opening of the rally. They shouted abuse at the NHS staff present. Eventually, police moved them away – but only after Butler was targeted.

    Burgon

    All the MPs spoke. Burgon said that he and his constituents were with NHS workers “every step of the way”:

    not only in this fight, but also in the fight to stop the Americanisation of our NHS. And also, in the fight to make that empty rhetoric of ‘build back better’ into something real… the society we build together out of this coronavirus pandemic is a society that puts the wellbeing of all, and the health of all, and the enjoyment of life for all ahead of those corporations, ahead of big business, and ahead of the warped, free market fundamentalist world-view of those Tories in Downing Street.

    The rally then made its way to Number 10:

    NHS Workers Marching to Downing Street

    Enter Jeremy Corbyn

    The group certainly made some noise heading to Downing Street:

    There, they met Jeremy Corbyn. He spoke to the crowd outside Number 10. Then, he delivered the petition with them:

    Jeremy Corbyn and NHS Workers Delivering a Petition to Downing Street

    Holly Turner from NHS Workers Say No told The Canary:

    It was a good feeling to come to Downing Street. But we shouldn’t have to do this. For a lot of this, it’s our annual leave or rest days. We should be spending it with our families and chilling out. Not coming to London and walking the streets to hand in a petition to make us be safe at work… I think it will be a 3% rise. But it’s not a pay rise, it’s further cuts to our pay. So, the fight will carry on.

    And, at the end of the day, the NHS workers went for a well-deserved drink:

    On Thursday 22 July, Trickett will lead the debate on the petition in parliament. Sadly, it’s unlikely to bring about change in relation to NHS workers’ pay. But that’s not the end of the story.

    The public: now it’s up to you

    The fact that a group of frontline NHS staff managed to gather the signatures of around 800,000 people over their pay is impressive. It’s more impressive that NHS Workers Say No did this all in around 12 months. And it also shows the strength of public feeling over the issue. Moving forward, if a 3% pay offer does materialise, voters may well remember that. As Butler said, Johnson doesn’t seem to ‘have a heart’. Given the amount of clapping he told the public to do for NHS staff, his position now exposes his actual disdain.

    The hypocrisy of the Tories is there for all to see. Now, it’s up to the public to stand up for the NHS and its workers by taking action.

    Featured image via The Canary 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Digital Corbynism

    In the UK, the left no longer has a party, but it may still have the tools necessary for retaking it—tools that can be improved, remodeled, and reorganized.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • Media Play Up Protests, Play Down Effect of US Sanctions in Cuba

     

    NYT: Cubans Denounce ‘Misery’ in Biggest Protests in Decades

    New York Times (7/11/21): “In a country known for repressive crackdowns on dissent, the rallies were widely viewed as astonishing.”

    A wave of protests in Cuba became the somewhat unlikely focus of global attention earlier this week, the events becoming the worldwide No. 1 trend on Twitter for over 24 hours, as celebrities, politicians and even the president of the United States weighed in on the action. A statement from Joe Biden’s office read:

    We stand with the Cuban people and their clarion call for freedom and relief from the tragic grip of the pandemic and from the decades of repression and economic suffering to which they have been subjected by Cuba’s authoritarian regime.

    Media, too, were quick to focus on the story, giving the protests front and center coverage, something extremely unusual for demonstrations in Latin America. Far larger and more deadly movements in Chile and Ecuador were mostly ignored by the corporate press (FAIR.org, 12/6/19). Meanwhile, the political situation in Haiti, which has seen three continuous years of nationwide protest, was overwhelmingly ignored (FAIR.org, 10/26/19) until the assassination of US-backed President Jovenel Moïse last week.

    Downplaying the blockade

    However, while giving the protests a great deal of coverage, the corporate press across the political spectrum consistently downplayed one of the primary causes of unrest: the increasingly punitive US blockade.

    “In a country known for repressive crackdowns on dissent, the rallies were widely viewed as astonishing,” wrote the New York Times (7/11/21), presenting the movement as a laudable action against an authoritarian government that had brought little but “misery” to its people. Only 11 paragraphs into the story did it mention the sanctions, and even then, it put the information in the form of an accusation from the Cuban government, a source the Times had already cued the reader to be skeptical of.

    NBC: 'We are no longer afraid': Thousands of Cubans protest against the government

    One of the few shots NBC (7/12/21) chose where you can get a sense of the actual size of the crowd.

    But this was actually among the most balanced coverage from corporate media. NBC News (7/12/21) waited until the last of 24 paragraphs to note that “the Cuban government attributes the economic crisis to US embargo against Cuba and sanctions, which former President Donald Trump intensified.” The story had previously claimed that Cuba was effectively choking itself by refusing to allow humanitarian aid into the country.

    The Wall Street Journal (7/12/21) did the same thing, only mentioning the sanctions in the final paragraph, and only in the mouth of President Miguel Díaz-Canel, the head of an “authoritarian regime,” a media codeword reserved for governments the US does not like (FAIR.org, 8/20/18). None of these articles went into any detail about the sanctions or their demonstrable effects.

    Devoting such little time to sanctions, relegating them to the final paragraph and framing them as accusations rather than facts, has the result of conveying that they are of little importance. If this was not clear enough, the Washington Post’s editorial board (7/12/21) made it explicit, claiming that Díaz-Canel was reacting with “predictable thuggishness,” conveniently “blaming everything on the United States and the US trade embargo,” when, in fact, it was largely the fault of the “aging dictatorship” itself.

    Socialism doesn’t work. Maybe bombing will

    Fox News: Miami mayor blasts far-left silence on Cuban protests, says crisis exposes fallacy of socialism

    Socialism has “never worked and [is] never going to work,” Miami Mayor Francis Suarez told Fox News (7/13/21). What might work in Cuba? “Military intervention.”

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, Fox News (7/13/21) did not mention the sanctions at all, putting the blame for Cuba’s economic malaise on the Communist Party entirely. It even gave time to Miami Mayor Frances Suarez to call for the US to bomb Cuba. We must put together a “coalition of potential military action in Cuba,” Suarez told Fox, receiving little pushback.

    What is particularly galling about the refusal to take seriously the idea that an economic attack from the world’s sole superpower is at least a major factor in Cuba’s troubles is that this is the US’ explicitly stated goal. Official documents going back to 1960 note that, by “denying money and supplies to Cuba,” the US hopes to “decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and [the] overthrow of [the] government.”

    Last month, the United Nations declared for the 29th year in a row to condemn the sanctions against Cuba. The vote in the General Assembly was 184 to 2, the sole votes against being the United States and Israel. The sanctions mean that Cuba is unable to trade freely with other nations, causing acute shortages of goods—including medicines—that cannot be made on the island. In 2014, the UN estimated that the sanctions had caused $1.1 trillion worth of damage to the island’s economy.

    Photo switcheroos

    Despite being limited in size and immediately met by substantial counter-demonstrations, corporate media were keen to present the weekend’s actions as widespread and momentous. As one Miami resident insisted to NBC News (7/12/21), “The whole country is in the streets.” Video evidence seems to suggest otherwise, and that the counter-demonstrations were at least as well-attended.

    Nevertheless, many outlets explicitly stated the opposite. Reuters (7/11/21), for example, reported, “Thousands took to the streets in various parts of Havana on Sunday, including the historic center, drowning out groups of government supporters waving the Cuban flag and chanting Fidel.” Meanwhile, Voice of America (7/12/21) claimed that despite Díaz-Canel’s demands, he could only muster “smaller pro-government demonstrations.”

    Boston Globe: Cubans Denounce 'Misery' in Biggest Protests in Decades

    The Boston Globe (7/11/21), like numerous other  outlets, published a photo of a pro-government rally to illustrate the size of anti-government protests.

    If this was the case, it is ironic indeed that a host of outlets resorted to using images of pro-government demonstrations to illustrate how large and impressive the anti-government movement was. The Guardian (7/12/21), Fox News (7/11/21), Boston Globe (7/11/21), Financial Times (7/12/21), Yahoo! News (7/11/21) and NBC’s Today program (7/13/21) were among that used an image of masses of government supporters gathering in central Havana to show the extent of the anti-Communist demonstrations. To anyone with knowledge of Cuba, the giant red and black flags emboldened with the words “26 Julio” (Fidel Castro’s political party) should have been a dead giveaway. (The Guardian and FT updated their stories after my tweet pointing out the false attribution went viral.)

    Meanwhile, CNN (Instagram, 7/11/21) used a photo of an impressively attended rally in Miami to promote an article headlined “Cubans Take to Streets in Rare Anti-Government Protest Over Lack of Freedoms, Worsening Economy.” (The post has since been deleted.) National Geographic (7/13/21) pulled a similar trick, although they at least included a caption informing eagle-eyed readers that the image was taken in Florida. Pictures of anti-government demos in Cuba showing similar numbers of people appear not to exist.

    There is every reason for Cubans to be discontent. In recent times, prices for increasingly scarce foodstuffs have risen, and there are shortages of some basic goods and medicines, leading to increased deprivation, long lines and waiting times. Yet by refusing to frame these as intentional consequences of US foreign policy, corporate media consumers are less prone to critique their own government’s actions and more likely to support the very measures that are partially responsible for keeping Cuba in the state that it is in. A skeptical reader might wonder if that is exactly the point.

    Featured image: CNN photo labeled “Cubans take to streets in rare anti-government protest”—but actually taken in Miami. (Note sign for Eighth Street in the background.)

     

    The post Media Play Up Protests, Play Down Effect of US Sanctions in Cuba appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Anti-Protest Bills in Southern States Face First Amendment Challenges

    Protesters march in downtown Miami on June 12, 2020, during a demonstration over the death of George Floyd.

    In the past year, following last summer’s uprising against racial injustice, Republican-led legislatures across the South have created new criminal penalties for protesters, some of which could empower police to conduct mass arrests if even a single protester creates a risk of property damage.

    Those new laws are part of a broader nationwide crackdown against protests. According to the International Center for Not-for-profit Law, 45 states have considered and 36 states have enacted new anti-protest laws since January 2017, a year that saw massive actions against the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Trump administration. Among the Southern states that have passed such laws in that time are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia, with others pending in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

    Florida’s new law, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in April, is particularly harsh. It created new riot-related felonies and also invented the new crime of “mob intimidation,” which lawmakers defined as a group of people trying to compel another person to, among other things, “maintain a particular viewpoint.” It carries a penalty of up to a year in prison.

    During a legislative hearing about the measure earlier this year, state Sen. Dianne Hart (D) argued it would impact people of color who were exercising their constitutional right to protest. Ben Frazier, a community leader in Jacksonville, warned that under the new law, “Martin Luther King would’ve never been able to march in Selma to Montgomery, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.”

    Questions have been raised about whether people participating in ongoing Miami protests against Cuba’s communist government will be arrested for violating the law. Hundreds of protesters marched down one of the city’s busiest thoroughfares this week, but they weren’t cited for violating the new law, which prohibits blocking roads.

    Meanwhile, a new Kentucky law makes it a crime to insult police officers or deride them with gestures that tend “to provoke a violent response.” Two new Arkansas laws toughen the penalties for blocking traffic, defacing monuments, and trespassing on oil and gas pipelines. The Tennessee House passed a bill that would have imposed a potential six-year prison sentence for obstructing a sidewalk, but it didn’t move in the Senate.

    Civil liberties advocates are already challenging some of these new laws in court, charging they violate the First Amendment. In May, a federal judge declined to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a Louisiana law that drastically toughened penalties for trespassing on “critical infrastructure,” which includes oil and gas pipelines.

    And after DeSantis signed the Florida bill into law, a coalition of civil rights groups immediately sued the state. A federal judge ordered mediation in the case to be completed by late November, but the state is fighting the order, saying it would not be “a worthwhile use of the parties or the court’s resources.”

    Detaining Protesters in Alabama?

    In Alabama, the state House and Senate couldn’t agree on anti-protest legislation this year, but lawmakers recently pre-filed a bill for next year’s session. Its Republican sponsor, Rep. Allen Treadaway, retired last year as Birmingham’s assistant police chief.

    Treadaway claimed that his bill, which is similar to the version passed by the House this session, isn’t about “infringing on First Amendment rights, it’s just about the safety of everybody involved and that includes protesters.” But the Democratic leader in the House argued the bill “could have a very chilling effect on someone’s right to protest.”

    Under the pre-filed bill, a person commits the crime of “riot” by assembling in a way that “creates an immediate danger of damage to property” and defies a curfew or “order to disperse” from police. The bill also redefines “incitement to riot” to include anyone who funds or “aids” a riot. Both offenses would carry a mandatory 30-day sentence. The measure would also require that anyone arrested for riot or obstructing traffic be imprisoned for up to 24 hours with no bail.

    In addition, the Alabama bill would punish cities that reduce funding for police by withholding all of their state funding. And it creates a new felony, “assault against a first responder,” that leads to a mandatory six-month sentence.

    Given the broad language in the legislation, a person could serve six months in prison for “attempting” to spit on a police officer or “dogs or horses employed by a law enforcement agency,” which jt defines as first responders.

    Cops, Corporations Back Lawmakers

    Police officer unions and associations have supported anti-protest laws in Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, and other states. According to Connor Gibson, who researched the laws on behalf of the Piper Fund, police officers or their labor unions have spoken out in favor of anti-protest bills in 13 states in the past year.

    In 19 states where anti-protest bills have been introduced since last June, former law enforcement officers acted as sponsors, as with the Alabama bill. The Southern States Police Benevolent Association based in Georgia was the top law enforcement donor to anti-protest bill sponsors, contributing $39,300.

    Many of the legislators sponsoring the new laws are also backing new voter suppression bills that will make it harder to vote. A new report from Greenpeace called it “a two-pronged attack on democracy.”

    Five of the top 10 corporate donors to sponsors of anti-protest bills are also among the top 10 donors to sponsors of voter suppression bills. They include AT&T, headquartered in Dallas, and two tobacco companies, Virginia-based Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds headquartered in North Carolina. AT&T has also donated more than half a million dollars to the various campaigns of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a champion of the anti-protest legislation.

    While AT&T recently affirmed its commitment to supporting laws that make voting easier, it has been criticized for both the size of its campaign contributions and what The Intercept characterized as its “lackluster attempt” to address the movement for racial justice.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • NZ farmers in tractor protest against environmental ‘ute tax’ rules

    RNZ News

    Groundswell NZ organised the “Howl of a Protest” in more than 40 towns and cities across New Zealand over recent environmental regulations, the “ute tax” and a Pacific seasonal worker shortage.

    Co-founder Laurie Paterson said the “ute tax” was the issue people pointed the finger at, but farmers were also unhappy with the bureaucratic approach to the national policy statement for fresh water management.

    From July this year, people buying new electric vehicles (EVs) could get as much as $8625 back from the government. The scheme will be funded through levies on high-emission vehicles from 1 January 2022.

    About 100 tractors made their way into central Auckland, along the motorway to Queen Street and the Ellerslie race course.

    Some farmers heading into Auckland missed the turnoff to the city and took the scenic route, driving their tractors over the Harbour Bridge.

    Hundreds joined the convoy with a lap of the downtown area before gathering at Ellerslie Events Centre.

    NZ tractor protest
    About 100 tractors made their way into central Auckland, along the motorway to Queen Street and the Ellerslie race course. Image: RNZ

    Traffic crawled through central Dunedin as dozens of vehicles taking part moved through the city from midday.

    5km ute and tractor convoy
    Utes and tractors stretched for more than 5km on Dunedin’s Southern Motorway.

    The Otago Regional Council said five bus routes, which operate throughout large parts of the city, were delayed due to congestion.

    Opposition National Party leader Judith Collins attended the protest along with a cohort of party MPs.

    The National Party is among the most ardent critics of the government’s electric car rebate scheme and has said it will immediately reverse the policy if returned to power.

    Collins addressed a large crowd of protesters in Blenheim during the protest.

    She said she thought it was important to show her support for farmers.

    Collins called on the government to listen to the concerns of those in the primary industries.

    ‘No farmers, no food’. Video: RNZ

    Climate crisis ‘demands urgent action’
    The Green Party acknowledged farmers have been asked to accept significant change, but said the climate crisis demands urgent action.

    Greens environment spokesperson Eugenie Sage said she would like to hear some solutions from the protesters, rather than complaints.

    She said the government had provided huge support to help farmers make changes.

    Act Party leader David Seymour said farmers were fighting an uphill battle against regulation.

    Seymour said the Labour government was doing some things well, but in other respects their approach, such as bringing in national-level rules for winter cropping, should be localised.

    Seymour said many farmers also disagree with Significant Natural Areas, or SNAs, which are designed to protect remnants of native habitats.

    Labour MP for Wairarapa Kieran McAnulty told RNZ that most of the farmers he had heard from told him the protest did not represent their views.

    Farmers doing their bit
    He said most farmers had been doing their bit for a long time, and he worried the protest would paint all farmers as climate deniers who did not care about the environment.

    “I know that’s not true but I would hate for that to be the image of farmers as a result of today … there are legitimate concerns but obviously those concerns have always been heard and discussed with government,” he said.

    “If we are going to get the best value for our products we need to show that we are environmentally sustainable, that we are climate friendly, and that we have ethical products.”

    Tractor protest in NZ
    “If we are going to get the best value for our products we need to show that we are environmentally sustainable, that we are climate friendly, and that we have ethical products.” Image: RNZ

    McAnulty said there was a very strong economic argument for the proposed changes, the farming leadership bodies and the majority of farmers were on board with them, and the protest would undermine the good consensus work done in the past four years.

    “That’s what the farming leadership bodies are saying, they’re on board with this — Federated Farmers is on board with this. Unfortunately that message is being lost with today’s protest.”

    One of the farmers’ demands is that the government scrap its national policy statement on freshwater which came into effect last September.

    The reform introduced regulation on fencing off waterways, reporting nitrogen use and changes to winter grazing practices to protect animal welfare. Groundswell NZ says that should be down to individual catchment groups and regional councils.

    Concessions already made
    But Forest & Bird freshwater advocate Tom Kay said the government has already made concessions for farmers in the reforms.

    “The current situation is unworkable, we have a massive freshwater crisis, we have a climate change crisis, we have a biodiversity crisis.”

    He says the system up to now, with very lax rules on freshwater, doesn’t work.

    For farmers leading the way and taking action like planting along waterways, the policy statement won’t be a problem at all.

    “This is to bring up those laggards at the bottom end.”

    A lot of farmers’ demands have been listened to by the government, he said.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ‘We Have Seen the Deepening of the Anti-Democratic, Anti-Protest Legislative Trend’

     

    Janine Jackson interviewed Vera Eidelman about Fourth of July freedoms for the July 2, 2021, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

          CounterSpin210702Eidelman.mp3

     

    USA Today depiction of protester carrying flag in Black Lives Matter protest

    USA Today (7/1/20)

    Janine Jackson: As US citizens celebrate the Fourth of July, many will be thinking about the best way to grill a vegan hot dog. But many will also be thinking about what the “freedoms” we tell ourselves define this country and its project actually mean in 2021.

    If you think the answers are to be found in history, you might be missing the point. The US is engaged in radical (“to the root”) debate right now about what democracy means, what civil liberties mean, and what kind of society we want to live in. We’re in history right now; this is what it looks like.

    So what are the front-burner issues in terms of free speech, rights of assembly, the right to protest—to disrupt business as usual, which we know is central to making actual change?

    Our next guest thinks about these questions every day. Vera Eidelman is staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. She joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Vera Eidelman.

    Vera Eidelman: Thank you so much for having me.

    Supreme Court Building (photo: Daderot/Wikimedia)

    Supreme Court Building (photo: Daderot/Wikimedia)

    JJ: I wanted to talk, first, about B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District. I know that many listeners haven’t heard anything about this case, but it really gets at: When do you lose your right to free speech or free expression? Can you talk a little bit about what was at stake in that case, and your response to the Court’s ruling?

    VE: Absolutely. So Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. was the most important case about young people’s free speech rights in the last 50 or so years. The issue at stake in that case was a school’s authority to discipline a student for what they said or expressed outside of school hours, off of school property, that was not harassing or threatening in any way.

    Our client in that case, “B.L.,” was, when the case began, a 14-year-old who had tried out for the varsity cheerleading team at her public school. She unfortunately didn’t make it onto varsity, and was very upset. And she took to Snapchat, on a weekend, at a local convenience store, with her friends, not wearing anything that reflected the school, not mentioning the school or anyone at the school by name; instead typing, “f school, f softball, f cheer, f everything” on top of a photograph of her and her friend raising their middle fingers. (They did not say “f”; they used the actual word, just for clarity.)

    JJ: Right.

    VE: And the school suspended her from the cheerleading squad for the entire year.

    And the ACLU of Pennsylvania took up her case, arguing that the school could not discipline her under the diminished rules that attach to student speech rights inside of the school environment, given that she was out of school, speaking her mind on the weekend, online.

    And the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with us, holding that the school cannot apply the same diminished rule that attaches inside of school outside of school. Because otherwise, students would be carrying the schoolhouse on their back 24 hours a day, seven days a week, unable to ever fully explore their views, unable to fully express themselves, for fear of always worrying that they might be deemed “disruptive,” which is the standard that typically applies in schools.

    And the court also recognized that the school itself actually has an interest in enabling students to engage in dissenting and unpopular speech—recognizing, of course, that what that means in any particular school district will vary by the reality of that school district—because the school really is, in the words of Justice Breyer, a “nursery for democracy,” and one of the goals of the school should be to teach kids what it means to have free speech rights.

    JJ: And as a parent with an activist child, I hear that word “disruptive,” and it just sets something off, because obviously that is a contextual term, as you’ve just described. But that sounds a little worrisome, just on its face, at the level of language, to make that the standard.

    VE: Absolutely. That was the main thing that we were very worried about in this case, that the school might win in arguing that it can apply that very subjective viewpoint-based standard outside of the school.

    JJ: So, OK: Schools are nurseries to help kids develop their voice, and to learn that they are allowed to use their voice, and in terms of using it meaningfully, in terms of changing things. So then those young people become adults, and they want to go out in the street to use their voice. So now we’re at my second question, which is: This spate, not new but increasing, of anti-protest legislation. Can you just talk about the range of laws that we’re seeing spring up, and what they are doing or trying to do?

    Vera Eidelman

    Vera Eidelman: “Some of these laws seek to really punish, not unlawful conduct, but association: the fact that people are in the same place at the same time.”

    VE: Yes, unfortunately, we have, as you mentioned, seen the continuation and deepening of the anti-democratic, anti-protest legislative trend around the country. For at least the last five years now, we have seen legislators respond to vocal, powerful, full-throated advocacy, not by listening to what their constituents are saying, but instead by seeking to create new laws that would silence them.

    Examples of the types of laws range from increasing penalties on laws that already make something criminal —so, for example, laws that already criminalize trespass, or refusal to disperse, or failure to obey an officer; all of those things are already illegal, and these laws would seek to increase the penalties that attach. In some cases, the bills seek to increase the penalties, not just in terms of criminal time, which of course is incredibly impactful, but also in terms of restricting people’s access to public employment, to public office and even to public benefits; things like access to scholarships for school, food stamps and the like.

    In addition, some of these laws seek to really punish, not unlawful conduct, but association: the fact that people are in the same place at the same time. A number of the bills that have been proposed—including some even that have passed, for example, in Florida—are incredibly ambiguous as to whether they punish an individual who has themselves engaged in violence or property destruction, for example, or every other person around when that occurs, regardless of whether they were involved, regardless of what they themselves think of that conduct. So we’re really seeing a lot of bills, and even a few bills that have become law, that seek to criminalize association, criminalize the act of gathering together to make our voices heard.

    JJ: I think if I could pick out one thing, the idea of laws that say it’s OK to hit protesters with your car. I just think that even for folks who, you know, may have complicated feelings, that’s just mind-blowing. What’s going on with that?

    VE: I completely agree. And I think it’s particularly mind-blowing, given that these aren’t just hypotheticals. We know that Heather Heyer died in Charlottesville as a result of someone hitting her with his car; we’ve also seen many other protesters injured at protests by cars. And so I think it is a particularly perverse legislative trend that we are seeing. And a clear message that it sends to people who are thinking of joining with others and going out onto the streets is, “You better think twice, because you might get hit by a car—and if you are, you might have no recourse.”

    JJ: Exactly, exactly.

    NPR: Wave Of 'Anti-Protest' Bills Could Threaten First Amendment

    NPR (4/30/21)

    Let me ask you, finally, about media, because I often have noticed that, broadly speaking, corporate media love people speaking up, until they’re an organized group and they’re speaking up in the street, and then somehow they move from being individuals with a voice, to “interested” activists, and it’s somehow different. It’s like, “Protest is great, but keep it quiet.”

    And I see NPR, which has done all kinds of favorable coverage, but then I see this headline, “Wave of ‘Anti-Protest’ Bills…”—and “anti-protest” is in quotes, like maybe it’s not true—”Wave of ‘Anti-Protest’ Bills Could Threaten First Amendment.” Well, could and threaten; now we’re at two degrees of separation. And I just wonder if media are bringing home the threat that’s happening here.

    So that’s just me, but I would like to ask you: What would you like to see more of, maybe, from reporters, or maybe less of, in terms of coverage of this legislation, coverage of the protests, and coverage of the real fight that we’re in right now?

    VE: That’s an interesting question. I do think that one thing to keep in mind is that this really is an anti-democratic trend.

    JJ: Right.

    VE: I think there are ways in which it will not be surprising to see who these laws get applied against. But at the same time, at their core, they are taking aim at, where you started, one of our fundamental American rights: the right to protest. And that applies regardless of the message that is being expressed.

    And I think it’s important to keep in mind that this is legislation that will impact people, regardless of what they’re expressing, simply because they are seeking to do what is so deeply American: to join together, and speak out together, and be in the same place with other people who they want to associate with. And I think that that is the thing that legislators should really be ashamed for doing: the idea that they are trying to stop people from exercising one of their fundamental rights.

    JJ: We’ve been speaking with Vera Eidelman, she’s staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. They are online at ACLU.org. Vera Eidelman, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

    VE: Thank you very much for having me.

    The post ‘We Have Seen the Deepening of the Anti-Democratic, Anti-Protest Legislative Trend’ appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Tories, England’s Euros win is not yours to claim

    On 7 July, England‘s football team beat Denmark 2-1 during the Euro 2020 tournament, reaching their first major final since they won the World Cup in 1966. Prime minister Boris Johnson and home secretary Priti Patel were quick to claim the historic win in order to push their nationalistic agenda. But Twitter users soon pointed out the inherent hypocrisy of their celebratory tweets.

    There’d be no England team without immigration

    England’s historic win against Denmark coincided with the introduction of home secretary Priti Patel’s new immigration and asylum bill. The bill seeks to effectively criminalise anyone seeking asylum in the UK. If it passes, refugees entering the country via ‘unofficial means’ could face up to four years in prison. Moreover, from the partial deportation of the Jamaica 50, the attempted deportation of Osime Brown, the planned deportation of Anthonell Peccoo, and the Home Office’s failure to compensate the victims of the Windrush scandal, the home secretary has overseen vast swathes of unjust, xenophobic and discriminatory immigration decisions with zeal. In light of this, Jonathan Liew said:

    The England team of 2021 is one that simply would not exist if Priti Patel had been in charge of the Home Office a generation ago.

    Calling out Patel’s hypocritical celebration of England’s historic victory, PoliticsJOE tweeted:

    Indeed, from Jamaican-born Raheem Sterling to Harry Kane, the son of an Irishman, 13 members of England’s football team are descended from recent immigrants. One Twitter user shared:

    Highlighting that eight of England’s starting 11 are the sons of immigrant families, Rosie Aspinall Priest tweeted:

    Hinting at the home secretary’s penchant for unjust deportations, Mic Wright shared:

    Johnson could learn a thing or two from Southgate

    Former England footballer Gary Neville criticised England’s political leadership over the course of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. During ITV‘s post-match analysis on 7 July, he said: “The standards of leaders in this country in the last couple of years has been poor”. Turning to the England football team’s manager Gareth Southgate he added: “that’s everything a leader should be: respectful, humble, tell the truth, genuine, he’s fantastic”. In response, writer Mic Wright shared:

    England’s win against Denmark comes after prime minister Boris Johnson announced plans to lift all coronavirus restrictions on 19 July. This will include an end to social distancing and mandatory face masks, and reopening nightclubs and theatres. Scientific advisers and medical experts are urging the government to reconsider this plan in the wake of rising coronavirus cases, calling it a “dangerous and unethical experiment”. Carole Cadwalladr tweeted:

    Do Black footballers’ lives matter now?

    Throughout the tournament, England players have been taking the knee before Euro 2020 matches to protest racial inequality. The team was met with boos from the stands at a number of matches. The prime minister refused to condemn the booing fans. And the home secretary actively defended disapproving fans, saying that they have every right to boo the team for protesting racism.

    The team’s symbolic protest came after the global resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, which saw people take to the streets to protest structural racism. The UK government’s response was to commission a race report that denies the existence of institutional racism in Britain. More recently, on 5 July the government’s draconian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill passed its third reading in parliament. The bill seeks to clamp down on the right to protest and to increase police powers.

    Despite their disdain for Black lives, Johnson and Patel have been quick to claim the England team’s success in the Euros. Of course, this helps them to push their nationalist agenda. Spotting the hypocrisy of Johnson’s tweet – with a photo of him outside Number 10 standing on a giant St George’s flag – ahead of the quarter-final, David Conn tweeted:

    Responding to the home secretary’s celebration of the team’s subsequent victory at the match, he added:

    Writer Sathnam Sanghera tweeted:

    Highlighting how the state and its institutions treat Black footballers when they aren’t winning games, Dominic Kavakeb drew attention to the police killing of Dalian Atkinson:

    Patel accused England’s footballers of “gesture politics”. But it doesn’t get more gestural than her and Johnson’s celebration of England’s immigrant-heavy team – all while they continue to pursue a racist, xenophobic, nationalist political agenda.

    Featured image via BBC Sport/YouTube

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The low-desire life: why people in China are rejecting high-pressure jobs in favour of ‘lying flat’

    It’s been dubbed ‘tangping’ – shunning tough careers to chill out instead. But how is the Communist party taking the birth of this new counterculture?

    Name: Low-desire life.

    Age: People – young ones especially – have been rebelling, dropping out, rejecting the rat race for pretty much ever, since the rat race began. But in China, it’s becoming more common. On trend, you might say.

    Related: How hard does China work?

    Continue reading…

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

  • Europe’s rights tsar urges MPs and peers to oppose protest curbs

    Dunja Mijatović says policing bill would seriously harm freedom of expression in England and Wales

    A proposed new law that could impose time and noise limits on protests in England and Wales would seriously harm freedom of expression and should be rejected by parliamentarians, Europe’s human rights commissioner has said.

    Dunja Mijatović of the Council of Europe made her concerns clear in a letter to MPs and peers as the former prepare to debate the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill on Monday.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Malawi Pride and press freedoms in Palestine: human rights this fortnight – in pictures

    A roundup of the coverage on struggles for human rights and freedoms, from Chile to Cambodia

    Continue reading…

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

  • Olympics Needs to End Restrictions on Free Speech of Athletes

    Gwendolyn Berry (left), turns away from U.S. flag during the U.S. national anthem on June 26, 2021 in Eugene, Oregon. In 2019, the USOPC reprimanded Berry after her demonstration on the podium at the Lima Pan American Games.

    An important debate is brewing about free speech at the Olympics. After years of the International Olympic Committee restricting the free expression of athletes at the Games, some prominent athletes are calling for the unlimited right to speak freely — including the right to protest.

    The advocates include Canadian decathlete Damien Warner, an Olympic bronze medallist in 2016, who has said: “If there’s something on their mind, then athletes should be allowed to speak.” The IOC, he said, is “on the wrong side of history.” The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Olympic Advisory Committee takes a similar view.

    In response, the IOC has relaxed its Rule 50 on “advertising, demonstrations and propaganda” to allow free speech in interviews and meetings, but has stood firm on the prohibitions against “political” statements on the field of play and during ceremonies. The committee threatens to punish any athlete who disobeys.

    Understanding Rule 50

    The IOC Athletes’ Commission supports Rule 50, saying it believes “the focus at the Olympic Games must remain on athletes’ performances, sport and the international unity and harmony that the Olympic Movement seeks to advance.”

    But another of the recommendations from the Athletes’ Commission, following a survey and consultation process, was to “increase opportunities for athletes’ expression during the Games.”

    “The feedback was that they didn’t want it to interfere with the competition itself, so ensuring that the competition itself was protected,” explained Rosie MacLennan, a double gold medallist in the trampoline and chair of Canadian Olympic Committee Athletes Commission.

    In worldwide polling, Rule 50 has won the support of the majority of athletes for this position. The Canadian Olympic Committee Athletes Commission has reported that 80 per cent of surveyed athletes supported the rule.

    Growing Athlete Activism

    The push for free speech is an artifact of growing athlete activism in recent years in response to racism in European soccer, the unrelenting police violence against Black people and other minorities in countries like the United States and Chinese human rights violations in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong.

    At the 2019 Pan American Games in Peru, two American athletes, fencer Race Imboden and hammer thrower Gwen Berry, conducted silent protests against “racism, gun control, mistreatment of immigrants, and a president who spreads hate” back home.

    For many years, Rule 50 completely prohibited critical athletes’ statements or demonstrations at games — and sporting bodies compelled their athletes to comply and athletes went along with it.

    The style was epitomized by basketball superstar Michael Jordan, who famously avoided political statements “because Republicans buy shoes too.”

    When the Canadian skier Laurie Graham likened herself to a cruise missile flying down the hill to a World Cup victory, I asked her not to use a metaphor of death and destruction for a peaceful activity like sport. She quickly agreed, which thrilled me. But then she said that she didn’t want to get in trouble with her sponsors, who told her to avoid controversy.

    The Need to Speak Out

    As a competitor in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics who wrote a widely syndicated student newspaper column from the Olympic Village, I fully support the right to free speech. I have always believed that athletes should take responsibility for the circumstances and sports in which they are involved and they cannot do that without the right to speak out.

    Athletes should be able to wear personal signifiers, such as Indigenous sashes or rainbow fingernail polish, both of which have been allowed or banned from competitions and ceremonies at different times.

    Free speech is an internationally established human right. It’s not something that should be conferred or denied by a vote. The majority should never be able to silence the minority.

    I still subscribe to John Stuart Mills’ admonition that “if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

    The intercultural education cherished by the Olympic Movement would be enhanced by completely free speech. We can’t be hectoring others about what we believe, but we do need to be honest about who we are.

    I’ve spoken in China about athletes’ rights. While few agreed with me, no one was shocked. They listened. So did I. The IOC should embrace and support such interactions and tell authoritarian hosts that this is what the Olympics are about.

    What Will the Punishment Be?

    If some athletes still decide to protest in Tokyo or at the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing and are punished, that punishment will become the issue. I would be horrified by a repeat of 1968, when the IOC expelled U.S. sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos from the Mexico Olympics for protesting against poverty and racism from the victory podium — in effect banning them for upholding the Olympic aspirations.

    With all the challenges facing Tokyo and Beijing, it’s unlikely that Rule 50 will be reconsidered before both Games take place. But the issue won’t go away, and I would like to think the final restrictions will be abolished by the Paris Olympics in 2024.

    In the meantime, athletes like MacLennan, who regularly consults Canadian athletes, should take advantage of the opening provided by the IOC consultation to push for ongoing athlete engagement and athlete-centered reforms on an international basis — including much more significant athlete voice and vote on decision-making bodies.

    Once in-person meetings resume, athletes should revive the former practice of open meetings in the Olympic Village where they can introduce and discuss the issues most on their minds — including the geo-political issues that buffet the Games.

    If there was genuine opportunity for athletes to become involved in sport governance and public policy, there would be far less reason for them to demonstrate.

    Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympic Games, always saw the Olympics as a pedagogical project and athletes as the self-actualizing subjects of their activity and learning. If athletes are to learn, they need to learn to deal with political and intercultural issues and when and how to speak out.

    The IOC should embrace free speech as a contribution to its highest goals.The Conversation

    Bruce Kidd is an honorary member of the Canadian Olympic Committee.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Priti Patel is facing more ‘Kill The Bill’ protests

    Home secretary Priti Patel’s authoritarian and regressive Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (the Police Bill) is back in parliament on Monday 5 July. So, once more, it’s time to try and #KillTheBill.

    “Unprecedented”

    The Police Bill has caused uproar. Many see it as racist against Black people and the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) community. It will also clamp down on our right to protest and take strike action. Amnesty said of the bill:

    In its current form, the bill represents an enormous and unprecedented extension of policing powers which would effectively give both police and Government ministers the power to ban, limit or impose undue restrictions on peaceful protests on the grounds that they might be ‘noisy’ or cause ‘annoyance’. It also extends police powers already used disproportionately against Black people, and severely restricts the right to roam.

    #KillTheBill

    In recent months, there have been numerous protests against the bill. #KillTheBill protests in Bristol were marred by police violence. As Sophia Purdy-Moore reported for The Canary:

    On 1 July, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Democracy and the Constitution published a report following its inquiry on the policing of the Sarah Everard vigil in London and Kill the Bill protests in Bristol.

    Purdy-Moore wrote:

    the APPG report explains that events in Bristol “escalated after police undertook enforcement action against peaceful sit-down protests”.

    The report confirms that Avon & Somerset Police “failed to distinguish between violent and peaceful protestors, leading to the use of force in unjustified situations”.

    That isn’t stopping the Police Bill going through parliament. But nor is it deterring people from protesting to #KillTheBill again.

    Back in parliament. Back to protesting.

    On 5 July, the bill is being debated in parliament once more. The government is giving the bill its third reading. This gives other parties the chance to put forward amendments and have them voted on. So some campaign groups have organised a demo.

    Sisters Uncut and All Black Lives UK will be protesting to #KillTheBill at Parliament Square from 2pm on 5 July:

    If you’re going to the #KillTheBill demo, expect a heavy police presence. Coronavirus (Covid-19) rules may have relaxed around public demos, but that doesn’t mean policing will relax. Also, follow these simple steps from legal group Green and Black Cross to protect yourself. Make sure you read The Canary‘s full details of them here:

    • NO COMMENT.
    • DON’T GIVE POLICE PERSONAL DETAILS.
    • ASK WHAT POWER UNDER THE LAW ARE THE POLICE USING?
    • DON’T ACCEPT A DUTY SOLICITOR.
    • DON’T ACCEPT A CAUTION.

    And watch out for the so-called ‘Blue Bibs’. These are police liaison officers. They may appear friendly and make idle small talk, but they’re actually trying to get info on you and those you’re protesting with. So in other words, do not engage with them.

    The best time to protest

    It may seem like the issue is never going away. But nor is the anger over it. So what better time to express this than when MPs are talking about it. And what better place to do it than outside parliament itself.

    Featured image via Real Media – YouTube and the Telegraph – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Vera Eidelman on Fourth of July Freedoms, Vivek Shandas on Addressing Climate Change

     

     

    USA Today depiction of protester carrying flag in Black Lives Matter protest

    USA Today (7/1/20)

    This week on CounterSpin: For many US citizens the Fourth of July is really just a chance to barbecue with friends and family. But for US media, it’s also a chance to say or imply that there really is something to celebrate about the unique place of the United States in the world, the special democratic project that this country is supposedly engaged in.

    And that’s where the message gets complicated. Because while media give air time and column inches to where you can find the best holiday sales and celebrations, fewer will use the occasion to direct attention to the danger that the democratic project is facing, the energetic efforts to silence the voices of anyone who has something critical to say about this country, its practices and policies, or its history.

    Celebrate, don’t interrogate—is the takeaway from a press corps that wants to tell you how to protect your dog from fireworks, but not how to protect yourself and your society from well-funded, well-entrenched campaigns to stop people from voting or speaking or going into the street to protest things that are wrong. We’ll talk about that with Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

          CounterSpin210702Eidelman.mp3

     

    Visualization of Pacific heat dome

    Washington Post depiction (6/28/21) of Pacific heat dome (from earth.nullschool.net)

    Also on the show: As the West Coast deals with a historic heatwave and drought, some city officials are banning fireworks to help prevent wildfires. If that’s some folks’ first indication that climate disruption will actually disrupt their lives, well, media need to take some of the blame.

    A recent Washington Post piece on the unprecedented, punishing heat in the Pacific Northwest stressed how readers would be wrong to be shocked: Everybody saw this coming; there have been “40 years of warnings.” It had a breaker reading “Chickens Coming Home to Roost,” it used the phrase “human-caused.”… It’s just that the words “fossil fuels” appear nowhere.

    So climate disruption is a horrible thing that’s happening, and we’re all to blame for not acknowledging it…but who is to blame for doing it? Well, that’s unclear. Just know that you should be worried and upset.

    A CBS News piece did say: “This is only the beginning of the heating expected if humanity continues burning fossil fuels.” And it ended with Michael Mann calling for “rapidly decarboniz[ing] our civilization.” And that stripe of coverage is fine as far as it goes. But how far does it go? Where is the reporting that frankly identifies fossil fuels as the problem (rather than how long a shower I take), and incorporates that knowledge into all of the coverage—of Enbridge 3 and other pipelines, of extreme weather events, of how, as CNBC had it recently, “It’s not too late to buy oil and gas stocks.” Why won’t media move past narrating the nightmare of climate disruption, to using their powerful platforms to actually address it?

    We’ll talk about that with Vivek Shandas; he focuses on the particular implications of climate change on cities, and on different people within cities, as a professor at Portland State University.

          CounterSpin210702Shandas.mp3

    The post Vera Eidelman on Fourth of July Freedoms, Vivek Shandas on Addressing Climate Change appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Here’s the best birthday present you can give the NHS

    It’s the NHS’s 73rd birthday on 5 July. So, what better way to mark the occasion than with dozens of demos to protect it, happening up and down the country?

    A not-so happy birthday for the NHS

    As a leaflet said, when the then-Labour government launched the NHS in 1948:

    It will provide you with all medical, dental and nursing care. Everyone – rich or poor, man, woman or child – can use it or any part of it. There are no charges, except for a few special items. There are no insurance qualifications. But it is not a “charity”. You are all paying for it, mainly as taxpayers, and it will relieve your money worries in time of illness.

    But sadly, over decades, that founding idea has been eroded. From huge staff vacancies, to unsuitable equipment via massive waiting lists, not enough beds, and charities propping it up – the NHS is in a sad state. Of course, most of this is due to political decisions by parties of all stripes. But it’s undoubtedly become worse under Tory rule since 2010. So, on Saturday 3 July, people will be showing their anger at politicians. But they’ll also be showing support for our health service.

    Taking to the streets

    The demos have been called by a number of groups: Keep Our NHS Public, Health Campaigns Together, NHS Workers Say No, and NHS Staff Voices. They said they’re demanding:

    patient safety, pay justice and an end to privatisation

    Demos are happening across the UK:

    NHS 73rd Anniversary Demo Image

    You can find details on many of them here. They include demos in Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Derby, Glasgow, various ones in London, Manchester, and Sheffield.

    “Huge pressure”

    Holly Turner, an NHS nurse who’s also part of NHS Workers Say No, summed up the situation. She told The Canary:

    We are urging NHS workers and supporters take to the streets across the UK this NHS Anniversary weekend.

    We are in a critical moment. The NHS has had a decade of underfunding. The government has not protected the NHS budget. We have faced brutal cuts to services. There is a crisis in recruitment. Half of all staff in the NHS report that the current situation stops them doing their jobs properly. We have less beds per capita than any other comparable country. Cuts to social care services have added huge pressure to the NHS. There are simply not enough services available to support vulnerable people in our communities. We also have private companies continuing to win big contracts to run struggling NHS services for profit.

    But the challenge is the Tory-created crisis in the NHS is only getting worse.

    Entrenched chaos

    For example, as The Canary reported in March:

    Labour claims the government has quietly cut health and social care funding – a £9bn cut to the NHS England budget and a £30.1bn cut to the department for health and social care’s budget.

    Boris Johnson’s promise to “fix the crisis in social care once and for all” has so far not happened. And of course, his government has only given many NHS staff a 1% pay rise this year.

    An “urgent” fight

    So, Turner said NHS groups and workers are “demanding answers” over what’s going on in the health service. She told The Canary:

    NHS Workers continue to wait for their pay award which was due in April. The government delayed it until mid-June. And then it has delayed it yet again. Why? We are demanding answers. And we refuse to allow this government to abuse the goodwill of workers to deal with the 100,000 staffing deficit. In addition, Sajid Javid is the newly appointed Health Secretary. We know he is hell bent on a US-style private insurance-funded health service. He is not to be trusted. The fight now is more urgent than ever.

    If you can’t go to the demos, you can protest online. You can post on social media using #NHSPay15 #NHS73 and #NHSAnniversary.

    There’s no more fitting way to celebrate the NHS’s birthday than to fight to protect it from the Tories. So, if you can get involved – do. We all depend on it.

    Featured image via NHS Workers Say No

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Report highlights ‘significant failings’ in the policing of Sarah Everard vigil and Bristol protests

    On 1 July, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Democracy and the Constitution published a report following its inquiry on the policing of the Sarah Everard vigil in London and Kill the Bill protests in Bristol. The report highlights “significant failings” in the policing of both events. It sets out that the policing of the Sarah Everard vigil in Clapham was “unlawful and breached fundamental rights”. It adds that Avon and Somerset Police used “disproportionate” force against Kill the Bill protesters in Bristol.

    A damning report

    In March, hundreds attended a vigil in Clapham, London to pay their respects to 33-year-old Sarah Everard, who was abducted and killed by a serving police officer while walking home. As reported by The Canary, attendees were met with “violent” and heavy-handed policing.

    Regarding the Sarah Everard vigil, the APPG report found that the Metropolitan Police’s “assumption that the gathering was unlawful… was the wrong place to start”. It adds that assistant commissioner Louisa Rolfe displayed a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the law regarding the right to protest in the UK. Regarding officer’s treatment of attendees, the report states that on several occasions, the police’s use of force “was not proportionate”. It concludes that the Met “did not take proper account of the right to protest, including the obligation to facilitate peaceful and safe protest”.

    ‘Excessive’ and ‘disproportionate’ policing

    The APPG report also condemns Avon & Somerset Police’s handling of Kill the Bill protests in Bristol. Following the Metropolitan Police’s heavy-handed response to the vigil on Clapham Common, people came together to protest the government’s proposed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. The bill includes plans to clamp down on the right to protest, and to increase police powers. Echoing what witnesses told The Canary in March, the APPG report explains that events in Bristol “escalated after police undertook enforcement action against peaceful sit-down protests”.

    The report confirms that Avon & Somerset Police “failed to distinguish between violent and peaceful protestors, leading to the use of force in unjustified situations”. The APPG highlights concerns about officers’ “disproportionate” and “excessive” use of force against peaceful protesters in Bristol, including the use of dogs, batons and riot shields. It adds that witnesses described the force’s crackdown on protesters following Bristol’s first Kill the Bill protest as “revenge policing”. Evidence includes the cases of Katie McGoran and Grace Hart, who both experienced wrongful detention at the hands of Avon & Somerset Police officers following protests.

    The Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) submitted evidence to the inquiry about the policing of protests in Bristol. Responding to the APPG’s findings, a spokesperson told The Canary:

    The conclusions of this report are damning. We have long known that we cannot trust the police to protect our right to protest, and this report documents the utter failure of the police to consider their obligations under law to respect freedom of assembly rights. It even concludes that the enforcement approach taken by the police may have “caused, or at least exacerbated, some of the violence”.

    They added:

    Netpol has been calling for greater transparency from the police around the policing of protest and use of force, and in the absence of any data from the police on these we worked with grassroots groups to submit detailed evidence of the police violence in Bristol. Serious questions need to be asked and officers need to be held to account, as the report concludes that Avon and Somerset police’s use of force was excessive and unjustified, and may even amount to a criminal offence.

    Continued resistance to the bill

    The APPG sets out recommendations regarding the government’s proposed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which returns to Parliament on 5 July. Responding to this, a spokesperson from Netpol told The Canary:

    We wholeheartedly welcome the recommendation of the report to completely remove the sections of the Bill which give the police powers to restrict protests. But this still wouldn’t address the issues with this draconian Bill, as it doesn’t address the measures which criminalise Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, or extend the power of the state to stop, search, surveil and incarcerate vulnerable people.

    Resistance against the proposed draconian bill continues unabated. Thousands of protesters descended on London on 26 June. The Kill the Bill coalition is now urging people to ask their MPs to support amendments to the proposed bill. These include Zarah Sultana’s call for an inquiry into the policing of protests, and Apsana Begum’s amendment seeking to scrap government plans for ‘secure schools‘. In spite of the heavy-handed policing meted out against peaceful protesters in March, Bristol’s 14th Kill the Bill protest is due to take place on 3 July.

    Featured image via Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona/Unsplash

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Protesters who blockaded London arms fair have convictions quashed

    Supreme court ruling on disruption at ExCeL Centre in 2017 is hailed as an affirmation of right to protest

    Four demonstrators who formed a blockade outside a London arms fair have had their convictions quashed by the supreme court, in what has been hailed as an affirmation of the right to protest.

    Nora Ziegler, Henrietta Cullinan, Joanna Frew and Chris Cole were charged with highway obstruction after using “lock-on” devices to block an approach road to the ExCeL Centre in Docklands, east London, when it hosted the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair in 2017.

    Continue reading…

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

  • UK introducing three laws that threaten human rights, says UN expert

    Proposed changes to policing, surveillance and judicial review will jeopardise right to peaceful protest, says special rapporteur

    Boris Johnson’s government is introducing three pieces of legislation that will make human rights violations more likely to occur and less likely to be sanctioned even as averting climate catastrophe depends on these rights, the UN special rapporteur for human rights and the environment has said.

    “These three pieces of legislation are shrinking civic space at a time when the global environment crisis demands that people’s voices be heard,” said David Boyd.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Health workers stage protest to press the PM on pay decision

    Health workers are pressing the prime minister to end their long wait for a pay rise amid continuing anger over the government recommending a 1% increase.

    Fair pay for key workers

    Unison is staging a protest at Westminster on 23 June, saying thousands of health workers across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland will be looking to Boris Johnson to announce his decision in the coming days.

    NHS staff were due a pay rise in April, but ministers said they would await the recommendations of the pay review body, which is expected to deliver its report within days. Last month, health workers across Scotland accepted a pay rise from the Scottish Government worth at least 4% for most staff.

    Unison said it has been 300 days since it wrote to Johnson asking for a £2,000 increase for every NHS worker. General secretary Christina McAnea and head of health Sara Gorton joined health workers outside Parliament on 23 June, holding signs to emphasise that all eyes are on the prime minister to make a decision on pay.

    McAnea said:

    He either has – or will have within days – the evidence gathered by the NHS pay review body. Boris Johnson is now the only person standing between health workers and a wage rise.

    Scottish NHS employees have been recognised by the Government there, which has shown it values everything staff have done this past year. Now it’s the turn of the Westminster Government to demonstrate its support for the NHS. The ball is well and truly in the Prime Minister’s court.

    All along Boris Johnson has had it within his gift to reward NHS staff, but he’s chosen not to, preferring to use the pay review body process as an excuse for delay.

    Further time-wasting runs the risk that more health workers will leave. With the huge backlog of treatments and operations looming over the NHS, that would be disastrous for everyone.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Hungary’s LGBT protests and Juneteenth Day: human rights this fortnight – in pictures

    A roundup of the coverage on struggles for human rights and freedoms from China to Colombia

    Continue reading…

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

  • Tagata Pasifika Special: Celebrating 50 years of the Polynesian Panthers

    Tagata Pasifika

    They were the face of a generation growing up in a new land. They were the Polynesian Panthers, young activists fighting against social and racial injustice in Aotearoa New Zealand.

    Fifty years on, they’re back to share their struggles and triumphs as we look back on their legacy.

    From 1971-1974, the Polynesian Panthers continued to fight for civil, social and legal rights. From their headquarters in Ponsonby, they implemented initiatives to improve the quality of life for Pacific communities.

    The Panthers were also crucial in the fight against the government-sanctioned Dawn Raids where, in the early hours, police would force their way into homes demanding proof of residency, or stop people in the street to ask for permits or passports.

    These immigration tactics were mostly targeted at Pacific people.

    While Tagata Pasifika honours the activism and sacrifice of the Panthers, it also remembers the lasting impact of the Dawn Raids.

    The Panthers have spent the better part of the year working together with the Ministry of Pacific Peoples to obtain an apology from the government.

    This week, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced she will make a formal government apology for the 1970s Dawn Raids next week on June 26 at a commemoration event in the Auckland Town Hall.

    Republished with permission.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Osime Brown’s case is a reflection of the UK’s racist, ableist state and its institutions

    On 15 June, Osime Brown’s mother announced that the Home Office has dropped the deportation case against her 22-year-old autistic son. This is a victory for Brown’s family and all those who campaigned against his planned deportation. But Brown suffered immense trauma at the hands of institutions that should have supported him. His case reflects the injustices that young people, Black people, and autistic people experience due to the UK’s racist, ableist state and its institutions.

    Osime Brown’s case

    Osime Brown is a young, Black, autistic, learning disabled man who suffers from a heart condition. He arrived in the UK when he was four. Brown was facing deportation having been sentenced to five years in prison for a crime he did not commit. He has since been diagnosed with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his ordeal. Explaining the gravity of his situation, Brown’s mother Joan Martin told the Independent: “If he is deported he will die”.

    In February, over 30 MPs signed a letter calling on home secretary Priti Patel to stop the planned deportation. Brown’s mother, and campaign groups such as Free Osime Brown and No More Exclusions, led calls for the Home Office to withdraw Brown’s deportation order. Following protests in London and Glasgow, on 15 June Martin announced that the Home Office has dropped her son’s case. She said:

    To all our wonderful supporters, who have been with us throughout this long, and painful ordeal, who believed in justice, fairness, dignity and a country that is welcoming to everyone, no matter what the colour of their skin: We thank you.

    She added:

    Without you, my family would have been lost and my son, Osime, would have been condemned to a very short and miserable life.

    She concluded:

    I hope this is a reflection and learning curve for people in power, to know that they are dealing with real people, real lives, and when they make wrong choices or decisions people are injured, sometimes to a point of no return.

    A series of institutional failings

    According to Brown’s mother, “his whole life has been like a conveyor belt, from bad to worse” due to negligence by the state and its institutions. She said:

    I trusted Osime’s school, the care services, the police, legal system and the criminal justice system – but they all conspired against him because of his race and disabilities.

    Throughout his life, the systems that should supposedly have supported Brown failed him. These failings cost him his liberty and nearly his life. Growing up, Brown didn’t receive the support he needed from his school and social services. Authorities problematised his needs and later used them to criminalise him. Brown was excluded from school aged 16. He was in care – having been moved 28 times by social services – when he was arrested and imprisoned under the joint enterprise doctrine. In prison he was subjected to racism, ableism, and violence. This led him to self-harm. Following his release from prison, authorities did not issue Brown with a care and support plan. According to Martin, the judge ruling on Brown’s deportation case refused to read his psychological report. Brown’s devastating case reflects the manifold ways in which Black and autistic young people are failed in the UK.

    A prejudiced justice system

    Brown was arrested and imprisoned in 2018 under the joint enterprise doctrine for the theft of a mobile phone. He did not commit this minor crime but witnessed it. The joint enterprise doctrine enables a court to jointly convict an individual for a crime they didn’t commit if they were present or aware it would take place. Highlighting the injustice of the doctrine, grassroots campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association (JENGba) explain:

    With help from the media, there is a shared incorrect narrative that the Joint Enterprise doctrine is about gangs, broken Britain and the ‘alleged’ feral youth that needs to be served justice. This doctrine is a tool used by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to imprison people to mandatory life sentences for crimes committed by others. People can be wrongly charged and convicted when they have been within close proximity of a crime, have a random connection with the actual perpetrator or via text or mistaken phone call or they might not even have been at the scene of the crime.

    According to Law Gazette, a 2016 Supreme Court case found that judges had “wrongly interpreted” the law for 30 years. And campaigners have raised concerns that people who may have been present at a crime, but unaware that it would take place, have been wrongfully prosecuted under joint enterprise. This is particularly true for those with difficulties in foreseeing and avoiding such situations, such as young and autistic people. And research shows that Black defendants are disproportionately charged under the doctrine. Sadly, Brown was charged under this racist, ableist, deeply unjust law.

    A fundamentally flawed immigration law

    Having served time for a crime he did not commit, Brown lost his leave to remain under the 2007 Borders Act. Because he was sentenced to longer than 12 months in prison, the Home Office sought to deport him to Jamaica – a country he hasn’t set foot in since he was four.

    A Home Office spokesperson told the Guardian:

    In order to protect the public it is right that foreign nationals, convicted of crimes with prison sentences of 12 months or more, are automatically considered for deportation under the 2007 Borders Act.

    They added:

    The Home Office reviews all cases when new information is provided and all decisions are made in accordance with the law.

    Brown’s case is not unique. In 2020, the Home Office sought to deport 50 people to Jamaica under the 2007 Borders Act. Campaigners reported that Lionel Shaw, one of the ‘Jamaica 50’ – a partially blind Jamaican man with no criminal convictions – was treated like an ‘animal’ while detained. Meanwhile, solicitor Jacqueline McKenzie has highlighted the ways in which the Home Office has treated victims of the Windrush scandal “with contempt” due to systemic racism. Indeed, the Home Office has been slow to pay compensation to those who lost their jobs, their homes, and access to healthcare.

    In other cases, the Home Office has detained and deported people with a long-standing right to live in the UK. At least 11 of those wrongfully deported have died. Brown’s traumatic experience of detention and threat of deportation was the law working as it’s currently designed to. This situation would not be the case in a humane society.   

    Justice for Osime Brown

    Brown is finally safe and at home with his family, where he belongs. Campaigners are now calling for an enquiry into his wrongful conviction. But justice cannot be served. No amount of backtracking can undo the years of trauma that Brown and his family have endured. And the laws and systems that jeopardised his future continue to destroy the lives of young people, Black people, and autistic people in the UK.

    We must fight to repeal the unjust joint enterprise doctrine and the 2007 Borders Act. More broadly, we need a total transformation of social services and the education, criminal justice, and immigration systems to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society receive the support that they need and deserve. Brown should never have had to endure what he’s experienced. But if we don’t see change, more people most certainly will.

    Featured image via @FreeOsimeBrown/Twitter

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Detroit’s first new assembly line in 30 years will compound pollution in Black neighborhoods

    Over the last few months, Tanisha Burton has developed respiratory issues for the first time in her life. Her shortness of breath landed her in the emergency room in April, where she was prescribed an Albuterol inhaler to manage the problem. Burton lives on Beniteau Street, located in southeast Detroit. Outside her back door is the recently expanded Detroit Assembly Complex — a massive auto-manufacturing facility consisting of two assembly lines pumping out Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Durangos. 

    Burton says the onset of her respiratory issues coincided with the start of construction to expand the plant, which includes the first new auto assembly line in Detroit in 30 years. 

    Respiratory issues aren’t the only thing that has changed in Burton’s life during the expansion. An insurance appraiser recently pointed out that the foundation of her home had moved, likely due to the vibrations and shaking produced by the nearby facility. There’s also a constant foul smell, she said, and noise that wakes her up at all hours of the night. It is almost like “you can smell the pollution in the air,” Burton said, “and I hate waking up at three, four in the morning because I hear all this banging.” 

    The new and expanded auto assembly lines belong to Stellantis, the fourth-largest automaker in the world, created from the merger of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) and Peugeot-maker PSA Group earlier this year. For some Detroiters, the new facility has been a source of excitement and hope. Detroit became known as the “Motor City” because of it’s thriving car-making scene — General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles were all founded in Detroit. But in recent years, some have questioned whether Detroit is still the heart of the automobile industry in the United States, thanks to the sharp decline in manufacturing jobs. Between 2001 and 2017, auto-manufacturing jobs in Metro Detroit declined by 38 percent. The expansion of Stellantis’ facility is estimated to bring 5,000 of those jobs back. 

    Aerial view of Stellantis's Mack Avenue Assembly Complex
    Aerial view of Stellantis’s Mack Avenue Assembly Complex in Detroit. Stellantis

    But there is one major hitch: The complex sits within a low-income and majority Black community in southeast Detroit that is already plagued by pollution from nearby industry, including a General Motors assembly plant, two metal processors, and two major highways that run through the area. 

    As part of the approval for the expansion of the Detroit Assembly Complex, FCA, and later Stellantis, had to ensure it wasn’t increasing its overall emissions in the area. Southeast Michigan is already a nonattainment region for ozone levels, regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Because of this, no additional activities that produce ozone are allowed. So, in order to expand its Detroit facility on the east side, Stellantis agreed to reduce emissions from its existing plant in Warren, a mostly white, higher income city. Stellantis will reduce emissions in Warren by 10 percent, plus the amount the expanded Detroit facility will produce. 

    Activists argue Stellantis’ decision is a clear example of environmental racism — the company chose to reduce harmful air pollutant emissions in a mostly white neighborhood in Warren so that it could increase them in a majority Black neighborhood in Detroit.

    “We’ve bailed out FCA multiple times,” Eden Bloom, an organizer for the advocacy group Detroit People’s Platform and a resident in the neighborhood surrounding the assembly complex, told Grist. “And here we are on the eastside of Detroit, giving them another almost half-a-billion dollars for a plant that is in the middle of a high-poverty, high-asthma, 90 percent-Black neighborhood.” 

    The asthma rate in the neighborhood around the Detroit Assembly Complex is currently three times higher than the state average, and twice as high as Detroit’s. Ozone is a major trigger for asthma attacks and respiratory illness. On June 6, the area had its third ozone action alert this year, which means levels are so high that residents should avoid certain activities and stay inside if they already have a respiratory illness that makes it difficult to breathe. 

    Activists gather to protest Stellantis’ new manufacturing plant in Detroit on June 3. Courtesy of Detroit People’s Platform

    In early June, community organizers and protestors crashed a Stellantis event in Detroit meant to kick off the company’s green initiatives, including its $1 million commitment toward making the eastside neighborhood the greenest in the city and, according to a Stellantis representative, making one of the Detroit Assembly Complex’s facilities the lowest volatile organic compound-emitting plant in the country. In total, Stellantis has committed around $30 million for community benefits, from the construction of a new stormwater park, to tree planting initiatives, to funding a manufacturing career center at the local high school. The company, however, will receive much more than that in tax credits from the state for the expansion project — more than $400 million. 

    Protestors, organizers, and residents all say Stellantis’ green initiatives aren’t enough to make up for the noise, odor, and air pollution that will impact the daily lives and health of the surrounding community. 

    “The community return on investment is really low. It’s an insult,” said Bloom. “And then to do these grandiose gestures and have a press conference and say you’re the greenest thing in southeastern Michigan is just laughable.” 

    “I’m beyond disappointed with all of this,” local resident Robert Shobe told Planet Detroit, a local news outlet. “I think it’s wrong for them to take our tax dollars to kill us.”

    Stellantis is required by state and federal regulation to show that it is in compliance with emissions limits of pollutants at all of its factories, including for volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. But that compliance is self-reported, which has residents concerned given that FCA, before joining with Stellantis, previously lied about its emissions. In 2019, the company was sued by federal regulators for tampering with technology to produce lower emission results, culminating in an $800 million settlement. FCA was also recently found guilty of bribing union leaders, resulting in a $30 million dollar settlement. 

    Community members and environmental activists from Detroit have largely been against the project since it was first announced in 2019, voicing concerns at public comment hearings and protesting. Despite these actions, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, or EGLE, granted the facility the permits needed to expand starting in 2020. 

    A spokesperson for Stellantis defended the decision to reduce emissions at its Warren Truck Assembly Plant while increasing them at the Detroit complex, telling Grist that federal regulations do not require projects to be located at a specific spot within a nonattainment region. The spokesperson also pointed to the company’s green investments and initiatives in the eastside neighborhood, which include home repair grants, an ambient air quality monitoring station, and giving money to the Chandler Park Conservancy. “We are pleased that EGLE has evaluated the Detroit Assembly Complex — the Mack and Jefferson projects — and found that the plants meet air quality rules and regulations,” Kaileen Connelly, the head of Stellantis’ global content hub, told Grist. 

    Media officer Nick Assendelft of EGLE told Grist that modifications were made to the Warren Truck plant instead of the Detroit facility because Warren Truck has historically had higher annual emissions of VOCs compared to the Detroit plant, which installed pollution control technology 10 years ago. But Macomb County, where Warren is located, has close to half the amount of hospitalizations and deaths caused by asthma than Wayne County, where Detroit is located. “Installation of additional control equipment at Jefferson North [in Detroit] would not have created enough offsets; therefore, FCA/Stellantis proposed to install control equipment at Warren Truck,” Assendelft told Grist. 

    A 2021 Jeep Grand Cherokee goes through assembly at the Stellantis Detroit Assembly Complex
    Bill Pugliano / Getty Images

    As a part of the community benefits agreement between FCA, now Stellantis, and Detroit, each house in the areas surrounding the manufacturing facility is eligible for $15,000 for home improvements such as sealing up windows, installing air conditioning, and in some cases fixing roofs — measures that can help keep air pollution out of people’s homes. But residents say the money isn’t sufficient to protect them from the impacts of increased emissions from the plants. “It’s not enough to seal up the house and make it safe,” said Bloom of Detroit People’s Platform. 

    Burton said there were restrictions on the money that Stellantis gave residents, and she wasn’t able to make all the repairs she needed to. “You could only use their [city-approved] contractors, you couldn’t use anybody else,” Burton said. “The bids were so high.” With the $15,000 she was given, she fixed her roof, but was unable to also fix her foundation, replace her windows, and soundproof her house. 

    Some community leaders have proposed that Stellantis use a powder-based paint on the automobiles it is manufacturing, which would help reduce VOC emissions from the Detroit facility. But in response to a public comment, EGLE argued that a powder paint would result in quality differences on the vehicle and would require a complete redesign, which would be cost prohibitive. 

    Bloom said, “It all comes down to the bottom line. And in order for them to implement the right machinery, the proper equipment, and anything else that they would need to reduce those emissions further would shift their bottom line — their profit margins.” 

    Burton said Stellantis, “wants to show this [facility] off to the world, but they’re not including the residents,” such as valuing their opinions. “We’re appreciative of what they did offer us, but we need help in other areas and they should make sure we are safe across the board.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Detroit’s first new assembly line in 30 years will compound pollution in Black neighborhoods on Jun 17, 2021.

    This post was originally published on Grist.