Basketball star Brittney Griner landed in the United States early Friday after nearly 10 months of detention in Russia. Griner was freed Thursday in a dramatic prisoner swap between the United States and Russia, with the Biden administration agreeing to free Viktor Bout, a convicted Russian arms dealer who was serving a 25-year sentence. Griner had been held in Russia since February…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The Commons has passed the Public Order Bill, which is now with the House of Lords at committee stage. It’s probably one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation to have ever passed through parliament. Because, once it’s law, every protest in the country will be threatened with penalties more likely to be found in a authoritarian regime.
The government explains that the Public Order Bill:
builds on the public order measures in Part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 which, amongst other things, updates the powers in the 1986 [Public Order] Act enabling the police to impose conditions on a protest, provides for a statutory offence of intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance and increases the maximum penalty for the offence of wilful obstruction of a highway.
The government admits that the Public Order Bill is but another attempt at getting through legislation previously blocked by the upper house:
The government had originally sought to include the majority of the measures provided for in the Public Order Bill in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but the government’s amendments to that Bill were blocked by the House of Lords.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSC Act) became law in April. At the time, the Canary published an article summarising its key points.
The Public Order Bill introduces several new offences.
They include “locking-on” and going equipped to lock-on, thus criminalising “the protest tactic of individuals attaching themselves to others, objects or buildings to cause serious disruption”. The penalty for locking-on is a maximum “of six months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both”. And “the maximum penalty for the offence of going equipped to lock-on will be an unlimited fine”.
“Tunnelling” is also criminalised. This includes “creating a tunnel, participating in creating a tunnel and being present in a tunnel”. The “maximum penalties for these offences will be 3 years imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both”. Going equipped for tunnelling is also an offence, leading up to “6-months imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both”.
The bill also extends stop and search powers. This will enable police to search for and seize “items which are made, adapted or intended to be used in connection with protest-related offences”. They include items that can be used for tunnelling or locking-on. The police may also be authorised to “conduct a stop and search without the need for suspicion”.
Even more controversially, the new legislation will reverse the presumption of innocence in certain instances. Parliament’s Joint Committee for Human Rights observed that this contravenes European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) article 6:
By imposing an unnecessary reversal of the burden of proof they also appear to be inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and the Article 6 ECHR right to a fair trial.
Then there’s clause 6 of the bill, which criminalises any attempt to obstruct transport works. Clause 7, meanwhile, states it’s an offence to “interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure”.
Perhaps one of the more draconian parts of the bill concerns Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOS). These will be used to prevent people from taking part in a protest, including forcing them to wear electronic tags.
The government explains:
[SDPOS] may include prohibiting an individual from being in a particular place, being with particular people, having particular articles in their possession and using the internet to facilitate or encourage person to commit a protest-related offence
Netpol observed that SDPOS can be used:
to seek out and target people whom the police perceive as key organisers and to potentially ban them from attending, organising, or promoting protests seen as “disruptive to two or more individuals or to an organisation” for two years or more, even if they have never been convicted of a crime.
Furthermore, the state may decide they become guilty of a crime if they break the rules of the order in any way – or even fail to notify the police that they are staying somewhere else.
Netpol added that SDPO-imposed conditions can include:
- Not associating with named people
- Not going to certain areas
- Banning people from attending protests
- Reporting to a police station at certain times
- Not participating in certain activities
- Not using the internet to commit a protest-related offence or to “carry out activities related to a protest that result in, or are likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales”.
In a video, journalist George Monbiot bluntly described the bill as a “tool of dictators”:
You don't protest, so you think the Public Order Bill – the most repressive legislation of the modern era – doesn't affect you?
If so, I'm sorry to say that you couldn't be more wrong.
*Please* watch this. You need to know. pic.twitter.com/xYmAUwOzZK— George Monbiot (@GeorgeMonbiot) November 18, 2022
And Greens leader Caroline Lucas described the bill as heralding “a police state by stealth”:
Britain is becoming a police state by stealth. The draconian & deeply undemocratic #PublicOrderBill just cleared the Commons – 283 in favour, 234 against. Ironically, can only hope the unelected Lords will stand up against this dangerous & populist Govt and vote it down.
— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) October 18, 2022
Moreover, Jeremy Corbyn said he would vote against the “draconian” bill:
Today, I’ll be voting against the Public Order Bill.
This draconian piece of legislation is an authoritarian attack on our democratic right to protest.
As the government desperately tries to quash dissent, our message is clear: we aren’t going anywhere. pic.twitter.com/DMyiaCzZwc
— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) October 18, 2022
Unsurprisingly, provisions in the bill have been compared with civil liberties’ restrictions normally found in authoritarian regimes.
Legal rights charity Justice commented:
The Bill is unlikely to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression) and Article 11 ECHR (freedom of assembly and association)
It adds:
In sum, the Bill would serve to give the police carte blanche to target protesters – similar laws can be found in Russia and Belarus.
Tory MP Charles Walker made a comparable observation:
The idea that in this country, we are going to ankle tag someone who has not been convicted in a court of law… I mean, I tell you what, those Chinese in their embassy will be watching this very closely at the moment, they might actually be applying for some of this stuff when we pass it in this place as I suspect we will.
There’s also this comment from the South China Morning Post:
The UK government’s tougher measures against disruptive protests stands in contrast to its critical position of Beijing’s policies on Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong government’s response to the social unrest of 2019.
Amnesty International summed up the dangers presented by the proposed legislation:
Granting powers to seek sweeping injunctions against peaceful protest activity to government ministers is particularly concerning, as these powers will inevitably be used in politicised and knee-jerk ways. The government of the day will be able to pick and choose which protests it does and doesn’t approve of and seek sweeping banning orders, backed up by the prospect of hefty prison sentences, to stop them.
Elsewhere in the document, Amnesty made clear its view of the bill:
Amnesty’s assessment is that the PO Bill would leave the UK in breach of international human rights law.
Though the current government may not care a whit about that.
Featured image via Unsplash cropped 770×403 pixels
By Tom Coburg
Protests have been raging in Iran since mid-September in response to the death of Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman who died in a hospital in Tehran after being arrested a few days earlier by Iran’s morality police for allegedly breaching the Islamic theocratic regime’s dress code for women. Protesters are widely describing her death as murder perpetrated by the police (the suspicion is that she died from blows to the body), but Iran’s Forensic Organization has denied that account in an official medical report.
Since September, the protests — led by women of all ages in defiance not only of the mandatory dress codes but also against gender violence and state violence of all kinds — have spread to at least 50 cities and towns. Just this week, prominent actors and sports teams have joined the burgeoning protest movement, which is reaching into all sectors of Iranian society.
Women in Iran have a long history of fighting for their rights. They were at the forefront of the 1979 revolution that led to the fall of the Pahlavi regime, though they enjoyed far more liberties under the Shah than they would after the Ayatollah Khomeini took over. As part of Khomeini’s mission to establish an Islamic theocracy, it was decreed immediately after the new regime was put in place that women were henceforth mandated to wear the veil in government offices. Iranian women organized massive demonstrations when they heard that the new government would enforce mandatory veiling. But the theocratic regime that replaced the Shah was determined to quash women’s autonomy. “In 1983, Parliament decided that women who do not cover their hair in public will be punished with 74 lashes,” the media outlet Deutsche Welle reports. “Since 1995, unveiled women can also be imprisoned for up to 60 days.”
But today’s protests are a display of opposition not just to certain laws but to the entire theocratic system in Iran: As Frieda Afary reported for Truthout, protesters have chanted that they want “neither monarchy, nor clergy.” And as Sima Shakhsari writes, the protests are also about domestic economic policies whose effects have been compounded by U.S. sanctions.
The protests have engulfed much of the country and are now supported by workers across industries, professionals like doctors and lawyers, artists and shopkeepers. In response, the regime is intensifying its violent crackdown on protesters and scores of artists, filmmakers and journalists have been arrested or banned from work over their support for the anti-government protests.
Is this a revolution in the making? Noam Chomsky sheds insight on this question and more in the exclusive interview below. Chomsky is institute professor emeritus in the department of linguistics and philosophy at MIT and laureate professor of linguistics and Agnese Nelms Haury Chair in the Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona. One of the world’s most-cited scholars and a public intellectual regarded by millions of people as a national and international treasure, Chomsky has published more than 150 books in linguistics, political and social thought, political economy, media studies, U.S. foreign policy and world affairs. His latest books are The Secrets of Words (with Andrea Moro; MIT Press, 2022); The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power (with Vijay Prashad; The New Press, 2022); and The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic and the Urgent Need for Social Change (with C.J. Polychroniou; Haymarket Books, 2021).
C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, Iranian women started these protests over the government’s Islamic policies, especially those around dress codes, but the protests seem now to be about overall reform failures on the part of the regime. The state of the economy, which is in a downward spiral, also seems to be one of the forces sending people into the streets with demands for change. In fact, teachers, shopkeepers and workers across industries have engaged in sit-down strikes and walkouts, respectively, amid the ongoing protests. Moreover, there seems to be unity between different ethnic subgroups that share public anger over the regime, which may be the first time that this has happened since the rise of the Islamic Republic. Does this description of what’s happening in Iran in connection with the protests sound fairly accurate to you? If so, is it also valid to speak of a revolution in the making?
Noam Chomsky: It sounds accurate to me, though it may go too far in speaking of a revolution in the making.
What’s happening is quite remarkable, in scale and intensity and particularly in the courage and defiance in the face of brutal repression. It is also remarkable in the prominent leadership role of women, particularly young women.
The term “leadership” may be misleading. The uprising seems to be leaderless, also without clearly articulated broader goals or platform apart from overthrowing a hated regime. On that matter words of caution are in order. We have very little information about public opinion in Iran, particularly about attitudes in the rural areas, where support for the clerical regime and its authoritarian practice may be much stronger.
Regime repression has been much harsher in the areas of Iran populated by Kurdish and Baluchi ethnic minorities. It’s generally recognized that much will depend on how Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei will react. Those familiar with his record anticipate that his reaction will be colored by his own experience in the resistance that overthrew the Shah in 1979. He may well share the view of U.S. and Israeli hawks that if the Shah had been more forceful, and had not vacillated, he could have suppressed the protests by violence. Israel’s de facto Ambassador to Iran, Uri Lubrani, expressed their attitude clearly at the time: “I very strongly believe that Tehran can be taken over by a very relatively small force, determined, ruthless, cruel. I mean the men who would lead that force will have to be emotionally geared to the possibility that they’d have to kill ten thousand people.”
Similar views were expressed by former CIA director Richard Helms, Carter high Pentagon official Robert Komer, and other hard-liners. It is speculated that Khamenei will adopt a similar stance, ordering considerably more violent repression if the protests proceed.
As to the effects, we can only speculate with little confidence.
In the West, the protests are widely interpreted as part of a continuous struggle for a secular, democratic Iran but with complete omission of the fact that the current revolutionary forces in Iran are opposing not only the reactionary government in Tehran but also neoliberal capitalism and the hegemony of the U.S. The Iranian government, on the other hand, which is using brutal tactics to disperse demonstrations across the country, is blaming the protests on “foreign hands.” To what extent should we expect to see interaction of foreign powers with domestic forces in Iran? After all, such interaction played a major role in the shaping and fate of the protests that erupted in the Arab world in 2010 and 2011.
There can hardly be any doubt that the U.S. will provide support for efforts to undermine the regime, which has been a prime enemy since 1979, when the U.S.-backed tyrant who was re-installed by the U.S. by a military coup in 1953 was overthrown in a popular uprising. The U.S. at once gave strong support to its then-friend Saddam Hussein in his murderous assault against Iran, finally intervening directly to ensure Iran’s virtual capitulation, an experience not forgotten by Iranians, surely not by the ruling powers.
When the war ended, the U.S. imposed harsh sanctions on Iran. President Bush I — the statesman Bush — invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the U.S. for advanced training in nuclear weapons development and sent a high-level delegation to assure Saddam of Washington’s strong support for him. All very serious threats to Iran.
Punishment of Iran has continued since and remains bipartisan policy, with little public debate. Britain, Iran’s traditional torturer before the U.S. displaced it in the 1953 coup that overthrew Iranian democracy, is likely, as usual, to trail obediently behind the U.S., perhaps other allies. Israel surely will do what it can to overthrow its archenemy since 1979 — previously a close ally under the Shah, though the intimate relations were clandestine.
Both the U.S. and the European Union imposed new sanctions on Iran over the crackdown on protests. Haven’t sanctions against Iran been counterproductive? In fact, don’t sanctioned regimes tend to become more authoritarian and repressive, with ordinary people being hurt much more than those in power?
We always have to ask: Counterproductive for whom? Sanctions do typically have the effect you describe and would be “counterproductive” if the announced goals — always noble and humane — had anything to do with the real ones. That’s rarely the case.
The sanctions have severely harmed the Iranian economy, incidentally causing enormous suffering. But that has been the U.S. goal for over 40 years. For Europe it’s a different matter. European business sees Iran as an opportunity for investment, trade and resource extraction, all blocked by the U.S. policy of crushing Iran.
The same in fact is true of corporate America. This is one of the rare and instructive cases — Cuba is another — where the short-term interests of the owners of the society are not “most peculiarly attended to” by the government they largely control (to borrow Adam Smith’s term for the usual practice). The government, in this case, pursues broader class interests, not tolerating “dangerous” independence of its will. That’s an important matter, which, in the case of Iran, goes back in some respects to Washington’s early interest in Iran in 1953. And in the case of Cuba goes back to its liberation in 1959.
One final question: What impact could the protests have across the Middle East?
It depends very much on the outcome, still up in the air. I don’t see much reason to expect a major effect, whatever the outcome. Shiite Iran is quite isolated in the largely Sunni region. The Sunni dictatorships of the Gulf are slightly mending fences with Iran, much to the displeasure of Washington, but they are hardly likely to be concerned with brutal repression, their own way of life.
A successful popular revolution would doubtless concern them and might “spread contagion,” as Kissingerian rhetoric puts it. But that remains too remote a contingency for now to allow much useful speculation.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Below, for the local newspaper, the Newport News Times. (without the images, etc.) Below that, more on this reprehensible genocidal black death Black Friday day!
The First No-Thanks Thanksgiving
Trigger Warning (noun): a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc., alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material
This hoopla around Turkey Day — this so-called Big Box Store Shuffle and Great American Pig-out Thanksgiving — is a National Day of Mourning.
I was not my history teacher’s favorite student in high school when I wrote essays on my country’s hypocrisy of football, apple pie and Thanksgiving while never facing the genocide against the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island. I was called a traitor, self-loathing white and un-American when I pointed out the war against the “Indians” didn’t officially end until 1924, more than thirty years after the massacre at Wounded Knee (1890).
When I was teaching in El Paso, I got mired in a push to commemorate the “first” thanksgiving here, in Paseo del Norte. El Paso laid claim to the first undocumented/illegal settlement in North America in the form of Conquistadors and Friars.
In 1598 the Spanish explorer, Don Juan de Oñate, and his army established the first European colony in North America. The settlement was located at San Gabriel near Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo, 30 miles north of Santa Fe.
I’ve been there, and the double-edge sword of breaking bread and pavo (turkey) with the Spanish interlopers is quaint for the people of El Paso looking for tourism bucks.
However, like the Plymouth Rock celebration of 1621, this Texas one represents a foreboding of genocide. I’ve been to that “celebration.” This El Paso organization declared this first Thanksgiving took place, near San Elizario, Texas. Oñate and his battalion of soldiers, Franciscan missionaries and colonists, celebrated their safe arrival on April 30, 1598.
That same year, the Spanish colonial governor de Oñate put 507 Acoma on trial. Women between 12 and 25 were enslaved for 20 years at the Pueblo of Ohkay Owingeh. Men over age of 25 had one foot cut off, and younger men were enslaved for 20 years. Oñate was later tried for excessive cruelty.
Switching to my Canadian roots, I absorbed more revised history. As a kid, I learned of that country’s treatment of Indigenous peoples since my mother was a journalist in Vancouver who reported on stories about Canada’s maltreatment of their First Nations. On September 30, 2021 Canada established a statutory holiday observation of Orange Shirt Day. This is a remembrance of missing and murdered children from residential schools as well as a process of healing for survivors.
It’s sort of a truth and reconciliation moment to raise consciousness about the residential school system and its impact on Indigenous communities for over a century. Hundreds of children were buried in unmarked graves at just one residential site, where my sister lived, Kamloops, BC. Thousands of other graves are located throughout Canada.
Then, in my Arizona high school days, I was “adopted” by some Apache friends and their families. Starting then – as their aunties and uncles were active in the American Indian Movement and Red Nation – I’d been to various events decrying the Plymouth Rock myth. For me, since age 15, Thanksgiving has been a Day of Mourning for Indigenous Peoples who were devastated by settler colonialism and imperialism.
The National Day of Mourning protest was founded by Wamsutta Frank James, an Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribal member, and other Indigenous men and women. In 1970, Wamsutta had been invited by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to speak at a banquet commemorating the 350th anniversary of the arrival of the Pilgrims. The organizers of the banquet thought Wamsutta might deliver an honorific tribute singing the praises of the American settler colonial project. He was not about to “thanks” the Pilgrims for bringing “civilization” to the Wampanoag.
The speech that Wamsutta wrote, which was based on historical fact instead of the hollow fiction, portrayed in the Thanksgiving myth asked fundamental questions: What are the foundational myths of the United States? Who created them and who is erased and harmed?
He detailed how the English before 1620 brought diseases that caused a “Great Dying.” They took Wampanoag people captive, selling them as slaves in Europe for 220 shillings apiece. The Pilgrims robbed Wampanoag graves immediately upon landing in Massachusetts. Yes, there was a meal provided largely by the Wampanoag in 1621, but it was not a “thanksgiving.” Rather, the first official “thanksgiving” (not including the San Elizario one) was declared by the Puritans (not the Pilgrims) in 1637 to celebrate massacring hundreds of Pequot men, women and children on the banks of the Mystic River in Connecticut.
When the organizers of the celebration read the speech, they suppressed it. One of the more powerful messages in it was a collective message of Native American pride: “Our spirit refuses to die,” wrote Wamsutta. “Yesterday we walked the woodland paths and sandy trails. Today we must walk the macadam highways and roads. We are uniting… We stand tall and proud, and before too many moons pass we’ll right the wrongs we have allowed to happen to us.” (RIP, James, an elder of great weight)
Much of these histories – massacres of women and children, the enslavement of men, the amputation of feet, and the death of children ripped from families and forced into these “schools” – cannot be taught in K12, as there are no “trigger warnings” strong enough to “protect” youth from the truth. I’ve had young people complain to administrators for the negative and horrific stories a substitute brings to the high school class.
Going back to mythologies and Disneyfied presentations of history is not just retrograde; it’s dangerous. Having faculty like myself being charged with “teaching anti-white critical race theory junk” is also McCarthyite.
Thank goodness for some of my activist friends in El Paso who years ago did some statue editing: they chopped off the bronze foot of Don Onate as he is poised on a Spanish steed high above his slaves. The foot has never been found.
Part Two
Amazing curriculum,
The revised edition of Native People of Wisconsin introduces students to the historical background, cultural traditions, and treaties negotiated by the eleven federally-recognized Indian Nations in the state today, the Brothertown Indians, a group still waiting to regain federal recognition, and urban Indians. This is serious material, the only mandated subject in social studies instruction in Wisconsin.
Author Patty Loew is a member of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Ojibwe Nation, who based Native People of Wisconsin on the research done for Indian Nations of Wisconsin, now in its second edition, which is written for a general audience. She strongly feels the responsibility to help students gain knowledge of Indian Country from a Native perspective and from the perspective of each major tribal group represented in Wisconsin’s current population.
The authors of this accompanying teacher’s guide want you to feel confident and comfortable teaching about Native people even if you don’t have much firsthand knowledge. Of course, you and your students have been inundated with images of Indian people, and it’s important that you help your students separate the reality from the stereotypical or mythical, positive and negative. We are happy to direct instructors to real stories from Native communities in videos produced by The Ways: Stories on Culture and Language from Native Communities Around the Central Great Lakes. This online educational resource is a production of Wisconsin Media Lab. The videos are integrated into many of the activities we’ve included and are linked to their corresponding activities in the Table of Contents. Educators may use this video content in conjunction with these Student Activities: Learning from My Elders; Food That Grows on the Water; Oneida Language & Culture; Boarding Schools; Native Songs and Dances (source)
Yet, if this post were to be read by the same people reading my short piece, the one above, with the post’s title, “The First No-Thanks Thanksgiving,” which I hope will appear in the Newport News Times, what kind of backlash would I receive?
Tons of writers or bots or both calling me a kook or loony or anti-business or self-hating when I weigh in on various alternative news sites.
Bottom line is we need more nuance, more critical thinking, and more people who can be counter-intuitive and have several theses, sometimes contradictory, while holding onto strong ethical frame works. I can be for the Declaration of Human Rights, a la United Nations, but I can also be opposed to many of the UN’s programs, people, representatives.
I can see the amazing forward thinking of say The Earth Charter, but I can also think hard about systems, how we need more than a charter, and we need true communism with people power, planet power, thinking and acting globally but also living and organizing and doing locally and regionally.
How can we not engage positively with this?
We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.
Alas, though, any sort of collective and creative and earth and people centric thinking will be attacked. Any thinking around just what happened to Native Americans over the course of almost 600 years, that is not heretical.
Just what was that Union Pacific Railroad all about? Mr. Durant, getting how many millions of acres for that transcontinental feat? How many millions of buffalo slaughtered — “shot from the comfort of your railcar” Indian Killing, err, Buffalo Killing, trips?
The telegram arrived in New York from Promontory Summit, Utah, at 3:05 p.m. on May 10, 1869, announcing one of the greatest engineering accomplishments of the century:
The last rail is laid; the last spike driven; the Pacific Railroad is completed. The point of junction is 1086 miles west of the Missouri river and 690 miles east of Sacramento City.
Back in Utah, railroad officials and politicians posed for pictures aboard locomotives, shaking hands and breaking bottles of champagne on the engines as Chinese laborers from the West and Irish, German and Italian laborers from the East were budged from view. (source)
Oh, that was General Sheridan’s concept of Total War, which he utilized heading to Atlanta: three hundred miles of immolated towns, farms, livestock, crops, everything. He now was with President Grant attempting to take care of the “Indian Problem.” Imagine that, more than 120 years ago, utilizing the concept of destroying great people like the Lakota using psychology as a weapon.
Harper’s Weekly described these hunting excursions:
Nearly every railroad train which leaves or arrives at Fort Hays on the Kansas Pacific Railroad has its race with these herds of buffalo; and a most interesting and exciting scene is the result. The train is “slowed” to a rate of speed about equal to that of the herd; the passengers get out fire-arms which are provided for the defense of the train against the Indians, and open from the windows and platforms of the cars a fire that resembles a brisk skirmish. Frequently a young bull will turn at bay for a moment. His exhibition of courage is generally his death-warrant, for the whole fire of the train is turned upon him, either killing him or some member of the herd in his immediate vicinity.
I just finished the eight-part series, The American West, a Robert Redford production. Jesse James, Billy the Kid, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Wyatt Earp, Custer. Durant is also a character in the dramatized documentary. Seeing John McCain yammering away about Indigenous peoples in this series takes some acid reflux pills, but then, Tom Selleck, and Kiefer Sutherland and Burt Reynolds?
Producers Stephen David and Tim Kelly:
What prompted you to explore the West in your latest series?
Stephen: We found that after the Civil War – the series focuses on the 25 years after the Civil War – the country was broken and divided, but 25 years later we wound up with this unified country with the same good-bad similarities going on throughout the country. Big business ran things. The American spirit that we have today came from this 25-year period. The lawman, the outlaws, the Army, the Native Americans – everything that was mixed up in this time period – contributed to who we are today.
Tell us what we can expect from the episodes.
Tim: You can expect an unknown story of the West and how the West was settled. It’s a lot of names that you know with a lot of unknown stories. You’ll see the way everything was connected and how the push West was shaped by the Civil War and the opportunity that was available. It’s a very personal story. It focuses on a group of people who aren’t necessarily directly connected, but the effect of what they do is seen throughout the West and how it is formed. There’s also focus on the Native Americans. It’s a mix of outlaws, politicians and Native Americans and the roles they played settling the West.
Yeah, I was a reporter in Tombstone, for the University of Arizona lab paper, The Tombstone Epitaph. I then was a graduated BA/BS working in Bisbee, Cochise County and along the border on both sides of the dividing line.
I was a reporter and teacher and activist in El Paso, and Las Cruces, and had tequila and empanadas on the grave of John Wesley Hardin in Concordia Cemetery.
In the mix, of course, with all these documentaries and dramas the Native Americans are either completely washed out of these stories, or set into a white man’s milieu. I’ve studied graduate courses on “planning in the West,” you know, urban and regional planning. Looking at the West as a unique place in the USA, with a large chunk of the planning course looking at water, Indian sovereignty, and more.
“One cannot be pessimistic about the West. This is the native home of hope. When it fully learns that cooperation, not rugged individualism, is the quality that most characterizes and preserves it, then it will have achieved itself and outlived its origins. Then it has a chance to create a society to match its scenery.”
Boom and bust, the West. In 2022, the West is all about sinking and shrinking waterways and reservoirs and fires and population influxes and the same snake oil salesmen I ran into in Tucson and throughout Arizona, New Mexico and West Texas.
I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place. He put in your heart certain wishes and plans, in my heart he put other and different desires. Each man is good in his sight. It is not necessary for Eagles to be Crows.
–Sitting Bull, Hunkpapa Lakota chief. God Is Red: A Native View of Religion by Vine Deloria
They want us to give up another chunk of our tribal land. This is not the first time or the last time. They will again try to gain possession of the last piece of ground we possess.
— Sitting Bull, speech against Sioux Bill of 1889
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
On 18 November, protesters in Iran chanted anti-regime slogans at the funeral of a young boy whose family say was killed by security forces.
His mother told the funeral ceremony that Kian was shot on Wednesday by the security forces. However, Iranian officials have insisted he was killed in a “terrorist” attack carried out by an extremist group.
According to a video posted by 1500tasvir, Kian’s mother said:
Hear it from me myself on how the shooting happened, so they can’t say it was by terrorists because they’re lying.
Maybe they thought we wanted to shoot or something and they peppered the car with bullets… Plain clothes forces shot my child. That is it.
Ridiculing the official version of events, the protesters chanted: “Basij, Sepah – you are our ISIS!” according to a video posted by IHR. The Basij is a pro-government paramilitary force. ‘Sepah’ is another name for Iran’s feared Revolutionary Guards. ‘ISIS’ is an alternative name for the extremist Islamic State (IS) group.
“Death to Khamenei,” they shouted in another video posted by 1500tasvir, referring to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Opposition media based outside of Iran said that another minor, 14-year-old Sepehr Maghsoudi, was also shot dead in similar circumstances in Izeh on Wednesday 16 November.
Funerals have repeatedly become flashpoints for protests in the movement that started after the 16 September death of Mahsa Amini. Mahsa had been arrested by the Tehran morality police.
Hadi Ghaemi, director of the New York-based Center for Human Rights in Iran said:
Kian Pirfalak, nine, and Sepehr Maghsoudi, 14, are among at least 56 kids killed by Iranian forces working to crush Iran’s 2022 Revolution.
IHR also said that anti-regime slogans were chanted at the funeral of Aylar Haghi in the northern city of Tabriz. Haghi was a young medical student whom the activists say was killed in a fall from a building. The fall was blamed on the security forces.
A number of human rights groups have expressed extreme concern at the treatment of protestors. Earlier this month, Human Rights Watch reported that they had:
documented security forces’ unlawful use of excessive or lethal force including shotguns, assault rifles, and handguns against protesters in largely peaceful and often crowded settings in 13 cities across the country.
The United Nations Human Rights Council urged Iran to stop giving protesters death sentences:
UN experts today urged Iranian authorities to stop indicting people with charges punishable by death for participation, or alleged participation, in peaceful demonstrations.
They further specified:
On 6 November, in blatant violation of the separation of powers, 227 members of Parliament called on the judiciary to act decisively against people arrested during the protests and to carry out punishment carrying the death penalty.
The community of states have a moral obligation to stand with the people of Iran and not to remain silent in the face of such blatant violations of fundamental human rights and crimes under international law.
Featured image via YouTube screenshot/The Independent
Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse
This post was originally published on Canary.
Egyptian authorities have arrested hundreds in a crackdown on dissenting voices ahead of COP27, the U.N. climate conference which starts Sunday in Sharm El-Sheikh. Fifteen Nobel laureates have signed an open letter asking world leaders to pressure Egypt into releasing its many political prisoners, including human rights activist Alaa Abd El-Fattah, who plans to intensify his six-month hunger strike by forgoing water on the opening day of the climate summit. “He’s organizing all of us from his prison cell,” says Democracy Now! correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, Democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. joined by Democracy Now! cohost Nermeen Shaikh. Hi, Nermeen.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Hi, Amy, and welcome to our listeners and viewers across the country and around the world.
AMY GOODMAN: Egypt has launched a crackdown on civil society just days before the U.N. climate summit begins in Sharm el-Sheikh. Hundreds have been arrested. This is Mohamed Lotfy, the director of the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms.
MOHAMED LOTFY: [translated] What we see is toughening of the security grip, even on the civilians passing by on the streets, an interference in their personal lives and breaching their privacy by forcing them to open up their mobile phones and inspecting their political views on social media…the Egyptian government is always concerned about its image and the best way to improve Egypt’s image is to improve its human rights record, because the international media will all be focused on Egypt during COP27.
AMY GOODMAN: Rights activists say Egyptian authorities published guidelines limiting protests during COP27 to designated zones and will require 36 hours advance notice. This week Egyptian authorities released Indian climate activist Ajit Rajagopal after detaining him on his March For Our Planet from Cairo to Sharm el-Sheikh. He described his detention.
AJIT RAJAGOPAL: I was kept there for hours and hours and the whole night. I was not—they were not informed me well what is the charge against me, what are they going to do, what should I—how can I help them in the process. Nothing was being informed, and even not even I didn’t get any food from them as well, even water as well.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as the family of 47-year-old Egyptian political prisoner Alaa Al-Salami says they have been told he has died in prison after two months on complete hunger strike to protest his conditions. Fifteen Nobel laureates have signed on to a letter to world leaders attending the climate summit, asking them to “devote part of your agenda to the many thousands of political prisoners held in Egypt’s prisons—most urgently, the Egyptian-British writer and philosopher, Alaa Abd el-Fattah, now six months into a hunger strike and at risk of death.” The majority of the Nobel literature laureates since 1986 signed the letter.
Alaa Abd el-Fattah will begin a complete hunger strike, forgoing even water, on the opening day of COP27. He has already been on a hunger strike for more than 200 days. As we broadcast today in New York, his family is about to hold a news conference on efforts to free him. Meanwhile in the latest news, 56 U.S. lawmakers have sent a letter to President Biden saying Egypt’s capacity to address critical climate demands is “undercut by its refusal to allow the meaningful participation of environmental and civil society groups, activists and those most impacted by the climate crisis.” This is State Department spokesperson Ned Price being questioned Wednesday.
REPORTER: On Egypt, do you have any comment on the death of Alaa Al-Salami, in Egypt prison, [inaudible] hunger strike to protest the conditions of his detention? And any reaction to the hunger strike that Alaa Abd el-Fattah has started today?
NED PRICE: We are closely following the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah. We have followed it throughout his pretrial detention, his conviction and his subsequent and current incarceration. We have raised repeated concerns about this case and his conditions in detention with the government of Egypt. We have made very clear at the highest levels, including at the very highest levels, to the Egyptian government, that progress on protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, that will buoy, it will bolster, it will reinforce, ultimately it will strengthen our bilateral relationship with Egypt.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we are joined by Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent and a reporter for the Egypt-based Mada Masr. Sharif, welcome back to Democracy Now! If you can give us the latest news? Again, as we speak, Alaa’s sisters are about to hold a news conference in London where they have been holding a sit-in for weeks. Can you talk about what is happening and the response of the U.S. government? Because President Biden will be in Sharm el-Sheikh at the UN climate summit on November 11th, next Friday.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That’s right, Amy. As we are going to air right now, both of Alaa’s sisters, Sanaa and Mona, are about to hold a press conference. They have been camped out there since the 18th of October. Last night James Cleverly, the British foreign minister, did meet with them. He tweeted out that he is working tirelessly to help secure the release of Alaa. While this is encouraging that he finally did meet with Sanaa and Mona after so many days waiting outside his office—and we have to remember Alaa is a British citizen, and so are Mona and Sanaa, and that is why the British government is being called on to intervene—that this kind of language has been used before. Boris Johnson when he was prime minister spoke to al-Sisi, and we still haven’t seen any kind of change. Alaa hasn’t been granted a consular visit by British officials in prison. And I think unless there’s really top-level intervention—the new British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is attending the climate summit—we will have to see what happens.
Alaa, in a letter to his family, announced that he was on a partial hunger strike for many months, consuming just 100 calories a day which is like a spoonful of honey and tea and that was helping to sustain his hunger strike. He stopped taking that on Tuesday, so he is back on a full hunger strike. And on Sunday, he is going to essentially stop drinking water. And the body cannot last very long without water. So Sanaa is—if it gets to that point, if he is not released, Alaa will do this. Sanaa is planning to travel to Sharm el-Sheikh, to the climate summit, if that happens, as an official delegate. And so she will go and she will hold an event on the eighth with the secretary-general of Amnesty International, and the executive director of Human Rights Watch, and with the German climate envoy, to help put pressure on the government to release Alaa.
You mentioned in the lede that a prisoner, Alaa Al-Salami, just died in prison, in the Badr 3 so-called rehabilitation center, a prison, a new prison. He was on hunger strike for two months. He died, what they said was medical neglect and because of his hunger strike. We have to remember back in early 2020, an American citizen, Mustafa Kassem, who was imprisoned unjustly for six years in Egypt, he was an Egyptian-American dual national, he was on hunger strike for many months. He decided to go on a water strike on a Friday. He was taken to the hospital when he decided to—refused to take liquids, and he was pronounced dead on Monday. So this is extremely serious.
Alaa’s sisters say he is not bluffing. He is fueled by hope to be reunited with his family and also by rage at the last nine years that have been stolen from his life. And I think he very clearly understands the timing of this and what he is doing. He is organizing all of us from his prison cell. He is using his body, the only thing he has agency over, to inject some sense of meaning into this moment, with this climate summit, and to spur us all into action. And he is I think done with prison. He won’t serve these five years. He is done with it. And he’s trying to I think also organize the meaning and the impact, if it gets to that, of his death.
Let me just end, this thing on Alaa, he wrote this letter to his family announcing his plans for the water strike. I’ll just read a short translated portion of it. He said, “If one wished for death, then a hunger strike would not be a struggle. If one were only holding onto life out of instinct, then what is the point of a strike? If you’re postponing death only out of shame at your mother’s tears, then you’re decreasing the chances of victory. I have taken”—and then he goes on to say—”I have taken a decision to escalate at a time I see as fitting for my struggle for my freedom, and the freedom of prisoners of a conflict they have no part in or they’re trying to exit from. For the victims of a regime that is unable to handle its crises except with oppression, unable to reproduce itself except through incarceration. The decision was taken while I am flooded with your love and longing for your company. Much love, until we meet soon, Alaa.”
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Has anyone been able to visit Alaa? From what he says he is longing for their company, so I assume not. Is he able to see a lawyer? Also, you said that high-level intervention is required to secure his release. Has there been any response at all from Egyptian authorities?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Alaa gets, as many prisoners do, one visit by one family member once a month for 20 minutes behind a glass barrier. They are not allowed to touch him or hug him. He doesn’t visit with lawyers. Only immediate family members are allowed to visit him. The Egyptian government has not addressed this publicly, Alaa’s imprisonment. They point to his conviction in December for five years over re-sharing a Facebook post about torture in prison. That’s his official charge. So we haven’t seen that.
But, you know, it is worrying also that, as you mentioned, we are seeing this intensified crackdown in Egypt in the run-up to the summit when all the world’s eyes are on Egypt, as world leaders are heading there and tens of thousands of delegates and activists are planning to go. Literally hundreds of people have been arrested over the past week. They have been arrested off the streets, they have been arrested from their homes, they have been arrested from their workplaces. At least 150 of them have been put into pretrial detention on terrorism charges, all part of a massive case that has been dubbed in the media as the Climate Revolution Case. They are all being asked about these protests that we have seen online calls for, plans for protest on 11/11, November the 11th. That will be while the summit is underway.
There is a massive security presence in Cairo and in other cities across the country. Police are randomly stopping people on the street, taking their phones, forcing them to unlock them, looking through Facebook and WhatsApp and looking for political content and often detaining people if they see anything they don’t like. As you mentioned, international activists are not immune to this. An Indian climate activist who was trying to do this solo climate justice march to Sharm el-Sheikh was detained overnight, interrogated for several hours. He called an Egyptian lawyer friend to come help him. When the lawyer came, thee lawyer was detained and held overnight. They were both released. They recently just arrested a journalist, Manal Agrama, who had written some critical posts on Facebook about the government. They came to her home, arrested her. Currently her whereabouts are unknown.
All of this is happening in the run-up to the COP and to this summit which many of the key climate activists and environmental allies from Egypt, from civil society in Egypt, will not be able to attend.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Sharif, where are all these arrests taking place? And are people anticipating that these will continue even once the summit begins next week, on Monday?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: The arrests are taking place across Egypt, in Cairo, in Alexandria, in Ismailia, in Suez. It is kind of happening everywhere. There is a redoubled massive security presence on the streets. The security apparatus seems to be extremely paranoid about these calls for protests on November 11th. It is unclear if we’re going to see protests on that day. It’s very hard to predict. Clearly there is a preemptive crackdown to try and prevent anything. And yeah, the government is clearly also very paranoid after it just floated the currency. The Egyptian pound is at a record low against the dollar, inflation is way up, people are poorer. This comes in a context where the answer to any problem with a citizen is incarceration.
And so I think it is very telling that we’re seeing increasing calls for the release of political prisoners. We saw this letter by 56 lawmakers in the U.S. We have seen people in the U.K. come out. We’ve seen multiple organizations in civil society call for the release of political prisoners. There’s an editorial in The Washington Post today. As Naomi Klein said, this COP is more than just greenwashing a polluting state; it’s greenwashing a police state.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, we are going to end with the words of Alaa Abd el-Fattah. You interviewed him and we also have interviewed him on Democracy Now! But Sharif, very quickly, if you can just tell us who he is, why one Nobel literature laureate after another has signed on to this letter. Fifty-six congressmembers and senators have demanded that Biden call for his release.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Alaa is a technologist, a writer and an activist and he emerged really in the 2011 revolution as a key thinker and organizer and an icon of change. He has been imprisoned for much of the last nine years, mainly because of his ideas, for the versatility of his mind and what he stands, and he stands as a symbol of 2011 and a symbol of change. I think that is why there has been so much campaigning around releasing him, because if someone like him can be released—and he is being imprisoned to set an example for others, basically, that this is what happens when you try and fight for change. So I think his release would also mark a significant step forward for change in Egypt.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, we want to thank you for being with us. Also Sharif Abdel Kouddous will be joining us as we cover the Sharm el-Sheikh U.N. climate summit the week after next, the second week of the COP, and people should tune in for our weeklong coverage. Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent, reporter for Mada Masr, usually based in Cairo, Egypt.
We’re going to turn now to the words of Alaa himself. Alaa recently published a book, the name of the book You Have Not Yet Been Defeated. He has been jailed for almost all of the last decade, since the 2011 Arab Spring, Tahrir uprising. We spoke to him in 2011. This was after he was first arrested and ordered jailed by a military court then briefly released before being imprisoned again. He described the inhumane conditions he faced in prison.
ALAA ABD EL-FATTAH: The first five days I was put in a pretty bad prison. All prisons in the world are bad, losing your freedom is quite tough, but also prisons in Egypt are in very poor conditions. So even if they don’t torture you, just spending one night there is already a bit too much. But I was in a particularly bad prison and they made sure to put me in a particularly bad cell and to deny me any comfort. For instance, I was in complete darkness for five days. It was very filthy and very crowded. There were nine of us in a two-by-three meter cell having no access to water or toilet except ten minutes per day.
So basically, they knew they couldn’t torture me because of the solidarity and the media attention, so they just made sure to try and use every other measure to put me at discomfort or at psychological pressure. Now, every other person who was arrested in the Maspero incident were tortured severely and tortured still very systematic in police stations and in prisons and so on. But they knew that they couldn’t torture me.
AMY GOODMAN: Alaa Abd el-Fattah speaking to us in 2011 soon after the uprising in Tahrir. We will be broadcasting from the U.N. climate summit in Egypt. Tune in for that. Also tune in on November 8th for our three-hour election night special. We will be broadcasting live starting at 9:00 P.M. Eastern.
Coming up, we will look at the possibility of negotiation and ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia. Stay with us.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
An academic says hostage diplomacy is a well-known tactic of the Iranian regime and New Zealanders should not go to the country.
Topher Richwhite and Bridget Thackwray are understood to have been detained for months after entering Iran.
The New Zealand government negotiated for the safe release of the pair but has remained tight-lipped about the details.
A senior lecturer from Massey University who was born and raised in Iran, Dr Negar Partow, said there was a pattern of this kind of action in Iran.
However, she told RNZ Morning Report it was not necessarily naive for the couple to visit the country.
When they arrived in July it was much quieter than what it became when the unrest started in September after the death of Mahsa Amini, who was detained by morality police for allegedly not covering her hair properly.
However, travelling in a Jeep — a US brand — might have created suspicions, she said.
NZ not especially targeted
The move against the New Zealanders was not especially targeted at this country, she said, with as many as 70 nations having citizens in Iranian prisons.
“The fact that Iran entered a revolutionary phase complicated the situation and gave the Islamic Republic the opportunity to use them and to create a hostage diplomacy. This is not particular to Aotearoa. They do it all around the world,” she said.
People with dual citizenship, diplomats, activists, and human rights and environmental advocates were especially vulnerable to attention from Iranian authorities.
If the couple had been focusing on environmental concerns that may have made them a target, she said.
“As the Islamic Republic becomes more and more challenged and de-legitimised by this revolution, these hostage crises will increase and they will use any opportunity as a bargaining chip.”
There have been conflicting reports on now the couple were detained.
Dr Partow said Iran used different models, including imprisonment or being detained in a safe house and not being allowed to communicate.
Richwhite and Thackwray would have had their passports confiscated and their cellphones removed with their Instagram posts stopping in July.
She believed they were not put in prison.
Tepid resoponse by NZ
Asked about the tepid response by the New Zealand government to the unrest in Iran, she said the government was trying to do a delicate balancing act while the couple were being detained.
Many Western governments had to resort to hostage diplomacy with Iran.
While Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has warned against visiting Iran due to the potential for violence, Dr Partow said it was important to remember the violence was being perpetrated by the security agencies not the protesters.
She said now that the couple had been freed, she was hopeful Aotearoa would take a stronger stance.
“Yes we have been too kind but I’m hoping that as we come out of this period and everybody’s back to normal diplomacy we will take stronger action against the Islamic republic,” she said.
“As the prime minister mentioned as well, this was a delicate diplomatic situation … we did have two New Zealanders inside Iran detained and I think that [strong criticism of Iran] would create more complications.”
Expulsion of ambassador
The expulsion of the ambassador, campaigning for oil embargoes, speaking out publicly to support the rights of Iranian women and human rights lobbying at the United Nations were among measures New Zealand should be considering.
“Now that we have been the victim of hostage crisis in the Islamic Republic that should give us much more importance into the project and we should actually work on it,” she said.
As for advice for potential visitors, she said: “Definitely not. Iran is in the middle of a revolution.”
Ordinary citizens were not in a position to offer help to foreign tourists and it was far better that they stayed away.
She said as the revolution approached the six-week mark, the response from authorities to the demonstrations was becoming even more violent and oppressive.
Asked about Act’s move to block a motion calling for a unified condemnation of Iran’s oppression of women’s rights unless Greens MP Golriz Ghahraman apologised for interrupting a speech made by party leader David Seymour in the House, she said it should be remembered that the Iranian government was now killing children and this was a more important consideration.
Deputy PM pleased couple released
The government is remaining tight lipped about what it took to secure the release of the couple.
Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson said Iran was a dangerous place and New Zealanders should obey the travel warnings not to go there.
Consular officials around the world did not judge New Zealanders who got into trouble — instead they got on with the job of helping them regain their freedom.
“I’m just pleased we’ve been able to get them out.”
Robertson told RNZ First Up he could not comment specifically on the couple’s case — but he said it was important to understand the customs and rules of other countries — and to understand whether you should be there at all.
He said no doubt the pair would reflect on what they have been through.
Call for NZ govt to take strong stand
An Iranian-Kurdish journalist now living in New Zealand said the government needed to do more regarding the actions of Iran’s government.
Behrouz Boochani, who was granted refugee status in New Zealand in July 2020, said New Zealand should speak out loudly against the Iranian regime.
He said the current unrest was a revolution and was a call for regime change in Iran.
While there had been mass protests in the past, this year felt different because it involved more people and more cities.
He said he was delighted the couple had been freed. However, the Iranian community in New Zealand had been disappointed in Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s response to the unrest in Iran to this point.
He said since Mahsa Amini’s death another 250 people had been killed, including more than 20 children.
“So we expect the New Zealand government to strongly condemn this violence and strongly support the protesters on the street and the people of Iran.”
The US and Australia have criticised the Iranian government’s actions and it was time New Zealand followed suit.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
One of eight West Papuan activists who raised the banned Morning Star flag of independence in a protest last December has died.
Zode Hilapok’s death was confirmed by a relative, Christianus Dogopia, who said that since being detained, Hilapok’s health had been deteriorating.
Dogopia said that on 12 December 2021 his relative began experiencing symptoms of illness, feeling fatigued and sleepy.
At that time, Hilapok lost weight dramatically.
“At that time he ate only rice, without side dishes, or with vegetables but in small portions. Otherwise, his stomach hurt or he would become nauseated. His bowel movements were bloody,” Dogopia said.
Hilapok and seven friends, all aged between 18 and 29, were arrested by police on December 1, 2021, when they marched in front of the Papua police headquarters carrying Morning Star flags and banners.
The flag is considered a symbol of the West Papua struggle for independence and has been strictly banned by the Indonesian authorities with jail sentences of up to 15 years for offenders.
The treason case against Zode Hilapok was never tried because he was ill.
He died at Yowari Hospital on October 22.
In August, the other seven were found guilty of treason and sentenced to 10 months in prison from the day they were detained.
They were released in September.
Hilapok’s death comes after a West Papuan leader, Buchtar Tabuni, was arrested by Indonesian police.
Tens of thousands of people took to the streets of Budapest on Sunday evening to stand in solidarity with the nation’s teachers and denounce the far-right government of President Viktor Orbán.
With over 80,000 marching in the demonstration it was the largest public display of dissent since Orbán’s reelection in April as a revolt by teachers — demanding better pay and increased funding for schools — continues.
According to Agence France-Presse:
Since the start of the school year, teachers and high school students have staged several demonstrations in Budapest and cities nationwide, backing teachers dismissed for taking part in earlier protests.
Sunday’s march in Budapest was the biggest so far, and organisers pledged to keep up the pressure in the coming weeks.
“Everyone in my school is exhausted at having to fight for basics like enough teachers and equipment,” said 17-year-old student Anett Bodi at the demonstration.
The government ruled by Orbán — seen as an authoritarian ally of former U.S. president Donald Trump — has blamed the lack of money for education on the European Union which is withholding funds over accusations of corruption by the Hungarian government.
In addition to defense of teachers and student education, many in the march slammed Orbán for his support of Russian President Vladimir Putin as he continues an assault on Ukraine and the nation’s struggles with soaring inflation, especially of heating costs as the winter approaches.
“I am here…for my children, there should be change,” said Gyongyi Bereczky, a mail carrier, told Reuters. “This runaway inflation… we cannot save up at all anymore, simply we cannot make ends meet as prices are soaring.”
Speaking with AFP, Bodi said the fight for teachers and their rights to continue to fight for their schools was primary. “We totally back our teachers in their struggle for their rights,” she said.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The suffering of US women under the iron heel of abortion is intensifying, especially for women of color. This makes it imperative to closely examine possible paths forward. As a teenager during the 1960s I witnessed two political paths that remain imprinted on my mind.
LBJ and 14 (b)
Even before classes began in 1963, I had organized the first high school Young Democrats chapter in Texas. By 1964 Houston Young Democrats were attending rallies for presidential candidate Lyndon B. Johnson, carrying signs reading “All the Way with LBJ – Repeal 14 (b).”
During the height of union activity several decades earlier, congress had passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, 1935) which guaranteed private sector workers the right to form unions. During the beginning of the Cold War and strike waves of 1945 and 1946, congressional Republicans (with the aide of multiple Democrats) passed the Labor Management Relations Act (1947). It placed limitations on union activity, most importantly Section 14 (b). The odious 14 (b) allowed states to pass “Right to Work” laws which prohibited unions from requiring dues as a condition of employment. Workers could benefit from union activity without paying dues, thereby seriously undermining unions.
“Repeal 14 (b)” became the rallying cry. Unions told members “Vote for Democrats.” Despite LBJ’s winning the presidency and having Democratic Party (DP) control of the senate and house, 14 (b) was not repealed. Nor was it repealed during several subsequent administrations having a DP president and majority in both houses of congress.
Unlike gatherings of 1964, today 14 (b) is so ancient that if you ask high school students what they think about it, you will get blank stares. DP power brokers have successfully dumped repeal of 14 (b) into the dustbin of history.
A Most Reactionary President
Four years and a presidential election later Republican Richard Nixon was swept into office and was re-elected in 1972. Carrying 49 of 50 states, Nixon’s re-election was one of the largest landslides in US history and showed overwhelming support for war against the Vietnamese people. Despite endorsement of his right wing agenda, more progressive actions occurred during Nixon’s reign (1969-1974) than during any presidency since (including those of Dems): end to the Viet Nam War, start of the Food Stamp program, decriminalization of abortion, recognition of China, creation of Environmental Protection Agency, passage of Freedom of Information Act, formal dismantling of FBI’s COINTEL program, creation of Earned Income Tax Credits, formal ban on biological weapons, and passage of the Clean Water Act.
When I recount this to my good DP friends, the response is something like “You can’t credit that to Tricky Dick – he was forced to give in to the tremendous upheavals of his time.”
Bingo! That is exactly the point. Nixon had to act as he did due to enormous social pressure. During a 10 year period, a generation of progressives had been exposed to two fundamental truths:
Logic of the Goose
If the Dems win a majority of both houses of congress in November, 2022, a powerful force will make it highly unlikely that they will decriminalize abortion. This will be true whether the decriminalization would come from passing the Women’s Health Protection Act (the easiest route, but vulnerable to a supreme court trashing), expansion of the number of supreme court justices (almost forgotten about), or a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right (apparently unimaginable to the DP).
However, doing any of these would mean that abortion would cease to be a major issue in the 2024 election and make the re-election of Joe Biden virtually impossible. Winning in 2024 is vastly more important to the Dems than a setback in 2022.
As the Washington Post noted, the DP has finally found an issue that might help them at the ballot box. But securing abortion rights in 2022 would remove it from the 2024 agenda. Abortion rights are the Dems’ golden egg and they are not about to hatchet Mother Goose.
The task of DP politicians is NOT to bring better lives to people – it is to get elected. If promises to improve peoples’ lives were kept, then the ability to make the promise evaporates. The true role of DP is to promise without delivering, while somehow getting people to believe the promise.
Each election cycle Dems scrounge around for a golden egg so they can chant their eternal refrain “Vote to get goosed or the Republicans will win!” Dems yearn to have their cake and eat it too. They must dangle abortion rights in front of voters’ eyes – not actually win abortion rights.
Historical Reality of the Goose
As every psychologist should know, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So, in addition to the Logic of the Goose, the history of the Dems regarding abortion helps chart their course.
During the last 50 years the Democrats could have written Roe vs Wade into law during the administrations of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama; but never did so. As a US Senator, Joe Biden helped Clarence Thomas get on the US Supreme Court via his attacks on Anita Hill.
When Hillary Clinton ran for president, she chose anti-choice senator Tim Kaine as a running mate and said she was “ambivalent” about abortion. Obama botched opportunities to replace Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the supreme court.
This is what Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report wrote about him: “During his 2008 presidential campaign Obama promised to pass and sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have enshrined abortion rights into law, and remove it from the purview of the courts. But he did no such thing. On April 29, 2009 he gave a press conference on his 100th day in office and said, ‘The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority.’ Obama had majorities in both houses of Congress and a veto-proof majority in the Senate. Not only was this legislation not his highest priority, it wasn’t a priority at all. He never attempted to get it passed.”
While the US waited for the supreme court diktat overturning Roe v. Wade, Molly Shah expressed irritation that “there is currently no cohesive national campaign from either the Democratic party or large reproductive rights organizations to fight back.” DP house leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, supported re-election of anti-choice Texas rep Henry Cuellar over an abortion rights challenger.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Stories of the plight of American women began showing up within weeks of the court decision:
Since the 8th amendment to the US constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” (which is “unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the person”) it is not exactly clear why it fails to apply to those whose only crime is becoming pregnant.
Abortion bans have even more severe consequences for those who commit the crime of “being-pregnant-while-Black.”
Knowing that women of color are three times as likely to be criminally charged with abortion, it is reasonable to ask …
Abortion rights have a unique significance for Black women. During slavery, masters offered bounties for hunters who returned escapees to the plantation. Today’s more repressive states reinvent this tradition by offering bounties to anyone who squeals on those associated with an abortion.
… as if They Depend on It
At this critical time it is necessary to defend abortion rights as if women’s lives depend on it. Because they really do.
More and more are realizing that rights have been won by disruptive actions rather than joining cheer-leading squads for unreliable politicians. Rather than being benevolently handed down to women, abortion rights were won “through mass demonstrations, teach-ins, takeovers and sit-ins.” Judith McDaniel recalls disruptive actions such as …
Reviewing multiple social reforms, Paul Street concludes that “None of these things were won simply by voting and/or Supreme Court benevolence alone. They were more fundamentally won through mass popular resistance and disruption: strikes, marches, sit-ins, sit-downs, occupations, work stoppages, movements and movement cultures beneath and beyond the big money major party time-staggered big media candidate-centered electoral extravaganzas that are sold to us as ‘politics.’”
A funny thing happened when fact-checking for 14 (b). When I googled “Repeal of Taft Hartley Section 14(b)” the first link that came up was this very solid resolution by the American Federation of Teachers. Scrolling to the bottom revealed this date: 1965. Think about that – 1965. The date suggests that within two years of electing LBJ and his DP gaggle in both houses of congress, the union movement had backed down from insisting that 14 (b) be repealed. Oh yes, there are routinized statements now and again calling for its repeal, but nothing approaching a thunderous call for its repeal as a condition for unions to continue to support the DP.
With the watchdog snoring, the Dems back-stepped to a state-by-state defense against Right-to-Work legislation. Does this foretell an “abortion-rights-in-some-states-only” strategy for today? The DP seems to have given up on (or never initiated) a mass mobilization for increasing the number of supreme court justices, or a law guaranteeing abortion rights throughout the nation, or (too controversial to even consider) a constitutional amendment for protecting women’s lives.
Though making a lot of racket at election time, post-election Dems will move to a cooling off period so women can adjust themselves to losing a basic right. But the iron is hot and this is no time to cool off. Not six weeks after the court’s Day of Infamy, Kansas voters resoundingly defeated an anti-abortion amendment to their constitution. Between 2010 and the 2022 court decision, the number of Americans saying all abortions should be banned fell from 15% to 8%. During the same time period, those agreeing that abortion should be legal in all cases climbed from 18% to 33%.
Vermont residents will consider the Reproductive Liberty Amendment, stating: “that an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
Missouri’s residents also enjoy the right to amend the state constitution. It elects right wing politicians yet simultaneously passes progressive legislation. Missouri voters have repeatedly rejected Right to Work legislation and have approved shutting down puppy mills. Missouri voters gave the nod to medical marijuana and approved Medicaid expansion. This means that 5-20% of Missourians vote for progressive agendas while not voting for Democratic Party politicians.
(If you are registered to vote in Missouri and would help gather signatures for an abortion rights amendment to the state constitution, email gro.ytrapneergiruossimnull@yraterces or call 314-727-8554.)
The current struggle for abortion rights reminds us of the immense efforts for women’s suffrage, which was a roller-coaster battle requiring ongoing civil disobedience. Soon after the creation of the US, women lost the right to vote in New York (1777), Massachusetts (1780), New Hampshire (1784) and all other states except New Jersey (1787), which revoked the right in 1807.
Women’s right to vote was first gained in Wyoming Territory (1869). Women lost the right to vote in Utah (1887) but regained it in 1896. Women’s suffrage won in Washington state (1910), California, (1911), Oregon (1912), Arizona (1912, Kansas (1912), Alaska territory (1913), New York (1917), South Dakota (1917), and Oklahoma (1917). Women won partial suffrage in Illinois (1913), North Dakota (1917), Indiana (1917), Nebraska (1917), and Michigan (1917). The 19th amendment (guaranteeing women’s suffrage throughout the US) was passed by Congress in 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920.
Two lessons stand out: rights which are taken away can provoke intense struggles to regain them; and, rights can be won at the state level as a critical step toward winning them at the national level. Working for a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion rights can be a double-edged sword. The dull blunt edge can drag the movement into an abyss (like Right to Work) where it will be stuck for eternity if it abandons the goal of a national victory. The sharp edge cuts through the Gordian Knot as it walks the suffragette path of mass civil disobedience.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
We look at the scope, scale and sustainability of the protests in Iran, which have entered their second month, after being sparked in September by the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini while in the custody of Iran’s so-called morality police. More than a thousand protesters have been arrested, while some children have been sent to reeducation camps. The United Nations said Tuesday at least 23 children have been killed in the demonstrations. We speak in depth with Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi, who was awarded the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize for her legal work on behalf of women and children in Iran, and she has lived in exile since 2009. Unlike previous protest movements, such as the 2009 Green Movement, she says today’s protesters are demanding fundamental change to the country’s system of government. “For 43 years, people have bottled up all this anger. For 43 years, the regime has turned a deaf ear to the demands of the people, and anyone who said anything against the regime has either ended up in prison or killed or has fled the country,” says Ebadi.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
Today we look at the scope, the scale, sustainability of the protests in Iran, which have entered their second month, after being sparked in September by the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini while in custody of Iran’s so-called morality police. More than a thousand protesters have been arrested. Some children have been sent to so-called reeducation camps. The United Nations said Tuesday at least 23 children have been killed in the protests, one aged 11 years old. The Guardian reports another schoolgirl was killed by Iranian police after she was beaten when she refused to sing a pro-regime song during a raid on her school.
Meanwhile, dozens rallied at Tehran’s international airport Wednesday evening, where they cheered the return of Elnaz Rekabi, a female rock climber who drew international headlines when she joined a competition in South Korea without wearing a headscarf. On Sunday, the 33-year-old climber wore her hair in a ponytail, covered partially by a headband — in violation of Iran’s strict dress code — during a climb at the International Federation of Sport Climbing’s Asian Championships in Seoul. There were conflicting reports in the Iranian media about whether Rekabi will now face arrest. She said in an interview with a state-run news agency Wednesday evening that she had unintentionally forgotten to put on her hijab.
ELNAZ REKABI: [translated] The struggle that I had with wearing my shoes and preparing my gear made me forget about the proper hijab that I should have had, and I went to the wall and ascended.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as a massive fire engulfed parts of Tehran’s infamous Evin prison Saturday, killing at least eight people, injuring dozens more. Witnesses reported hearing explosions and gunfire coming from the prison, known for holding political prisoners.
Democracy Now!’s Nermeen Shaikh and I spoke about all of this and more in an in-depth interview with the Iranian activist and lawyer Dr. Shirin Ebadi, once held at the Evin prison. Shirin Ebadi was the first female judge in Iran. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, all female judges were dismissed. In 1999, she was imprisoned for nearly a month for her work defending prisoners of conscience. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, the first Iranian and first Muslim woman to win the award. She used the prize money to set up the Defenders of Human Rights Center. She worked as a human rights lawyer in Iran for decades, focusing in particular on the rights of women, children and political prisoners. She has lived in exile since 2009. Dr. Ebadi joined us from London Wednesday. I began by asking her about the protests.
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] The scale of these recent protests are so wide, even schoolchildren have joined the line of protesters. Even schoolchildren do not want to accept the educational system in Iran. The scale of the protests, the recent ones, of course, go much, much further and wider than the previous ones.
And the main difference between these protests and the previous ones is that in the previous protests the people used to congregate in various places around cities and towns and chant slogans, but now they’ve become wiser, the protesters. They make sure that their protests are all over the country, in various areas, and sporadic. And so it makes it very difficult for anti-riot forces to be present in every corner of the country.
And it’s very regrettable that in order to crack down on these protesters, the regime is even trying to persuade children by giving them money to go and join the government forces and stand against the protesters. And meanwhile, many protesters have been arrested, including schoolchildren, and one of the schoolchildren was killed when the school was raided. And also, the regime is exploiting orphans in the country, and it’s turning them more or less into child soldiers for the regime.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr. Ebadi, could you elaborate on that? What do you mean that the regime is turning children into child soldiers?
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Look, the Iranian government is a signatory to the Convention for the Rights of the Child. And as you know, that convention says it is forbidden to use children in wars, in conflicts. But the Iranian government used these children as child soldiers in the Iran-Iraq War, if you remember, and even now it’s using some children for the same purpose.
And the situation of children in Iran is absolutely dire. Children under the age of 18 are executed. And it’s one of the very few countries in the world where there is still death penalty for young people under the age of 18. And they also constantly arrest and imprison juveniles.
And when you look at the footage from the protests, you actually can actually see these children who are clearly under the age of 18. And it’s very clear that they either pay these children or they try every way possible to persuade these children to join them, because they don’t have enough soldiers in their anti-riot force.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr. Ebadi, could you also explain how the changing demographics in the country have altered in the years since the revolution? Half of the population of Iran was born now after the ’79 Revolution, and so have known no other government than the governments that came into power following that. And also the literacy rates among women, the way that they’ve increased exponentially since the revolution — prior to ’79, women’s literacy was below 30%, and now it’s over 80%. More than half of students at universities are now women. How does this figure into the protests happening today and the fact that we see, as you were talking about earlier, so many young people participating, and that these protests are really being led by women, young women?
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Yes, absolutely. Over 50% of students in our universities are female. And likewise, many of our professors at university are female. We have highly educated women in the country. And it’s natural that educated women are aware. They’re aware of their rights. And they cannot tolerate the discrimination they are being subjected to, and they have been subjected to since the 1979 Revolution. And it is for that very reason that in every protest — and I’m not just talking about the recent protests, but in every protest we’ve had since the revolution — it’s the women who have been at the forefront.
And I would like to elaborate and give you a few examples of some of the laws that were adopted after the 1979 Revolution, so you can understand why women are protesting. In addition to enforced hijab in Iran, based on law in Iran, the life of a woman is only considered worth half of that a man. For instance, if my brother and I are in a car crash, and the damage a court of law awards to my brother is twice as much as that awarded to me. And also, the testimony of two women in Iran is tantamount to the testimony of one man in a court of law. Or, if a married woman wants to travel, she will not be allowed to do so without the written permission of her husband. And we have so many discriminatory laws against women. So, it’s very natural that such educated women will not put up with such discriminatory laws, all of which, I repeat, were adopted after the 1979 Revolution. That is why the disenchantment is chiefly among women.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Ebadi, there was a fire that broke out at the notorious Evin prison this weekend. At least eight people died. This is a place where political prisoners have been held for years. I believe you yourself was held there. But you certainly represented prisoners who have been held there. Can you talk about what you understand happened and the significance of this prison?
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] The precise reason for the fire is still not clear. According to the government, the prisoners had started the fire. However, the conditions in the prison are not such to allow prisoners to do such a thing. There is — they have a room where they do needlework, and they claimed that the fire started there. Usually at 5:00, they close the needlework factory, and so they would not have been — and they said the fire started there. So, how could the fire have started there, when the door was shut at 5 p.m. as it is every day?
Also, the first report that was broadcast on state media after this incident was that the eight people killed were trying to escape prison. And as they were trying to escape, they stepped on mines that we have around the prison. So, what you heard was not the sound of bullets; it was the sound of explosions resulting from the mines they have stepped on. And it’s really tragic to hear that, because the government, in a way, is admitting that inside the city, inside a prison, they have planted mines. And this is a serious offense, and the Iranian government should be made answerable. They are not allowed to put mines anywhere.
So, the real reason is still not clear, nor is the number of those killed so far. However, there are a number of prisoners that no one has heard from since. And no one has been able to contact them or have meetings with them. We have heard that the women’s ward for political prisoners, they are OK, and nothing has happened to them. However, in the men’s section, there are some prisoners, political prisoners, we have not heard from, and we are extremely worried about them. We don’t know whether they’ve been killed, whether they’re injured; if they’re injured, which hospital they’re in. Why do we not know what has happened to them?
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr. Ebadi, you yourself were imprisoned at Evin, as was your husband. When exactly was that? And could you talk about what the conditions in the prison were, and if and whether — whether and how conditions in the prison changed over the years, as you continued to represent people detained there?
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] It was about 1999 when I was imprisoned in Evin. And while I was there, I was put in solitary confinement. And solitary confinement is a very, very small, narrow room without a bed or chair. And they just gave us a dirty blanket, and not a pillow or anything to sleep on. So we had to — I had to sleep on the floor without a pillow. And as a result, I have had health problems since. They take everything away from us. They took my watch and even my reading glasses. And we are completely isolated in solitary confinement. We have no opportunity to speak to anybody, including our lawyers. And I can say the situation has not changed. It’s still the same.
And all those who are prisoners of conscience, when arrested, they have to experience solitary confinement for a while, because in solitary confinement they can put psychological pressure on the prisoner and make them confess, make false confessions. And unfortunately, these prisoners are subjected to the most gruesome tortures in all Iran’s prisons, including Evin. And I’m sure you’re aware that several prisoners died under torture, including a young worker who was a blogger. And his name was Sattar Beheshti. And a few years ago, he died. He was under torture. And unfortunately, every year we have one or two political prisoners who die under torture. We have figures for all that.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Ebadi, do you think President Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear accord further radicalized the regime there by isolating it further with increased sanctions? And I’m wondering what you think the U.S. policy should be today?
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] I am going to answer your question in this way, that before — Iran was not under any sanctions for three years after the signing of JCPOA, before Trump pulled out of JCPOA. And in the three years that there were no sanctions on Iran, there were no improvements in Iranian people’s welfare situation. So, it makes no difference for the Iranian people’s welfare and economic situations whether the United States is a party to JCPOA or not, or whether or not there have been sanctions on Iran.
However, if they do lift sanctions against Iran, be sure that Iran does not spend any of its money on the people. What does it spend the money on? It spends it on Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Houthis in Yemen or Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. And more recently, it’s been helping Russia to kill the Ukrainian people, unfortunately. The Iranian people’s welfare and well-being means nothing to the Islamic Republic’s regime.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr. Ebadi, on Evin prison, one of the people who has been held there now for years is someone you worked very closely with, the Iranian human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh. She was also your lawyer for a time. Could you talk about what you know of her situation today? She’s been — she was previously awarded both the Right Livelihood Award as well as the Sakharov Prize. She was initially imprisoned for 38 years, but her sentence has reportedly been reduced.
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Nasrin Sotoudeh is a human rights lawyer, and she is a colleague of mine. And she ends up in prison. And she’s been meted out a long prison sentence for defending human rights prisoners. She’s been ill in prison. And fortunately, thanks to the doctors, they have allowed her to come on leave to receive some treatment.
Working for human rights and defending the rights of people in Iranian courts is considered a crime these days. The human rights lawyers who end up in prison are charged with allegations such as: “You must be against the government; otherwise, you wouldn’t be defending people who are anti-government.” And I have said on many occasions, “Look, if we are defending a thief, does it mean that we are complicit in the act of theft? So, why do you arrest a lawyer who is defending human rights activists and accuse him of being complicit with such people, with the opposition?”
That is why many political activists, whether they’re lawyers or nonlawyers, they end up in prison. I have to remind you, we have very well-known film directors in prison. We have very well-known authors in prison. And the situation in Iran is that anyone who says a word against the government, or makes a documentary or a film about the government, or writes anything against the government, will, without doubt, end up behind bars.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian activist and lawyer, 2003 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Dr. Shirin Ebadi, speaking to us from London. When we come back, we continue our conversation, ask her about the Iranian president, Raisi, the protesters’ demands for regime change, and about the violence of security forces throughout the country, including Iran’s Kurdistan region, which was where 22-year-old Mahsa Amini was from. She was killed by Iranian so-called morality police in Tehran last month, sparking nationwide protests. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Come My Habibi” by the band Habibi. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.
We continue our conversation with the Iranian activist, the lawyer, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Dr. Shirin Ebadi. She writes in her book, Until We Are Free, quote, “I received the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2003 for my efforts for democracy and human rights, and though you would think that this would have propelled my work in Iran and won me some grudging respect, it put me under even more pressure and scrutiny by the government. The Iranian state did everything it could to suppress the news of my award, forbidding the state radio and TV stations to so much as mention it and putting me under an even more severe news embargo. When a reporter asked President Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who was in power at the time, why he had not congratulated me, he responded, ‘This isn’t such an important prize. It’s only the Nobel in literature that really matters,’” he said.
That’s Dr. Shirin Ebadi. She worked as a human rights lawyer in Iran for decades, was the first female judge in Iran. She has lived in exile since 2009. Democracy Now!’s Nermeen Shaikh and I spoke with her on Wednesday.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr. Ebadi, just to go back to what you were saying about the protests, that these are different from all the protests that erupted in Iran — that have erupted over the course of the last more than 40 years since the revolution, could you explain? I mean, the one that received an enormous amount of coverage here was the 2009 Green Movement, when also millions of people turned out on the streets. The protests lasted for seven months. And even then, the regime response, the government response, was quite brutal. How do you see this protest as different from that one? And do you think this will endure, given how brutal and violent the government response has been?
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Look, in the previous protests, such as the one in 2009, people had specific demand. In 2009, they were protesting against a rigged election. They were saying, “What happened to my vote?” But now the demand is different, and the demand is a political one. They want regime change. And they have all taken to the streets, and they are all chanting, “We want regime change.” This is one of the fundamental differences between these protests and the previous ones.
And the people are resisting a lot better than before, of course. The prisons are full. Many have been killed. Many have been injured. And because the prisons are overcrowded, the regime is even using sports stadium as prisons.
I somehow doubt very much that the government will again be able to repress the people. I think the people will succeed. As I said, even schoolchildren can no longer tolerate this. They have refused to go to their classes, and they have taken to the streets. And you see generations next to each other. You see children, parents, grandparents protesting together on the streets. And even let’s assume that the government manages to repress the people by intensifying their crackdown. I promise you that in very, very short time there will be yet another protest in Iran. In fact, Iran, it is like a powder keg about to explode. They may be able to try and — it’s a fire. It’s a fire that is about to become bigger and bigger. So, there is nothing the government can do.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Ebadi, if you can talk about the marginalized regions — for example, the violence of security forces in Iran’s Kurdistan? Mahsa Amini, the young woman who was the flashpoint in these protests, was 22 years old, an Iranian Kurdish woman from Kurdistan, though she was killed in Tehran. And also, the systemic killing of Balochi protesters, what is the status of the Balochi minority? The Balochi are mostly Sunni, in a majority-Shia state.
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Unfortunately, the minorities in Iran are subjected to extreme discrimination. When you look at the people on death row in Iran, you will see that 95% of those on death row are from minorities in Iran. The government represses them more than others. Mahsa Amini, in her birth certificate, she wanted to — her parents wanted to call her Zhina, which is a Kurdish name, but the government did not allow that, because, they said, “You’re not allowed to choose a Kurdish name; you have to choose a Farsi or Persian name for your child.” And this is real oppression against a minority group.
Mahsa was a young girl. She had come to Tehran just as a tourist and also to visit a few of her relatives. And she was on the street with her brother when the morality police, under the pretext that her headscarf wasn’t covering the whole head, arrested her, and they took her to a detention center. And unfortunately, a few hours later, an ambulance left that detention center which was carrying the corpse of Mahsa. And the doctors in the hospital said that when Mahsa arrived in the hospital, she had suffered from concussion, and there was nothing we could do about it. And the pictures that they took of Mahsa in hospital, when you can see her with the drips and serums attached to her, you can see clearly that there is blood coming out of her ears in those pictures, which is a clear sign that she was concussed. And she was clearly in — you know, she had fallen into coma and started bleeding. But since this government never tells the truth, they said that she had — she was already sick, she had underlying diseases, and she had died from there. And that made the people even angrier.
Now, in Zahedan, a commander of police force raped a 15-year-old girl. And they took the case to court, and it didn’t get anywhere, so the people became very angry. So, the people of Zahedan, especially the young people, they decided to take to the streets after the Friday prayers and chant against that commander who had raped this young girl. And the Friday prayers had just ended in Zahedan, that some 20 to 30 Balochi youth started chanting against the whole regime, that is a not — that is ignoring justice and is not bringing this commander to book. But since the police knew this was going to happen, they were ready for the protesters, and they started gunning down the protesters. Even those who had just left the mosque and weren’t part of the protest, many of them were also killed. The number of those killed so far, as far as we know, over 95 have been killed. And these are the ones we know, because we have their names and we have their identity papers. And many have been injured and are still in hospital, and we are still waiting to see whether they will recover or whether they will die in hospital.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr. Ebadi, you mentioned earlier that the protesters are calling for a change in the regime. How do you understand what that means? Your response, for instance, to the present head of state, Ebrahim Raisi, whom Amnesty International has said there is credible evidence of his involvement in crimes against humanity? If you could talk about his record and whether you think the repression that his administration has carried out has something to do with the force of these protests?
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Of course, there is no doubt that Raisi, in the ’80s, played a big part in the killing of political prisoners. There is no doubt about that. However, to say that the protests this time are even more powerful than before, it’s not just because of Raisi. It is because of the anger that is boiling over. And for 43 years, people have bottled up all this anger. And for 43 years, the regime has turned a deaf ear to the demands of the people. And anyone who has said anything against the regime has either ended up in prison or killed or has fled the country. There’s been a huge brain drain, and we have lost many educated people. They didn’t want to leave Iran, but they had to. So, it’s a collection of all these issues that has led to these recent protests and where people are calling for regime change.
And allow me to add that what the people want is a democratic and a secular government. That’s what they want, because for 43 years they have suffered a theocracy, and they know what a theocracy is like. They no longer want to tolerate a theocracy. They want a democracy, and they want secularism.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And so, could you talk about the fate of precisely the supreme leader, Khamenei, who is reportedly very ill but is grooming his son to be his successor? Could you explain the significance of that, the role that the supreme leader plays, and what impact these protests might have?
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] Khamenei has been reported ill for a very, very long time, yet we still see him giving speeches. And as always, he’s describing all these protests to the enemies. If Khamenei dies, I cannot imagine that we will have another supreme jurisconsult, or vali-ye faqih, because the situation in Iran is far worse than ever, and they will not allow any other cleric to take over and continue this despotic theocracy.
One of the chants that you hear is — that some of the slogans chanted these days are against Mojtaba Khamenei, who is the son of Khamenei. So the people are chanting anti-Mojtaba Khamenei slogans to ensure that he doesn’t take over. But I really don’t think that if Khamenei dies, there will be any successor.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you exactly see, Dr. Ebadi, this uprising playing out?
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] It’s still too early to predict what these protests are going to lead to, but one thing I can tell you for sure: Nothing will ever be the same in Iran after these protests, because the situation has already changed a lot since before the protests. But as to how the future will be, it is still premature to make any predictions.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And finally, Dr. Shirin Ebadi, what do you hope will come out of these protests?
SHIRIN EBADI: [translated] My hope is the victory of the people. My hope is that we have a — they stage a referendum under the auspices of the United Nations so that the people freely choose the government they want and their representatives. This is my wish for the people of Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian activist and lawyer Dr. Shirin Ebadi. She was the first female judge in Iran, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, the first Iranian and first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. She was speaking to us from London.
And this breaking news: The British Prime Minister Liz Truss is resigning. She is the shortest-serving prime minister in U.K. history. The move comes less than a week after Truss fired her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng. She sought to blame him for the recent Tory budget, which slashed taxes and caused the pound to plummet. This comes as the U.K. is facing record inflation and a surging cost of living, which have spurred mass protests. The Daily Star had a live-stream called “Can Liz Truss outlast a lettuce?” After just 45 days, the lettuce has won.
And that does it for our show. Democracy Now! is currently accepting applications for a video news production fellow and a people and culture manager. Learn more and apply at democracynow.org.
Democracy Now! is produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Messiah Rhodes, Nermeen Shaikh, María Taracena, Tami Woronoff, Charina Nadura, Sam Alcoff, Tey-Marie Astudillo, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud and Mary Conlon. Our executive director is Julie Crosby. Special thanks to Becca Staley, Jon Randolph, Paul Powell, Mike Di Filippo, Miguel Nogueira, Hugh Gran, Denis Moynihan, David Prude and Dennis McCormick.
Tune in tomorrow on Democracy Now! We’ll be going to Britain for the latest, and we’ll also be talking about other issues. I’m Amy Goodman.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Anti-government protests in Iran, first sparked last month by the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, have moved into their fourth week. The youth and women-led protests cross class and ethnic divides, and the demands have grown in scale and scope, with many, even in the clerical community, now calling for the complete abolition of the Islamic Republic. Many sectors of society, including businesses and unions, have also joined in protest, with oil workers from one of the country’s major refineries going on strike Monday. Iranian authorities have launched a violent assault on protesters in response, explains Amnesty International’s Raha Bahreini, with security forces shooting live ammunition into crowds to disperse the protests, leaving thousands injured and at least 144 victims dead, 24 of them children. The government violence is “indicative of just what a threat the regime believes these protests are,” argues Iranian American scholar Reza Aslan, who says that despite numerous revolutions in Iran’s history, “this time feels different.”
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in Iran, where anti-government protests are in their fourth week, sparked last month by the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini while in custody of Iran’s so-called morality police. On Monday, oil workers went on strike in support of the protests. Meanwhile, the death of 16-year-old Nika Shakarami has ignited more public rage. The girl’s family says she disappeared after being chased by security forces for burning her headscarf during a protest, and was found 10 days later in a morgue. Human rights groups say more than 200 people have been killed in the deadly crackdown on protests, including an estimated 23 children, with hundreds more injured and thousands arrested.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the widening protests in an address Wednesday.
AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI: [translated] Some are either agents of the enemy, or if they aren’t agents of the enemy, then they are aligned with the enemy. With the same goals, they take to the streets. Others are just excited. The second group can be fixed with cultural works. The first group must be dealt with by judicial and national security officials. Some say the atmosphere should not become one of national security, and we agree, to where it’s possible. The atmosphere in the country should not become one of national security, but the cultural programs should be differentiated from the judicial and security matters.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as the chief of Iran’s judiciary has now ordered judges to issue harsh sentences for what he called the, quote, “main elements of riots.” Iran’s education minister, Yousef Nouri, said in an interview Tuesday some teenage student protesters are being detained and taken to what he called “psychological institutions,” saying they, quote, “can return to class after they’ve been reformed,” unquote.
One of the many teenagers reportedly killed by Iranian security forces was 15-year-old Siavash Mahmoudi. This is his mother calling for justice in the streets of Tehran.
SIAVASH MAHMOUDI’S MOTHER: [translated] This is my Siavash, my son. I will have a funeral for him in Aliabad, in Saheb-e-Zaman mosque. Siavash was a boy from Shahrak-e Beheshti neighborhood. We have lived here for several years. I was a single mom and raised this kid alone. They have killed my son so unfairly and cowardly at the end of this street. They shot him in the head. This is Iran’s Siavash! This is Iran’s Siavash!
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by two guests. Joining us in London is Raha Bahreini, a human rights lawyer who is Amnesty International’s Iran researcher. And in Washington, D.C., Reza Aslan is with us, scholar, producer, author. His recent piece for Time is headlined “The Iranian People’s 100-Year Struggle for Freedom.” His new book is titled An American Martyr in Persia: The Epic Life and Tragic Death of Howard Baskerville.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Raha Bahreini, let’s begin with you. Can you talk about the broadening scope of the protests and the Iran government’s crackdown on them? What have you documented at Amnesty International?
RAHA BAHREINI: Hello, Amy. Thank you for having me.
The Iranian authorities have shown a deadly resolve to crush the spirit of resistance among Iran’s youthful population and to retain their iron grip on power. Amnesty International has documented widespread, unwarranted use of firearms and lethal force by Iran’s security forces. The Iranian security forces have been firing live ammunition simply to disperse crowds and to crush the protests. The deadly crackdown has so far left over 144 victims that we have identified by name; among them are at least 24 children. Their names and details of their deaths have been documented by Amnesty International in a report that we are issuing today. Among the children are three girls who were beaten to death. In addition, the vast majority of the boys were shot by live ammunition in their head, chest or upper body. The vast majority of those killed have been killed due to security forces firing live ammunition at their head or chest, which shows the intention of the security forces to kill protesters, or their knowledge that their firing of live ammunition would result in death, and they nevertheless proceeded with these deadly activities in order to crush the protests. We have also documented widespread patterns of torture and other ill treatment, including severe beatings of protesters and bystanders in the streets at the hands of security forces.
Amnesty International obtained some leaked documents from the national headquarters of Armed Forces, which is the highest military body in Iran. And on the 21st of September, they ordered armed commanders in all provinces across Iran to crush the protesters severely and mercilessly. And since then, we documented an escalated use of lethal force, an escalation in the use of lethal force by the Iranian security forces. And just on the night of 21st of September alone, dozens of men, women and children were killed. The next deadliest day was the 30th of September in Zahedan, Sistan, Balochistan province, which is populated by Iran’s oppressed Balochi minority. The security forces opened fire on protesters and bystanders, and in the course of several hours they killed over 85 men, women and children.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Reza Aslan, if you could talk about, respond to the scale of these protests, and them, the protests, continuing despite the Iranian regime’s increasingly brutal crackdown on the protesters, and the fact, we just heard in our introduction, that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has dismissed many of the protesters as, quote, “agents of the enemy”?
REZA ASLAN: [inaudible] de rigueur. Any time there’s any kind of instability in the country or protest against his regime, he’s always going to lash out at the United States and Israel, and place blame on outsiders for what is, in effect, the failures of his own leadership and the regime itself. But I think what’s important to understand is that the scale of this backlash from the government, the horrific violence that we just heard, is indicative of just what a threat the regime believes these protests are, because, as you rightly note, they are not diminishing. In fact, they are expanding.
And they’re not just expanding in scope and scale and size; much more importantly, they’re expanding in terms of a broader coalition. You mentioned that now business interests, merchants, unions are going on strike. We have ethnic minorities, not just in Balochistan, but also the Kurdish areas of Iran, that are clamoring for independence. And in a very surprising move, actually, we’re even seeing regime supporters, ostensible regime supporters, more sort of of the pious masses, in cities like Qom, which is, of course, the religious capital of Iran — we’re seeing widespread protests there, and not just protests against the morality police or in response to the death of Mahsa Amini and so many other young children, but protests very brazenly calling for the downfall of Ayatollah Khamenei, being chanted in what is essentially Khomeini — Khamenei’s backyard — pardon me — in Qom. And so, I think what’s happening now is that this coalition of Iranians on the street is becoming a serious threat to the very existence of the Islamic Republic. And unfortunately, as a result, I think we’re going to see an even bloodier response from the military and from the regime in the coming weeks.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Reza, can you talk about the demographics, the groups of people who are not participating? You pointed out in a recent piece that younger clergy, as well as seminary students, have not yet joined, but if they do, you think that would lead to a substantial change. Explain.
REZA ASLAN: Well, I think most outsiders don’t understand how unpopular the Islamic Republic, the theological underpinning of clerical rule in Iran, is amongst the sort of rank-and-file Shia clergy. This is not the majority view, the so-called Valayat-e Faqih, which is the theological underpinning that allows for clerics, clergy in Iran, to have direct political control over the country. There is no theological history behind this idea. On the contrary, it actually violates 14 centuries of Shia quietism when it comes to political influence over government. But what Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, did in coming up with this idea was essentially create a whole new way of thinking about what Shiism is as a religion.
And while it is true that amongst the upper echelon of the clergy, the ayatollahs, certainly those in government positions, this theory has become entrenched, the truth of the matter is that in the seminaries in Iran, and especially in Qom, younger seminarians, mid-level clerics, the sort of what we would refer to as kind of local imams are not just debating the very legitimacy of clerical rule but are now, seemingly, coming out and rejecting it more and more vocally. And my argument was, when you start seeing that kind of start to roll out and younger seminary students, mid-level clerics begin to speak out against the very legitimacy of the theocracy of the state, well, that might be pretty much all she wrote when it comes to the clerical regime.
AMY GOODMAN: Raha Bahreini, I want to specifically focus on these women-led protests and the children. You have a report that was embargoed until today on the deaths of the children. And we just reported on the education minister saying they’re taking some children and they’re putting them in institutions to reeducate them? Can you talk about what you have found? And also, this issue of Balochistan, for people around the world who may not be familiar with the geography of Iran, the significance of the killings of more than 80 people there?
RAHA BAHREINI: The Iranian authorities have waged an all-out assault on children who have courageously taken to the streets in order to demand a future without political oppression and injustice. As your other guest just explained, these protests are very youthful in nature. And schoolchildren and young university students have been visibly present in protests calling for an end to the Islamic Republic system and for Iran’s transition to a political system that respects their fundamental rights and freedoms.
In response, the Iranian authorities have used horrific forms of force, including live ammunition, in order to kill these children or otherwise harm and injure them. We have documented the names of 24 children. Four of them were beaten to death. Two of them died after they were shot with metal pellets at close range. And the rest were shot with live ammunition, often in their head, chest or upper body. The Iranian authorities have the blood of children on their hands.
And the more distressing pattern is that instead of conducting any investigations, they are, in fact, now harassing and intimidating the families of these children in order to coerce them into making video recorded statements and accept the authorities’ bogus narrative that the children committed suicide or died during car accidents. This is not the first time that the Iranian authorities try to cover up the crimes that they commit, including against children in the context of protests. During the nationwide protests of 2019, the Iranian authorities also unlawfully killed hundreds of men and women, including 21 children.
The fact that they have been able to continue these successive waves of protest bloodshed is because of a deep crisis of systemic impunity that has long prevailed in Iran. And the price of this impunity is being paid by the lives of people in the streets in Iran. And this is because there is no independent judiciary in Iran to conduct investigations. And the scale and gravity of the crimes committed has not received the attention and the critical, meaningful action that it should receive at the international level from member states of the U.N. Human Rights Council.
The events in Balochistan last Friday, on the 30th of September, showed the scale of the crackdown and is an extreme manifestation of the deadly crackdown that the Iranian authorities have long waged on Iran’s oppressed minorities. We have documented extensive use of lethal force and high numbers of death in Balochistan, which is populated by Iran’s oppressed Balochi minority, and in Kurdistan and Kermanshah and West Azerbaijan provinces, that are populated by Iran’s oppressed Kurdish minority. As you may know, the protests actually started in Kurdish-populated cities, because Mahsa was of Kurdish origin.
And now there is solidarity among Iranians all over the country. And this is the inspiring aspect of the protests, that it crosses across ethnic groups and class divides, and has encompassed demands for a transition to a different political system. And in this relation, many protesters and commentators in Iran consider these protests as a nationwide uprising against the aging theocratic system that has long engaged in systematic human rights violations and granted absolute impunity to those who kill, torture and harm people in the street, in the context of protests, and behind prison walls.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Reza, let’s look at this protest in historical context. You’ve written that of the three major revolutions over the course of the last century in Iran, the 1906 Constitutional Revolution provides the best historical analogy to the present uprising. In recent L.A. Times piece, you write, quote, “The Persian Constitutional Revolution may not have transformed Iran into a real democracy. But it set the precedent for the exercise of people power in Iran, creating one of the most robust protest cultures in the world.” Talk about that.
REZA ASLAN: Yeah, the 1906 Constitutional Revolution was not just the first of Iran’s three major revolutions of the 20th century, but it was the first democratic revolution in the Middle East. And while it had a very simple goal, which was the creation of a constitution that would outline the rights and privileges of all citizens and the creation of an elected parliament that would serve to check the absolute authority of the shah of Iran, and while it did achieve that goal for a very, very brief while, until autocracy was returned to Iran with the ascendance of Reza Khan, or Reza Shah Pahlavi, and the Pahlavi regime, which itself suffered two more revolutions — one in ’53 and one in 1979 — I think what it reminds us is that the women and men and, frankly, children who are on the streets right now dying for their most basic rights, the rights to have a voice, to have a say in the decisions that rule their lives, to be able to say and think what they wish — again, the most basic of human rights — that this struggle has been going on not for a couple of weeks, not for a couple of months, but for more than a century in Iran, against successive governments, be they the shahs or now the Islamic Republic.
But I think that this time — I have to be honest with you — having studied history, having lived through the 1979 revolution, this time feels different. There is a fearlessness that we are seeing on the streets, particularly by young women, by teenage women, who simply have had enough and are not willing to do what successive — or, previous generations, who had also protested, who had also risen up against the regime, have been willing to do, which is accept a bit more freedom, accept a little bit of more sort of space, maybe in the private realm, in exchange for getting off the streets. What we are hearing right now, despite the fact that it is a very diverse coalition of old and young, religious and secular — we have women in chadors marching next to women wearing jeans and no veils. Despite that, there is a unified call here for not reform, but for the downfall of the regime. The regime has failed its children. And that, not just in a human way, but deeply in a Persian cultural way, is about the most shameful act that you can possibly imagine, which is why this message is working. The message of “shame, shame, shame” is working.
What we haven’t seen yet, however, is the international community actually shaming the Iranian government. I’m very glad to hear that the United Nations had a vote condemning Russia’s illegal annexation of parts of Ukraine. I am waiting for the United Nations’ vote condemning a murderous regime for kidnapping children and taking them to what they themselves refer to as psychological camps for reeducation. There is no place in the modern world for such actions. And while the United States, unfortunately, can’t do much about it — we have already blanket sanctioned Iran for four decades, there’s really very little influence that we have — the United Nations still has major influence in Iran, especially at a time in which that government’s economy is on the verge of collapse. It’s time to hear the voice of the international community as loud as possible to condemn these inhumane actions by the Islamic Republic.
AMY GOODMAN: Reza Aslan, the supreme leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, is very old. He has cancer, grooming his son to be the next leader. Can you talk about what that means? And have you seen any defection in the military at this point, and among the police?
REZA ASLAN: Well, we have seen anecdotal evidence and videos of security personnel who have joined the protesters. We haven’t yet to see any hint of cracks in the military hierarchy, thought that does not mean that that’s not happening. The military, the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is extraordinarily powerful. In fact, many Iran watchers will tell you that the Revolutionary Guard is the real power in Iran, that the ayatollahs are basically the forward face of the government, but the levers of control are in the hands of the Revolutionary Guard. And that may very well be true. So we’re all waiting to see how the Revolutionary Guard and the military is going to respond to these unceasing demands on the street.
But the real spark that I think Iran watchers are waiting for is: What happens if these protests continue, and this is a long, long marathon of a revolution, and in the midst of this, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who, as you rightly note, is very sick and very old, dies? Because the succession to the third supreme leader was always going to be problematic. Again, this is not a very popular idea amongst the Shia clergy. And the notion that Khamenei, who, by all reports coming out of Iran, has been grooming his son Mojtaba, who is a mid-level cleric who has no real religious credentials to take on such a role but is nevertheless being groomed to succeed his father, is going to basically put the last nail in the coffin of any kind of legitimacy for clerical rule. Basically, at this point, the supreme leadership has become just another word for shah. It’s just another kind of monarchy. And so, I think, even at that point, die-hard regime supporters are going to start thinking twice.
We’re all waiting to see what the next spark is going to be. The spark of the death of Mahsa Amini really turned the protests that were already taking place in Iran over the last six months, over deteriorating economic conditions, into a nationwide revolution. If Khamenei were to die, if there were to some conversation about succession, that, I think, might really create a whole new level of revolution here. Already on the streets, by the way, I should mention, amongst many, many chants that we are hearing these protesters chant on the streets of Iran, a common chant is “Mojtaba, Mojtaba, we will die before we see you as the leader.”
AMY GOODMAN: Reza Aslan, we want to thank you for being with us, author of the new book, An American Martyr in Persia: The Epic Life and Tragic Death of Howard Baskerville. We’ll link to your article in Time, “The Iranian People’s 100-Year Struggle for Freedom.” And Raha Bahreini, Amnesty International’s Iran researcher, human rights lawyers, speaking to us from London.
Next up, as the U.N. General Assembly votes 143 to 5 to condemn Russia’s annexation of four territories seized from Ukraine, we’ll speak with a Ukrainian activist, a member of the European Network of Solidarity with Ukraine, and a Russian activist living in exile in Berlin. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Baraye,” “Because Of,” by the Iranian singer Shervin Hajipour. It’s become the unofficial anthem of the Iran protests. The song’s lyrics are taken entirely from messages Iranians have posted online about why they’re protesting. “Baraye” has received more than 80% of the submissions for the Grammy Award which honors a song dedicated to social change.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The violence continues in Iran against unarmed demonstrators, inspired by young women who have challenged the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Among them and on our screens around the world, a new banner in the struggle for democracy in Iran has been raised along with the rallying cry: “Women, Life, Freedom.” These words signify all that the Islamic Republic denies and fears: respect for women, the sanctity of life over martyrdom, and the right to personal and civil freedoms. We would do well to pay attention and to support the movement that is beginning to create a groundswell of hope.
From my home here in the U.S., social media has provided a lifeline to family and friends in Iran these past few weeks. Ironically, there have been times when we have more information here about what is happening there than they do, because of the government’s sweeping internet blackouts. The internet has been flooded with hundreds of thousands of postings about the uprising in Iran after Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish Iranian woman, died in custody at the hands of the Islamic Republic’s morality police. Posts on #MahsaAmini (one of dozens of hashtags) chronicled the steady stream of young women following suit and burning their scarves in protest, men and more women joining them and together confronting security forces face to face for weeks now.
Free internet access and open lines of communication have been essential to the movement’s success, and remain so especially for the safety of the protesters. It’s unclear whether the Biden administration’s easing of sanctions to allow Elon Musk’s Starlink service — a satellite internet network operated by SpaceX — to operate in Iran will make a real difference. (Regardless, the international community must demand that the Iranian government stop interfering with internet access.)
Watching events unfold over social media, I recognized right away that these new women-led protests are different. In the past, we saw individual women defying the authorities by going out in public without their scarves and often being beaten, arrested or ending up in prison. I also thought back to 1979, when I joined thousands of women in Tehran on a chilly day in March celebrating International Women’s Day and protesting new mandatory veiling requirements. Remembering how terrified we were of club-wielding, black-shirted men supporting the government that came after us, I was in awe of these young women today — demanding justice for Mahsa and continuing the struggle that began 43 years ago. Most of them were not even born in 1979! I am elated by their growing numbers and by the many men who are also coming to their support.
On September 21 of this year, hundreds gathered in front of the UN to protest Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s address to the General Assembly. It was a reunion of sorts with old-timers from the anti-imperialist, anti-Shah student movement of the 1970s and protests against the Islamic Republic in the dark post-revolution years. I met an old friend there who told me that she had just run into the Iranian delegation shopping at Costco, loading up on everything from TVs to diapers. The next day, a video appeared with their purchases being loaded onto a large truck in front of the Millennium Hilton Hotel headed to the airport. This is another small example of official privileges that government personnel have at a time when people in Iran cannot afford fruit and meat, let alone televisions. Stories like this reminded me of the extravagances of the Shah’s family.
Today, the protest has a very different energy than in previous demonstrations: defiant, colorful, hopeful and loud — much like protests going on in Iran. In New York, one sees the old right and left groups, and some like the monarchists and mujahedin with close ties to the U.S. government. The current women’s movement inside Iran, however, has yet to align itself with any party or political alternative. While outside forces may hope to influence the movement, there is no evidence that they have been successful, despite claims by the Iranian government to the contrary. What the new movement lacks — a single charismatic leader, central organization and a set ideology — may also work to insure its continued independence.
Once again, I find myself glued to social media, anxious about the future. Iran’s “supreme leader” Ali Khamenei and President Raisi threatened early on to put a “decisive” end to the uprising, but protests have continued. (Keep in mind that President Raisi was one of the “hanging judges” that sent political prisoners to their deaths in 1988.) The government disputes its responsibility for many of the deaths, including that of Nika Shakarami, a 17-year-old who disappeared during the protests after telling a friend that she was being chased by security forces.
As the Iranian leadership pushes back, trying to empty the streets and force women to cover their hair once again in public, it is also detaining journalists and human rights activists, and openly threatening artists and public figures who speak out. Confirmations of arrests and detentions are difficult especially given the government’s efforts to close off communications to the outside world. There are reports of at least 1,200 arrested, but that number seems far too low given the breadth and length of the protests. Most worrisome, security forces are mobilizing the Iranian leadership’s hardline supporters to come to the streets.
We know this is only the beginning; that is why, to prevent further bloodshed, we must keep the spotlight on the uprising, especially on the attempts to crush it. What more can be done?
U.S. policy makers, both Democratic and Republican, support new sanctions against Iran. However, time and again, history shows sanctions are anything but nonviolent to the most vulnerable people in the countries targeted by them. Moreover, the Iranian government has used the sanctions as an excuse to cover up widespread corruption and mismanagement and an unprecedented looting of the country’s riches by clerics and the Revolutionary Guards. It is ordinary people who have paid the price of the sanctions, especially during the pandemic. Opposing sanctions goes hand in hand with defending the recent democracy movement.
The uprising is happening now, and the Iranian government has shown no restraint in trying to stop it. To counter this, there must be no excuse for inaction by those who stand for women’s rights and human rights in the U.S. and around the world. Feminists should not abandon young women who bravely refuse to be told what to wear and demand control over their lives in Iran or anywhere else in the world. That is what solidarity — feminist solidarity — is all about. Keep the news of the struggle in Iran alive. Make it a priority. Raise your voice in support of women’s rights and against U.S. sanctions.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Protesters in Iran are continuing to demand justice for Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Kurdish woman who died in the hands of the so-called morality police, as well as envisioning a political future beyond the Islamic Republic. The Norway-based group Iran Human Rights estimates at least 154 people have been killed since the protests began. “We saw women, really, what it seemed like for the first time, putting their bodies in direct confrontation with the police,” says Nilo Tabrizy, writer and video journalist at The New York Times. “Today’s movement is not calling for reform. Today’s movement is calling for a new vision of politics … with women at the helm of it,” says Narges Bajoghli, professor of anthropology and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: “Woman! Life! Freedom!” That’s the rallying cry in Iran and cities around the world as protests continue demanding justice for Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Iranian Kurdish woman who died after she was detained by Iran’s so-called morality police for allegedly wearing her headscarf improperly. Amini died on September 16th. Protests broke out the next day. The Norway-based group Iran Human Rights says at least 154 people have been killed since the protests began in Iran nearly three weeks ago. In a new report, Human Rights Watch has accused Iran’s security forces of using shotguns, assault rifles and handguns against peaceful protesters. The full extent of the protests or the security crackdown remains unknown, as the Iranian government has disrupted internet access in parts of Iran and blocked some messaging apps.
But some video of the protests continue to get out. This video, obtained by Reuters, shows a group of female students heckling a member of an Iranian paramilitary force, known as the Basiji. The female students are heard chanting, “Basiji, get lost!”
PROTESTERS: [translated] Basiji, get lost! Basiji, get lost! Basiji, get lost! Basiji, get lost! Basiji, get lost!
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show with two guests. Narges Bajoghli is an anthropologist and professor of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University. She’s the author of Iran Reframed: Anxieties of Power in the Islamic Republic. Her latest piece for Vanity Fair is headlined “’Woman, Life, Freedom’: Iran’s Protests Are a Rebellion for Bodily Autonomy.”
Also with us is Nilo Tabrizy. She is an Iranian-born video journalist who works at The New York Times. Her most recent piece is titled “What Video Footage Reveals About the Protests in Iran.”
Let’s go to those pictures first. Nilo, if you could start off by talking about this project at The New York Times and what the video shows?
NILO TABRIZY: Thank you so much, Amy.
So, we examined videos that primarily were coming out in the first week, week and a half of the protests. That’s when the internet connection was not as disrupted as what we’re seeing right now. So, we saw multiple things, and I can kind of boil it down into three main visual trends that we saw.
We saw that protesters were targeting symbols of the state. So, we saw protesters tearing down posters of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; the founder of the Islamic Republic. We saw protesters attacking police stations and government building complexes.
And another main thing that we saw, which has been very much the topic of conversation about these protests, was really seeing women in the lead. So that’s everything from the defining images of seeing women burning their hijabs in public to women cutting their hair as a form of protest. And as well, we heard a lot of women-centric slogans. Like you just said, ”Zan, Zendegi, Azadi,” that’s very much been at the forefront of these protests.
And as well, something that Dr. Bajoghli has written about, we saw women, really, what it seems like for the first time, putting their bodies in direct confrontation with the police. So, they’re, you know, actually going to physically fight them, going up to them, being very bold. This really stood out to us, and we saw that in multiple places across the country.
And the last thing that we saw is just these protests have been so widespread. So we’ve seen solidarity among social class, different regions, different ethnic backgrounds. And something that really stood out to us for that is we saw protests in religious and traditionally conservative cities that are regime strongholds, like Qom and Mashhad, where we can hear protesters saying, “Death to the Islamic Republic.” And as well, we saw — we could hear the chant, ”Zan, Zendegi, Azadi,” which originates from Kurdish. We heard people chanting it in Kurdish in Tehran, so well outside of Kurdistan, which, to us, really showed, you know, the solidarity across the country.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Nilo Tabrizy, if you could also talk about the state symbols that have been attacked during these protests and the significance of those state symbols? And in addition to this main chant, ”Zan, Zendegi, Azadi” — “Woman, Life, Freedom” — there have also been others. What are the ones that have really caught on?
NILO TABRIZY: Sure, absolutely. So, in terms of state symbols, we’ve seen, like I said, tearing down the poster of Khomeini. We’ve seen protesters tear down pictures of Ali Khamenei, the current supreme leader. We’ve seen them tear down posters of Soleimani. And seeing this is just very — you know, it’s a very bold thing to see. There’s so much repression in the state that seeing people tear down these symbols really gives us a visual understanding of what these protests are towards. It seems like they are very much calling for, you know, a complete restructure and a complete dissatisfaction with the current order.
And as well, in terms of the other chants that have caught on, yeah, I mean, the main ones that we kept seeing are ”Zan, Zendegi, Azadi.” We are seeing, you know, “Death to the Islamic Republic,” “Death to Khomeini,” really calling for a downfall of the system. Those were the main ones coming through.
And this is something that, you know, perhaps Dr. Bajoghli might have her thoughts on, but something that we saw was these chants are very much women-centered. So, in 2009, for example, when Neda was killed in the Green Movement protests, she very much became a symbol of state repression. There were chants at that time that chanted her name. This time around, we’re not necessarily hearing “Mahsa,” “Zhina,” her name so much. We’re really hearing ”Zan, Zendegi, Azadi.” And we’re also hearing chants that particularly had male references translated into women-centric references. So, the chant, for example, that we might have heard in previous protests is “I will defend,” you know, “I will seek revenge for my brother”; we’re hearing that “I will seek revenge,” or “I will defend my sister.” So, we’re really hearing that translated into a women-centric chant to reflect the movement.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Professor Narges Bajoghli, your piece for Vanity Fair is headlined “’Woman, Life, Freedom’: Iran’s Protests Are a Rebellion for Bodily Autonomy.” In the piece, you make a very interesting point, which is that Mahsa Amini, a Kurdish girl around whom these protests began, around her death, that her real name, Zhina, a Kurdish name, could not actually officially be registered under Iranian law. So, could you explain why that is, and the significance of these protests beginning around the death of this young Kurdish woman?
NARGES BAJOGHLI: Kurds in Iran have been repressed both pre-revolution and post-revolution. A lot of the ethnic minorities in Iran, especially those who live in the border areas, have faced both severe repression, as well as very few resources go into those areas of the country for development, for job opportunities, for all of those things. And many Kurds, as well as some other ethnic minorities in Iran, are not allowed to teach their languages in schools. And Zhina’s name could not be registered under Iranian law, because under Iranian law only certain Persian and Islamic names can be registered formally. And so they had to register her Persian name, Mahsa, instead of her Kurdish name, Zhina.
It’s significant that this uprising has started over the death of a Kurdish girl who was visiting Tehran. She didn’t live in Tehran; she lived in Saqqez, a town in Iranian Kurdistan. And, you know, these issues over identity and ethnicity have often been sort of faultlines that states have used in Iran to not allow solidarity to take place across the country. And what we see is that a nation rose up in defense of the death of a Kurdish girl, and the central slogan, as Nilo has been mentioning, of this entire uprising is a slogan that originates in Kurdish, comes from a militant feminist Kurdish background, from Turkey, first of all, and then gets translated into the Kurdish women fighting in Syria against ISIS in 2014 and 2015, and then it travels around, and it comes to Iran. And the reason that it becomes a national cry is because during her funeral you can hear mourners chanting that slogan. It gets captured on video, it circulates on social media, and then it spills out into Persian all across the country.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor, in your piece in Vanity Fair, you write, “It is only fitting that it’s Iran’s feminist revolution and the country’s young generations that are on the front lines of battles for bodily autonomy and sovereignty. For four decades, Iranian women and queers have borne the brunt of a political system predicated on their subjugation through daily policing and criminalization. They’re now showing the world — despite the severe repression and potential death they face — how to fight back, like feminists.” Take it from there.
NARGES BAJOGHLI: Yes. So, this is really, at its core, a fight for women and queer folks to have choices over their bodies. So, what’s really important, as Nilo was providing the context, is that the Islamic Republic has implemented laws that are severely restrictive for women since the very beginnings of the 1979 revolution and the start of the state. And what’s significant here about what happened to Amini is that she was caught at the hands of the so-called morality police, which are a police force that are a daily occurrence all across Iran. All women have had some kind of interactions with the morality police, and families, including religious ones, have had some form of interaction with these police, because their daughters may not be veiling as religiously as the mothers have. And so this is something that women are dealing with every day. When Amini was taken, at first ended up in a coma and later died from the injuries that she sustained, what we are seeing is that the ways in which women in Iran have been resisting every single day against these restrictions over the past 40 years, we now see this as a rupture in collective action. So, it’s not surprising to me that sort of this generation’s and, in our global moment, our generation’s first big feminist uprising, that is militant in style, is taking place in Iran on this level, because Iranian women have over four decades of experience of daily acts of resistance against patriarchical laws and against partriarchical norms.
And so, as conservative movements are rising across the world, as we see more and more laws that are coming down against women — and, you know, I think it’s worth noting that conservative movements, when they rise, and religious movements, when they rise, first and foremost, they go after the rights of women. And so, right now I think even though traditional media has been very slow to cover this uprising, it’s been internet users all over the world that have made hashtag #MahsaAmini trend. And that’s the reason we’re all having this conversation today. So it’s striking a chord with people all over the world who are, in one way or another, experiencing, either once again or a continuation of, increased patriarchical control over women’s bodies. And so, the protests in Iran are capturing our attention because we’re seeing, in real life, how women are putting their lives on the line and are refusing to comply any longer. You know, power and patriarchy require that we comply. And so, we’re seeing now young women and women across Iran who are just saying, “I will no longer comply with this.”
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Professor Bajoghli, I want to ask you about what you see as the potential outcome of these protests. I was listening to an interview on the BBC with renowned Iranian graphic novelist Marjane Satrapi, who said that, irrespective of what happens, the Islamic Republic is now a corpse. But you write in your piece that — in your Vanity Fair piece that the “street rebellions may or may not ‘succeed’ in toppling the regime or changing the laws — but that is almost beside the point.” Can you explain what you mean by that, and what the effects of these protests might be, even if the regime doesn’t fall?
NARGES BAJOGHLI: Right. So, we don’t — you know, I don’t have a crystal ball. I can’t predict what’s going to happen. But at the moment what is very significant about these protests is that women are taking control back from the state. They are saying, “We will not allow you to define how we come out onto the street. We will define this for ourselves.” And so, what is significant here is that, you know, when you rise up against powers and things that have been around for millennia, like patriarchy, which is, you know, one of — unfortunately, one of the universal values that we see around us, this is something that it takes a — we have to be able to envision that we can live in a society without that. And so, what that requires is a representation of resisting that kind of power. And what we have now in Iran, for Iranians, which is extremely significant, is that we have, on a daily basis now, various forms of civil disobedience which are about standing up against patriarchical power. And we’re seeing more and more slogans also that say, “It might not be always be the morality police, but the morality police could also be called your father.” So it’s going to the core of patriarchy in the state and patriarchy in the home. And it’s really — and that’s what makes this feminist to its core. It’s saying that in order for us to have any kind of freedom, political or otherwise, women need to be free.
And so, the long-term consequences of this are significant, because what we see also in Iran is that young girls in schools — elementary school students, middle school students, high school students — are, as you guys showed on your piece, are throwing out those who have enforced these laws in their schools for over four decades. And so, this is just the start of women and girls seeing their power, seeing it reverberate, and then seeing it — and seeing so many people around the world showing solidarity to it. And that is significant for Iran, but it’s also significant for all of us as we’re sitting here contemplating how we’re going to be fighting back against all of these laws that are trying to restrict our bodies now. We are now seeing a very confrontational, militant form of feminism rising up from Iran showing us how to do that.
AMY GOODMAN: During a speech in the European Union Assembly, a Swedish member of the Parliament, Abir Al-Sahlani, cut her hair in solidarity with the Iranian protests Tuesday evening in Strasbourg, France.
ABIR AL-SAHLANI: The hands of the regime of the mullahs in Iran is stained with blood. Neither history nor Allah or God Almighty will forgive you for the crimes against humanity that you’re committing against your own citizens. We, the peoples and the citizens of the EU, demand the unconditional and immediate stop of all the violence against the women and men in Iran. Until Iran is free, our fury will be bigger than the oppressors. Until the women of Iran are free, we are going to stand with you. ”Jin, Jiyan, Azadi.” Woman! Life! Freedom!
AMY GOODMAN: There has been dramatic video of solidarity with the protests in Iran all over the world. In addition to the protests drawing thousands and thousands of people, including in Los Angeles, which has a very large Iranian American community, and the Swedish MP that we just played, prominent French actresses, from Juliette Binoche to Isabelle Huppert, also posted a video online cutting their hair. Nilo, if you can talk, since you’re examining these video, one, about the video getting out of Iran, but, two, the video of these actions of solidarity? How easy is it for people in Iran, for the women to see this solidarity, when apps are being shut down, etc.?
NILO TABRIZY: Absolutely. So, yes, the internet crackdown is happening right now. I have a hard time reaching my family members. But Iranians are really smart. They know how to move and maneuver around state repression. It’s something that they have been doing for years. So there are windows and ways in which that they can see the outside world, and how videos are still getting sent out to people like me who are watching and monitoring. Videos are very much our primary window into what’s going on in Iran, given the repression of domestic journalists and international journalists that are — that once were accredited to be based there. So this is really the primary way that we’re seeing it.
And seeing these videos of women in Iran cutting their hair, it’s very moving. It’s something we focused on in our piece. And when we spoke with one of our experts, Reza Akbari, about it, he said it’s very much the symbol that is unique to these protests. It’s women saying, you know, back to the morality police, back to the state, “If this is what’s bothering you,” in a sarcastic, bitter way, “let me cut it off.” It’s very powerful, what they’re doing.
And something that really caught my eye when we were watching the videos coming out, specifically with cutting hair as a form of protest, is there was a video of a protester’s funeral. So, often in the past when protesters have been killed by the state, they’re very much dissuaded from being public at all about it. It’s a quiet burial and things like that. But we saw a video broadcast from one of these funerals that was put on social media that you can see this open grieving, that you can see people grieving for their young family member who was killed in these protests. One of her family members begins to cut her hair over the casket, and so making — you know, not only making this funeral a public statement, which in itself is very new, shocking and bold in these protests, but adding that visual of cutting her hair on top of it is just — yeah, it’s incredibly moving to see these images.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Professor Bajoghli, your response? What do you think accounts for the extent of global solidarity in this very visual and open way, not just demonstrations but so many women cutting their hair and posting it online? And if you could compare this also — in 2009, you were in Iran during the protests called the Green Movement. What differentiates that one from this one?
NARGES BAJOGHLI: Sure. So, to answer your first question, I think the reason this is reverberating so broadly across the world is, again, we’re feeling lots of frustrations all around the world with not just the rise of conservative power but also just the concentration and the monopoly of power around the world, whether it’s by our, you know, different states that we all live in, corporations that we’re — you know, like all the applications that we all use and the ways in which that they are owned by very, very few companies. And so we’re in this moment in which especially those in the millennial generation and what we call Generation Z are trying — they are showing outbursts of rebellion and just sort of being like “It’s enough” towards different forms of power that we have around us, such as the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter movement, hashtag #MeToo movement, hashtag #NiUnaMas in Latin America, and so on and so forth. And this is a moment that is also another one of those where it crystallizes all of these frustrations, and that’s one of the reasons I think it is catching on and showing so much — there’s so much solidarity around the world.
As far as the difference between this and the 2009 movement in Iran, the Green Movement in Iran, that movement was still very much within the bounds of politics of the Islamic Republic. It was a movement for electoral integrity and for reform of the system. Today’s movement, it’s not calling for reform. Today’s movement is calling for a new vision of politics. It’s calling for a vision of politics that is about life and not destruction, and that is about the future and women at the helm of it. That is significantly different. The protesters today in Iran, they are — in many ways, they’ve moved beyond the state. This is no longer about the state. This is about trying to create a new political imagination of what comes after the Islamic Republic. And so, this is why this is such a significant moment. It’s not that tomorrow the regime is going to come toppling down, but it’s that for the first time we have a national movement of sorts that has moved beyond the parameters of the state, is no longer looking to reform the state, and that is calling forth a completely new vision for politics in Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Narges Bajoghli, we want to thank you so much for being with us, anthropologist, professor of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, author of Iran Reframed: Anxieties of Power in the Islamic Republic. We’ll link to your piece in Vanity Fair headlined “’Woman, Life, Freedom’: Iran’s Protests Are a Rebellion for Bodily Autonomy.” And Nilo Tabrizy, I want to thank you in Vancouver, journalist and writer, currently a video journalist at The New York Times, where your most recent piece is titled “What Video Footage Reveals About the Protests in Iran.”
We’re going to end this segment with the renowned political activist, scholar and author Angela Davis, who expressed her solidarity with protesters in Iran in a video posted on social media. This is an excerpt.
ANGELA DAVIS: I want to offer my heartfelt solidarity to all those in Iran who have decided that Mahsa Amini’s death at the hands of the Islamic Republic shall not be in vain. As one of the many scholar activists in the United States who has identified for a very long time as an ally of progressive and radical movements in Iran, I offer my condolences to Mahsa Amini’s family and friends, and I say thank you to all those whose militant refusals directed at the regime, along with its morality police, have created the occasion for Mahsa Amini’s name to reverberate around the world. In her name, people are standing up and are saying no to the repression meted out by the Islamic Republic. … They are harbingers of hope, of hope not only for the people of Iran, but for all of us who want an end to racial capitalism, misogyny, economic repression, and who strive for more habitable futures for all beings on this planet. Long live Mahsa Amini.
AMY GOODMAN: Political dissident, activist, author Angela Davis, sending her message of solidarity with the women of Iran.
Coming up, we’ll also hear from India. And as India’s prime minister offers to help efforts to end the war in Ukraine, we’ll speak to the prominent Indian activist Kavita Krishnan. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Because Of,” “Baraye,” by the Iranian singer Shervin Hajipour, which has become the unofficial anthem of the Iran protests. The song’s lyrics are taken entirely from messages Iranians have posted online about why they’re protesting. Shervin Hajipour posted the song September 28th and received 40 million views before he was forced to take it down. He was arrested the next day, was released earlier this week on bail. He’s awaiting trial.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Thousands of students across Virginia protested this week, walking out of their classrooms and schools to demonstrate their opposition to policy changes being proposed by the administration of Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) toward transgender youth in the state.
Youngkin’s state Department of Education issued new model policies last Friday to “provide clear, accurate, and useful guidance to Virginia school boards that align with statutory provisions.” The new document takes a “parental rights” approach when it comes to transgender youth in schools, encouraging districts to enact rules that discriminate against and potentially endanger LGBTQ children.
The new policies say that transgender students participating in public school activities, such as sports, should only be involved in programs that correspond to the gender assigned to them at birth. It advocates a similar policy for the restrooms or locker rooms transgender students should use, prohibiting trans children from using facilities that match their gender identities.
The policy changes by Youngkin’s state Department of Education also say that schools should require students under the age of 18 to be addressed by the name and pronouns stated in official government records, and that students’ preferences to be called another name should not happen without parental consent — an action that could be harmful to children in households with unaccepting parents.
The guidance isn’t yet in effect but will be once a 30-day public comment period closes next month. After that, schools will be required to adopt policies “consistent with” the state’s model policies.
After news of the policy changes came on Friday, students organized to walk out of classrooms this week to protest against the Youngkin administration’s actions. Thousands of students across more than 100 schools took part in the demonstrations across the state on Tuesday.
Social media posts showcased students appearing outside their schools, with many chanting “trans lives matter,” while holding signs in opposition to the changes.
Short video from Osbourn Park High School! Trans Lives Matter!
Students walk out in protest on Glen Youngkin's bigoted anti-trans bans. pic.twitter.com/n0irKmhtOj
— Erin Reed (@ErinInTheMorn) September 27, 2022
McLean High School students in Northern Virginia chant “D-O-E, Leave us be” and “Trans rights are human rights” in protest of Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s model policies for transgender students. pic.twitter.com/iU7bzmqtwe
— Nathaniel Cline (@nathanielcline) September 27, 2022
“We decided to hold these walkouts as kind of a way to … disrupt schools and essentially have students be aware of what’s going on,” said Natasha Sanghvi, a high school senior in northern Virginia who helped organize the walkouts, speaking to The Associated Press.
“Trans students are students just like everybody else,” said Ranger Balleisen, a transgender senior at a high school in Fairfax County, who also helped organize the demonstrations. “We don’t want to be out here fighting for our rights and protesting — we want to be in calculus class and learning how to drive. But, instead, we have to be here, because they’re trying to take away our rights.”
Per an analysis from Blue Virginia, a progressive news site in the state, thousands of individuals submitting comments to a state website over the model policy changes show that most are “overwhelmingly opposed” to Youngkin’s proposals.
“I do not support Governor Youngkin’s new guidelines that constrain the identity and impose restrictions on the activities of transgender students in public schools, as I believe that the civil rights of all students should be respected,” said a person identifying themselves as a teacher in the state. “Public schools should be an inviting place for all members of the public, not a place where students have to cower in shame or fear.”
Another person who submitted public comment, who called themselves a “Central Virginia Therapist,” warned of the dangers the new policies would bring, paying particular attention to the outing of trans students to parents.
“Parents should want to be involved,” the commenter said. “However, there are some children who will be outed to parents who are not able to support those children in a healthy manner. Not only will those parents not support their child’s choices, gender identity, or sexual orientation, they will not accept their child’s orientation or identity, they will react in an unhealthy and unhelpful manner that alienates their child, harms their relationship with their child, and increases the risk of depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicide.”
Misgendering young trans individuals can indeed cause mental harm and anguish to people who are already facing the highest rates of depression and suicide among any other social group. Studies have found, however, that proper usage of a person’s gender pronouns, as well as using names they’ve come up with to reflect their genders, can be incredibly beneficial, and reduce those risks. One study, for example, showed that a person’s risk of suicide was cut in half for each instance their pronouns were used correctly. Another study demonstrated that trans children who are given support don’t show elevated signs of depression symptoms compared to the broader trans youth population.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The right to protest, fragile and meekly protected by the judiciary in Britain’s common law tradition, did not really hold much force till European law confirmed it. In the UK, condemning other countries for suppressing rights to protest is standard fare. So it was with some discomforting surprise – at least to a number of talking heads – that people were arrested for protesting against the monarchy after the passing of Queen Elizabeth II.
Such surprise is misplaced. In the UK, protestors can be marched away before the operation of vast, and vague discretionary powers wielded by the police. An old, ancient favourite is the breaching of the peace, something many a blue-clad officer is bound to see in any gathering of human beings.
In addition to that general power available to the police, the Public Order Act 1986 UK also covers public order offences. Section 5 enumerates instances where a person is guilty of such offences: where “they use threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour or disorderly behaviour” or display “any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening or abusive.”
An additional, emotive ingredient is also added to the legislation. Such conduct should take place “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.” During times of government declared mourning, the abuse of such wording is nigh boundless, despite the imprecise defence of “reasonable accuse” available to the accused party.
It is precisely in such wording that suppression of protest can take place with relative ease. The conditions of grieving were so utterly total in the aftermath of Princess Diana’s death as to be sinisterly oppressive. The slightest show of disagreement with the grievers was treated as abnormal and offensive. It was, as Jonathan Freedland wrote, “our collective moment of madness, a week when somehow we lost our grip.”
The police can count upon another weapon in their already vast armoury of quelling protest. The latest Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act of 2022 is yet another tool, adding “noise-related” provisions. It grants police powers to limit public processions, public assemblies and one-person protests “where it is reasonably believed that the noise they generated may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation carried on in the vicinity or have a significant impact on people in the vicinity of the protest.”
The public nuisance element in the legislation is also troubling. Police powers are granted to enable arrest and charging of individuals responsible for knowingly or recklessly doing something that risks or causes serious harm to the public. This also covers obstructions to the public “in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large”. The legislation defines serious harm as death, personal injury or disease; loss of, or damage to, property, or; serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or loss of amenity.”
While the degree of mourning for the Queen’s passing has lacked the intense and grotesque mawkishness shown at Diana’s death, those wishing to sport a different view have also been singled out for their dissent. There are a good number who see little merit in the monarchy continuing and have expressed disagreement with the new occupant. One anti-Royal protestor, holding the sign “Not My King” in a peaceful and dignified manner, was removed by police in an incident that caused a flutter of concern.
A protestor in Edinburgh was also arrested for holding up the somewhat spicier “Fuck imperialism, abolish monarchy” placard in front of St. Giles Cathedral. According to a police spokeswoman, the arrest was made “in connection with a breach of the peace”. Conservative commentator Brendan O’Neill saw it rather differently, calling it “an alarming, almost medieval act of censorship” and “an intolerable assault on freedom of speech.”
Despite initiating a number of arrests the Metropolitan Police insist, as they tend to, that, “The public absolutely have a right to protest and we have been making this clear to all officers involved in the extraordinary operation currently taking place.”
For those believers in Britannic exceptionalism, this was disturbing. It troubled University of East Anglia academic David Mead, who found it difficult to identify “what criminal offences protesters might have committed by shouting ‘not my king’ or ‘abolish the monarchy’ as the royal procession of the casket made its way along the streets”.
Mead poses a few questions. Was there threatening or abusive language likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress within the meaning of the Public Order Act? Seemingly not. Were the chants or placards in question threatening or abusive? Again, the case did not stack up. Even the public nuisance charge would fail to stick.
Perhaps the only ground left was that unclear power of taking proportionate action to prevent breaches of the peace. Even in an absence of violence, the police might still decide that violence to a person or property might imminently arise. Best step in before it’s too late.
This is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs, showing, yet again, that the Sceptred Isle can hardly be counted as an impregnable bastion of free speech and public dissent. “If people are not allowed to quietly, if offensively, protest against the proclamation of a king,” reflects O’Neill, “then clearly our country is not as free as we thought.”
The post Offence by Another Name: Suppressing Anti-Royal Protest in Britain first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Watching Queen Elizabeth’s funeral on Monday, I found myself experiencing two reactions simultaneously:
As an advocate of republicanism in Britain — i.e., as someone who believes the monarchy should be abolished entirely and replaced by a republic with an elected head of state — I snorted in horror at the vast pomp and circumstance, at the enforced, ritualistic national mourning, at the millions of people lining the streets from London to Windsor to say goodbye to a person many had never met, at the medieval rituals, at the costumes, at the proclamation from the archbishop of Canterbury about how we were all swearing allegiance to the new king, the protector of the faith, member of the Order of Garters, and so on. What on earth does all of that ritual and assertion of hereditary, God-given, privilege have to say to us in a democratic age?
But at the same time, I was also fascinated by the continuity represented by these centuries-old rituals and the glimpse into the past afforded by the pageantry. Those very elaborate scenes that so roused my anti-monarchical ire at the same time also served as bay windows into the vast span of British history. There was something mythical, and mystical, about it; one could, in such an orgy of pomp and circumstance, almost see how the Romans promoted their emperors to God status. The wrap-around media coverage seemingly showed a mortal woman being carefully transferred, through age-old incantations and rituals etched into the crevasses of time, over to the pantheon of the Gods.
Unfortunately, in the Britain of 2022, only the latter of these two reactions would pass muster. Were the anti-monarchist in me let loose on the streets of the U.K., with a bullhorn and a placard, I would risk arrest. Were I to simply seek to get on with my everyday life, I’d instead have to navigate a warren of bizarre exhortations to grief.
Over the past week, dozens of stories have surfaced of the extreme lengths to which institutions and individuals are going to profess their unstinting loyalty to, and grief on behalf of, the royal family.
In an ostentatious show of this grief, food banks have shuttered — which will certainly hurt the hungry, but probably won’t do much to actually make the Queen’s grieving family feel better. Some supermarkets have toned down their checkout beeps, which will clearly make it more difficult for hard of hearing customers to keep track of what they are paying for, but will probably not really contribute to a sense of national healing after the death of the head of state. In a season of massive industrial action, postal workers and train drivers also pushed back their strikes. A number of bicycle racks, where people can park and lock their bikes, have closed for the two-week mourning period, and the organization British Cycle initially told its members they should abstain from bicycling on the day of the funeral, all of which will likely force more cyclists into driving cars instead but, again, probably won’t render whole the shattered psyche of the House of Windsor — unless, for reasons unknown, “The Firm,” as it is colloquially referred to, has a particular animus to two-wheeled modes of transportation.
Sports events have been canceled; theaters have gone dark. Transport for London, which manages the capital city’s bus and underground train network, ordered street musicians to stop singing on transit property until after the funeral, presumably on the dubious assumption that commuters are so all-consumed in grieving that a few loose strains of Beatles or Dylan classics wafting through their local Tube station would terminally discombobulate them.
Other stories include that of a holiday park chain telling guests they would have to vacate their hotel rooms on the day of the funeral. Apparently, according to this line of reasoning, vacation goers having fun would fatally undermine national solidarity.
Even more worryingly than this nonsense, however, has been the law enforcement response. People expressing republican sentiments — either arguing aloud against the monarchy at public events or holding up protest signs protesting the passage of hereditary power from Queen Elizabeth to King Charles — have run afoul of two laws: the Public Order Act of 1986, which allows police to arrest people they deem as using threatening or abusive words, either out loud or on a sign, or talking in a way likely to cause harm or distress to others; and the recently passed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which, most controversially, provides for the arrest of people causing “a serious annoyance.” Some of these protesters now face prison terms or fines for their activities.
A heckler who shouted out that Prince Andrew — implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal — was a “sick old man,” was arrested and charged with breaching the peace.
A barrister who wanted to test the limits of free speech journeyed to Westminster and held up a blank piece of cardboard in protest; the police questioned him but didn’t make an arrest. When he asked what they would do if he wrote “Not my king” on the cardboard, he was told he would be arrested.
When a protester in Oxford called out “Who elected him?” when royal heralds came through the ancient university town to proclaim Charles the new king, he was promptly manhandled, handcuffed and thrown in the back of a police van.
In Edinburgh, a man was arrested for holding up a sign reading “Fuck Imperialism. Abolish monarchy.” And the list goes on.
There is an irony to all of this. The reason that so much of the world seems utterly preoccupied by the Queen’s death is that, in life, she did not seem to strive for autocracy and instead was associated in the public’s mind with a Britain characterized by democracy and free speech — the sort of place that could stand proud against the Nazis and their vicious totalitarian vision, or, more recently, offer safe haven to those fleeing Russian atrocities in Ukraine.
How entirely bizarre, therefore, that as Elizabeth II’s body lay in state before she was interred, and as leaders of many of the world’s great democracies journeyed to London to pay tribute to her, the country over which she presided for 70 years indulged in rampant and gratuitous attacks on free speech and peaceful dissent.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Mass arrests and protests have followed Russian president Vladimir Putin’s threats to use nuclear weapons and his order to mobilise military reserves. The resistance comes after Putin gave a fiery speech pledging that any incursion into Russian territory would be met with massive force.
Referendums in contested Russia-held territory have also been promised. The suggestion seems to be that those territories would be included under the new nuclear umbrella.
The new orders follow major Ukrainian advances into areas occupied by Russia since the invasion.
In a major speech on Wednesday 21 September, Putin condemned the west for supplying arms to Ukraine and said of alleged western nuclear threat against Russia:
I would like to remind those who make such statements regarding Russia that our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have.
He added:
In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.
Putin’s decree that reserves be mobilised included an order that reservists would be paid the same as regular troops and enjoy the same conditions.
The period of mobilisation was not specified and the precise numbers were not stated. The decree did also mention exemptions for age and illness.
There were reports that within hours flights out of Russia and some other countries liable for reserve service were sold out within minutes, with prices skyrocketing:
Flights departing Moscow and St. Petersburg today. The @AP is reporting international flights departing Russia have either sold out or skyrocketed in price after Putin announced a mobilization of reservists.
Search SVO, VKO, DME for Moscow airports and LED for St. Petersburg. pic.twitter.com/LV2PrkwPD9
— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) September 21, 2022
Also within hours of the decree, arrests were being reported across Russia with 100 each in Moscow and St Petersburg. This appears to be a response to dissent and organising against the war, and against mobilisation:
at least 364 arrests of anti-war/anti-mobilization protesters across russia, including almost 100 each in st. petersburg & moscow.
and, since this tweet, a mass arrest of 60ish in st. petersburg (I believe, not counted here) was reported. https://t.co/RVD2dHYHHb— kimberly grace (@grace8ming) September 21, 2022
Some reports suggest that arrests at anti-war demonstrations across Russia were as high as 1700. And there are claims that some were badly injured by police as they were taken into custody:
>1,746 people arrested at anti-war protests in Russia. Now activists begin a long night of searching police stations for missing & injured people, the girl whose head was dragged on the asphalt, the guy whose contact lens was punched into his eye, etc @AvtozakLIVE @OvdInfo pic.twitter.com/rJa7bppUBW
— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) February 24, 2022
Planned referendums in contested and occupied regions are set to go ahead. The thinking seems to be that the votes, derided as illegitimate by the Ukrainian foreign minister on Tuesday, will allow Putin’s Russia to integrate the areas into Russian territory.
The rationale, according to pro-Ukrainian figures like former BBC correspondent John Simpson, is that these territories will then form a red line in terms of Putin’s nuclear threat:
This is a very dangerous moment. Phoney referendums in Russian-controlled eastern Ukraine will mean Russia can claim that Donbas etc is actually part of Russia. If Ukraine continues to advance there, Putin will threaten to use nukes to defend Russian territory. WW3 would beckon.
— John Simpson (@JohnSimpsonNews) September 21, 2022
It is tempting to look at Putin’s decrees as evidence of a regime in crisis and this may well be accurate. But once again the Ukrainian war makes the global risks apparent. Driving the Russian regime to the point of pressing reserves into service, and making threats of this kind, is nothing to crow about.
Rather, it highlights the risk of enduring nuclear capability. There’s also the need for a settlement through dialogue and the kind of serious program of global disarmament which the end of the Cold War failed to deliver.
Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Silar, cropped to 770 x 403px, licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0.
By Joe Glenton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
COMMENTARY: By Yamin Kogoya
Papuan protesters from seven customary regions this week stormed the Mako Brimob police headquarters in Kota Raja, Jayapura, accusing the KPK and police of “criminalising” local Governor Lukas Enembe.
The protest on Monday was organised in response to the Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) Corruption Eradication Commission’s attempt to investigate corruption allegations against Governor Lukas Enembe.
This time, Enembe is suspected of receiving gratification of Rp 1 miliar (NZ$112,000).
These accusations are not the first time that the KPK has attempted to criminalise Lukas Enembe, the Governor of Papua. The KPK has tried this before.
KPK had attempted to implicate the governor in their corruption scam in February 2017, but the attempt failed.
On 2 February 2018, KPK attempted another attack against Governor Enembe at the Borobudur Hotel, Jakarta, but [this] failed miserably. Instead, two KPK members were arrested by the Metro Jaya Regional Police. The KPK announced a suspect without checking with the governor first.
The representative of the Papuan people at the rally stated that KPK failed to follow the correct legal procedures in executing this investigation.
KPK should avoid inflaming the Papuan conflict, as the Papuan people have so far followed Jakarta’s controversial decisions — decisions that are contrary to the wishes of the Papuan people, a representative stated at the rally.
For instance, Jakarta’s insistence on the creation of new provinces from the existing two (Papua and West Papua) has been strongly rejected by most Papuans.
Remained silent
The spokespeople for the protesters warned KPK that they had remained silent because Governor Enembe was able to maintain a calm among the community. However, if the governor continues to be criminalised, Papuans from all seven customary regions will revolt.
The KPK has named Governor Enembe as a suspect in the corruption of his personal funds.
“This is ‘funny’,” protesters said. “One billion rupiahs [NZ$112,000] of his own money used for medical treatment were alleged to be corrupt. This is strange. We will raise that amount, from the streets and give it to KPK.
“Remember that,” speakers said.
Stefanus Roy Renning, the coordinator of Governor Enembe’s Legal Council Team, said the case the governor was accused of (1 billion Rupiah) is actually, the governor’s personal funds sent to his account for medical treatment in May 2020.
Therefore, if you refer to this [KPK’s behaviour] as criminalisation, then yes, it is criminalisation.
This is due to the fact that the suspect’s status was premature and not in line with the criminal code, and that the governor himself has not been questioned as a witness in the alleged case.
Questioned as witness
Renning said that for a suspect to be determined, there must be two pieces of evidence and he or she must be questioned as a witness.
Benyamin Gurik, chair of the Indonesian Youth National Committee (KNPI), expressed apprehension about the allegations, saying it amounted to the criminalisation of Papuan public figures, which may contribute to conflict and division in the region.
“Jakarta should reward him for all of the good things he’s done for the province and country, not criminalise him,” said Gurik.
Otniel Deda, chair of the Tabi Indigenous group, urged the KPK to act more professionally.
He suspects that the KPK’s actions were sponsored by “certain parties” intent on shattering the reputation of the Papuan leader.
The governor himself has his own suspicions as to who is behind the corruption accusations against him.
He suspects KPK and the police force are among the highest institutions in the country being used to serve political games that are being played behind his back.
Purely a political move
According to Dr Sofyan Yoman, president of the Fellowship of West Papuan Baptist Churches (PGBWP), the attempted criminalisation of Governor Enembe is a purely political move geared toward dictating the 2024 election outcome, not a matter of law.
Dr Yoman explained that other parties in Indonesia are uncomfortable and lack confidence in entering the Papua provincial political process in 2024.
There have been those who have seen, observed, and felt that the existence of Lukas Enembe is a threat and an obstacle for other political parties seeking the position of number one in Papua.
To break the stronghold of Governor Enembe, who is also the chair of the Democratic Party of the Papuan province, there is no other way than to use KPK to criminalise him.
In a statement to Dr Yoman on Wednesday, Governor Enembe said:
Mr Yoman, the matter is now clear. This is not a legal issue, but a political one. The Indonesian State Intelligence, known as Badan Intelligence Negara (BIN), and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, known as Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan (PDIP), used KPK to criminalise me.
Mr Yoman, you must write an article about the crime so that everyone is aware of it. State institutions are being used by political parties to promote their agenda.
Account blocked
Dr Yoman met the governor and his wife at Governor Enembe’s Koya residence, where he was informed of the following by Yulce W. Enembe:
In the last three months, our account has been blocked without any notification to us as the account owner. We have no idea why it was blocked. We could not move. We can’t do anything about it. Our family has been criminalised without showing any evidence of what we did wrong. Now we’re just living this way because our credit numbers are blocked.
The governor himself gave an account of how he used the Rp 1 billion:
As my health was getting worse, we left for Jakarta at night in March 2019. We were in lockdown due to COVID-19 at the time. When I left, I saved 1 billion in my room. In May 2019, I called Tono (the governor’s housekeeper). I asked Tono to go to my room and take the money in the room worth 1 billion. I asked Tono to transfer it to my BCA account. That’s my money, not corruption money.
“The KPK is just anybody,” the governor stated. “The KPK’s actions were purely political, not legal. KPK has become a medium for PDIP political parties. Considering that the Head of BIN, the Minister of Home Affairs, and the KPK descend from one institution — the police — these kinds of actions are not surprising to me.
“I am being politically criminalised”, said the governor. “Part of a pattern of psychological and physical threats and intimidation I have faced for some time”
“I am not a criminal or a thief,” the governor said.
Singapore health travel
The governor’s overseas travels for medical treatment in Singapore have been halted [barred] by the Directorate General of Immigration based on a prevention request from the KPK.
This appears to be a punitive measure taken by the country’s highest office to further punish the governor, preventing him from receiving regular medical care in Singapore.
Media outlets in Indonesia and Papua have been dominated by stories about the governor’s name linked to the word “corruption”, creating a space for hidden forces to assert their narratives to determine the fate of not only the governor, but West Papua, and Indonesia.
West Papua is a region in which whoever controls the information distributed to the rest of the world, controls the narrative. It is a region where the Indonesian government and the Papuan people have fought for years over the flawed manner in which West Papua was incorporated into Indonesia in the 1960s.
When news of a criminalised Papuan public figure such as Governor Enembe comes to the surface, it is often conveniently used as a means of demoralising popular Papuan leaders who are trusted and loved by their people.
It has been proven again and again over the past decade that Jakarta would have to deal with the revolt of hundreds of thousands of Papuans if they sought to disturb or displace Governor Enembe.
Ultimately, these kinds of nuanced incidents are often created and used to distract Papuans from focusing on the real issue. The issue of Papuan sovereignty is what matters most — the state of Papua, as Jakarta is forcing Papuans to surrender to Indonesian powers that seek to transform Papua and West Papua into Indonesia’s dream.
Papuan dream turned nightmare
Tragically, the Indonesian dream for West Papua have turned into nightmares for the people of Papua, recently claiming the lives of four Indigenous Papuans from the Mimika region, whose bodies were mutilated by Indonesian soldiers.
In recent weeks, this tragic story has been featured in international headlines, something that Jakarta wishes to keep out of the global spotlight.
The UN acting High Commissioner for Human Rights Nada Al-Nashif raised West Papua in her statement during the 51st session of the Human Rights Council on Monday — the day that Governor Enembe was summoned to police in Kota Raja.
Despite Jakarta’s attempts to spin news about West Papua as domestic Indonesian sovereignty issues, the West Papua story will persist as an unresolved international issue.
Governor Enembe (known as Chief Nataka) his family, and many Papuan figures like them have fallen victim to this protracted war between two sovereign states — Papua and Indonesia.
Some of the prominent figures in the past were not only caught in Jakarta’s traps but lost their lives too. In the period between 2020 and 2021, 16 Papuan leaders who served the Indonesian government are estimated to have died, ranging in their 40s through to their 60s.
Papuans have lost the following leaders in 2021 alone:
Klemen Tinal, Vice-Governor of Papua province under Governor Enembe, who died on May 21.
Pieter Kalakmabin, Vice-Regent of the Star Mountain regency, died on October 28.
Abock Busup, Regent of Yahukimo regency (age 44), was found dead in his hotel room in Jakarta on October 3.
Demianus Ijie, a member of Indonesia’s House of Representatives, died on July 23.
Alex Hesegem, who served as Vice-Governor of Papua from 2006-2011, died on June 20.
Demas P. Mandacan, a 45-year-old Regent from the Manokwari regency, died on April 20.
The Timika regency (home of the famous Freeport mine) lost a member of local Parliament Robby Omaleng, on April 22.
In 2020, Papuans lost the following prominent figures: Herman Hasaribab; Letnan Jendral, a high-ranking Indigenous Papuan serving in the Indonesian Armed Forces, who died on December 14; Arkelaus Asso, a member of Parliament from Papua, died on October 15; another young Regent from Boven Digoel regency, Benediktus Tambonop (age 44), died on January 13; Habel Melkias Suwae, who served twice as Regent of Jayapura, the capital of Papua, died on September 3; Paskalis Kocu, Regent of Maybrat, died on August 25; on February 10, Sendius Wonda, the head of the Biro of the secretary of the Papua provincial government, died; on September 9, Demas Tokoro, a member of the Papuan People’s Assembly for the protection of Papuan customary rights, died; and on November 15, Yairus Gwijangge, the brave and courageous Regent of the Nduga regency (the area where most locals were displaced by the ongoing war between the West National Liberation Army and Indonesian security forces), died in Jakarta.
These Indigenous Papuan leaders’ deaths cannot be determined, due to the fact that the institutions responsible for investigating these tragic deaths, such as the legal and justice systems and the police forces, are either perpetrators or accomplices in these tragedies themselves.
Dwindling survival for Papuans
This does not mean Jakarta is to blame for every single death, but its rule provides an overarching framework where the chances of Papuans surviving are dwindling.
This is a modern-day settler colonial project being undertaken under the watchful eye of international community and institutions like the UN. This type of colonisation is considered the worst of all types by scholars.
It is only their grieving families and the unknown forces behind their deaths that know what really happened to them.
The region for the past 60 years has been a crime scene, yet hardly any of these crimes have been investigated and/or prosecuted.
Given the threats, intimidation, and illness Governor Enembe has endured, it is indeed a miracle he has survived.
A big part of that miracle can be attributed to his people, the Papuans who put their lives on the line to protect him whenever Jakarta has tried to harass him.
This week, KPK tried to criminalise the governor and Papuans warned Jakarta – “don’t you try it”.
Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Some newspapers defend their journalists, at least once in a while. When the charming prince of Saudi Arabia had Journalist Jamal Khashoggi sawed up into little pieces, the Washington Post expressed outrage, and the bad press cost the Saudis some embarrassment; for a while it even looked like they might not get to bomb Yemen any more.
The Post is, of course, every inch an establishment newspaper which houses neocons, neoliberals, warmongers, regime changers and more. It does not support Julian Assange, though it used and printed information he made available. Nevertheless, the Post did speak out for Khashoggi.
So imagine, for comparison, how KPFA 94.1 FM, our famously progressive, left-wing, radical radio station in the San Francisco Bay Area, might respond to the abuse of one of its journalists.
Well, here’s what happened.
Last September 17th, 2021, KPFA journalist Frank Sterling was arrested at a demonstration. Several activists were protesting a “Back the Blue” event honoring Antioch’s outgoing Police Chief Tammany Brooks. Chief Brooks had protected officers involved in police brutality and had even hired a former San Francisco policeman who’d killed a homeless man. Some of the police chief’s admirers hassled the protesters, and the police moved in and arrested three people, including Frank.
“I was out there at the park as a protester and was documenting the rally and police abuses. And when I was documenting the arrest of [demonstrator] Shagoofa Khan and the brutality they were bestowing upon her, violating our civil rights, I was then attacked and tasered and held to the ground,” Frank reported.
Here’s a 13-minute video of the demonstration and the arrests
This happened in Antioch, an East Bay town on the San Joaquin River; it’s where Frank lives and covers local as well as regional news for KPFA 94.1 FM. He also attends Antioch City Council meetings to speak on matters concerning Native Americans, tenants’ issues, the rights of homeless people, police accountability and the need for police body cameras. He’s well known to city officials and to the police in Antioch.
Fortunately for Frank, this isn’t Saudi Arabia. In comparison, the Antioch police are mild and gentle. Although they occasionally choke and strangle people, they mostly prefer not to. And they’ve absolutely never, ever been known to saw up a journalist like meat in a butcher shop. In relating to Frank, they merely assaulted him, tasered him, arrested him, and confiscated his journalism equipment.
Those are occupational hazards for journalists, at least for those who raise uncomfortable issues. Frank Sterling does that and more. Journalist, activist, and Native American, he wears several hats both in the community and at KPFA. In addition to covering news events, he’s the technical director of the KPFA Apprenticeship Program. And he contributes to “Full Circle.” On Friday evenings, the station’s listeners hear his familiar voice: “Welcome to Full Circle . . . broadcasting from right here in Huichin — in that part of occupied Ohlone Territory known to settlers as Berkeley, California.”
Another hat he wears is that of Staff Rep on KPFA’s Local Station Board, the LSB. The day after that arrest was the board’s September meeting. “Are you doing okay?” board members asked him. “We saw a message that you got hurt.”
“I’m okay,” he assured us, though appearing still slightly stunned, and he briefly told us about it. “Thanks for everyone that reached out,” he said as he finished. “Thank you for your concern.”
The Contra Costa County DA, Diana Becton, was endorsed by progressives as a reformer. But we soon learned that she was charging Frank with resisting arrest. And as happens in court cases, it dragged on, month after month; at each court hearing a date was set for the next hearing.
The Oscar Grant Committee mobilized support. They and members of the LSB’s minority caucus, Rescue Pacifica, accompanied him to court hearings.
Supporters of Frank
A petition was circulated on his behalf. Veterans for Peace wrote a resolution in support of him.
Several non-corporate journalists publicized his case. The hosts of Hard Knock Radio and UpFront interviewed him. Steve Zeltzer of Work Week Radio also covered this, and Ann Garrison did an interview for the Black Agenda Report. Ann Garrison’s article is at several websites.
Although several KPFA programmers had interviewed Frank, there was also something the station itself could do. It could air “carts” (recorded messages) and send out emails to the membership list — these are things KPFA does during fund drives, and to announce speaker events, the crafts fair, and other events the station takes an interest in.
Although KPFA’s board is deeply divided on many issues, support of journalists would presumably be something that both sides could agree on. Moreover, Frank was well liked by people on both sides.
At the March 19th meeting, board member James McFadden brought this up with General Manager Quincy McCoy, who curtly dismissed the request.
“We’re not a political party,” the Manager replied.
There may’ve been some loud gasps, though not heard during this Zoom session where most microphones are muted.
This was KPFA, the radio station that stood up to Joe McCarthy & Co, bravely opposed the Korean War in an era when it took incredible courage to express a dissenting opinion. Likewise, KPFA strongly opposed the war in Vietnam and has spoken out against security state policies many times since. That has been KPFA’s traditional anti-establishment, anti-imperialist, antiwar stand.
It seemed unthinkable that the manager of this station would refuse to defend one of its own journalists. This manager was Quincy McCoy whose voice we often hear on KPFA airwaves, telling us: “This is a community station,” “Vigilant as always,” “Truth to power,” and “We have your back!” The manager who ends his emails with the slogan: “In times of crisis, unity is the only solution.”
Unity? Maybe not this time. Or, was there some misunderstanding here?
The board’s minority caucus, Rescue Pacifica, had written a resolution in support of Journalist Frank Sterling and asked the secretary to put it on the agenda. Although Rescue Pacifica is a one-third minority on this board, it did seem possible that this resolution might pass when put to a vote. But there was no vote. The secretary and chair, Carol Wolfley and Christina Huggins, kept the resolution off the agenda.
More was said about Frank Sterling’s case during Public Comments. This is where KPFA listeners, people attending the meeting who are not current board members, get to speak. The audio is about 35 minutes, and here are some excerpts:
“I’m disappointed this body did not even discuss support for Frank Sterling,” said KPFA staff person Sharon Peterson, “This is a news story that we should, in our ever vigilant position, be covering.”
“Why don’t you report the news of the journalist who was attacked twice by the Antioch police and tell people his next court date is in April?” asked Nancy Saibara-Naritomi from KPFT, the Pacifica sister station in Houston. “That is important.”
“I’m very concerned about the lack of support for Frank Sterling by the LSB,” said Steve Zeltzer of Workweek Radio. “And the manager said KPFA is ‘not a political party.’ Well, when does KPFA have to be a political party to support a journalist? . . . Journalists are under attack in this country. And for KPFA to be silent . . .”
Stan Woods, labor activist and former KPFA board member, said: “[At any news outlet] if one of their journalists is under attack, falsely accused and arrested, the management of that station or newspaper or website comes to their defense.”
Several more spoke likewise, expressing support for Frank. The one public speaker who advocated non-support was former board member Sharon Adams. “The LSB’s role is not to make political pronouncements,” she declared. “One reason perhaps to avoid having the LSB make political announcements is that there are news reports about what happened there. For example, the Antioch Herald.”
The Antioch Herald, which Sharon recommended, is a conservative newspaper, a “Blue Lives Matter” and “Back the Blue” supporter. Its publisher has also been called out at city council for homophobic and transphobic remarks on his social media. Although investigative journalists and researchers do consider it important to read reports from across the political spectrum, including the Antioch Herald, it seemed strange that Sharon would not want KPFA to give its own views. After all, the very reason for KPFA/Pacifica’s seven decade existence has been to give independent news and views that are not likely to be heard from the commercial media.
Sharon Adam’s speech came as a surprise, even to those of us who are used to hearing her. She’d spent six years on KPFA’s board; she had been the treasurer, and at board meetings she had often functioned as spokesperson for the majority faction. And she is an attorney.
At the next LSB meeting, after the Pacifica National Board (which represents all five stations & 200 Affiliate stations) had stood by Frank and passed a resolution in his support, Sharon doubled down in her attack on Frank and accused him of assaulting a police officer.
So was Sharon speaking for herself? or for her faction? Her group, which uses several names, including “SaveKPFA,” “KPFA Protectors,” “New Day,” and Safety Net,” has a two-thirds majority on the KPFA LSB.
I wrote an email to all of the board members of Protectors/New Day, asking them if she spoke for them? I received no reply from any of them.
I suppose I shouldn’t have been so surprised. These are some of the same people who are petitioning the FCC to deny renewal of the WBAI license–if successful it will cost the network an asset valued at somewhere between $20 to $50 million. This fight has been going on for years, decades actually, and during the last couple of years it has become more intense.
Then, as endnote to all this, came a letter of resignation from Quincy McCoy, effective August 15th. He was general manager for nearly a decade and worked closely with the “Protectors”/”New Day” faction. There was controversy over various matters that happened on his watch, such as the non-payment of property taxes, and reports of an as of yet unexplained seven-month delay in presenting the financial documents needed for timely audits. Nevertheless, the “Protectors” loved him and praised him, and they refused to fulfill their yearly duty of evaluating his performance. They also said it’s “racist” to criticize this manager who is a person of color, (McCoy is African American). But when Frank Sterling’s supporters pointed out that to be consistent with that argument, the “Protectors” should also support Frank, also a person of color (Native American), they didn’t respond.
Why did Quincy McCoy resign? He didn’t say. But he did list his favorite people at KPFA, and among these was Sharon Adams, that star player of March 19th, as well as Carol Wolfley, the Secretary of the LSB, who sent a letter of support for the petition to the FCC.
This and other happenings at KPFA may indeed sound discouraging to KPFA listeners, and it is at times hard to be optimistic, but I don’t think it does any good to try to cover up the bad stuff. KPFA’s listener-members need to know what’s going on. We have to hang in there and work to preserve KPFA’s traditional antiwar voice and defend our journalists.
The post Why didn’t KPFA defend its journalist? first appeared on Dissident Voice.
Protesters blocked roads in central Auckland this afternoon for the second time in two weeks, marching past the main entrance to the city’s hospital.
The Auckland motorway onramp used by protesters two weeks ago was closed ahead of another rally at the Auckland Domain today.
Aucklanders were warned to prepare for traffic disruption in the central city.
The Brian Tamaki-led Freedom and Rights Coalition gathered at the Domain for a “Kiwi Patriots Day and March” before a crowd of about 1000 marched out onto the streets about 1.30pm.
After passing Auckland City Hospital and over the Grafton Bridge, the protesters turned up Symonds St, before heading down Khyber Pass Road past the closed on-ramp and back towards the domain, where the crowd dispersed.
Auckland City East Area Commander Inspector Jim Wilson said it was a “peaceful protest, which police monitored accordingly”.
He said while there were no arrests or incidents of note, a review phase in the coming weeks will determine if any follow-up action is required.
‘Balancing the safety … with protest’
“The police focus today remained on balancing the safety of all protesters and the public, while acknowledging the right to protest peacefully and lawfully,” he said.
“We note the activity did disrupt traffic in central Auckland where some motorway on and off-ramps were temporarily closed by Waka Kotahi to minimise further disruption.
“These have now reopened and there are no further network issues.
“We would like to thank the members of the public who deferred their travel through the affected areas today and acknowledge those that were inconvenienced.”
Counter-protesters were also in the area today.
Two weeks ago, about 1000 coalition members swarmed onto Auckland’s southern motorway, causing significant problems for traffic.
Ahead of today’s protest, Waka Kotahi closed both the Khyber Pass on/off-ramps — used by the protesters last time — and the Symonds St on/off-ramps, although these have now reopened.
Protesters were demonstrating over a range of anti-government issues, including against public health measures in response to the covid-19 pandemic.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Summary of Part I
In Part I, I argued that the relationship between political subordination and revolution is ill-conceived if framed in a dualistic way. We are either totally submissive or at the other extreme there is revolution. However, following the work of James C. Scott’s great book Domination and the Arts of Resistance I claimed that people don’t go from being subordinate to wanting to overthrow a government overnight. There is a spectrum of growing dissatisfaction in between. I presented three in between stages: thick submission, thin submission and paper-thin submission. Then I presented Scott’s three-dimensional theory of subordination: a) material, economic and technological; b) social-psychological; and c) cultural. I included examples in each dimension. Then I described three movements from submission to revolution. The first is the “public transcript” controlled by elites; second is a hidden transcript controlled by subordinates and the third is a public transcript controlled by subordinates on their way to becoming insubordinate. In Part I I covered the public transcript controlled by elites. These included parades and coronations, control of public discourse and use of language. They include body language, gestures and postures. In this second part I will describe what hidden transcripts are like and lastly, I will explain the process by which the hidden transcripts become public and controlled by the lower classes.
*****
The Hidden Transcript for Resistance
The hidden transcript requires two performances: a) performance of correct speech acts and gestures; and b) control of rage, insult, anger and violence in the face of the ruler’s appropriation of labor, public humiliations, whippings, rapes, slaps, leers, contempt, ritual denigration, and abuse of the children of the oppressed. When the public transcript is disrupted, it is difficult for the true feelings of subordinates not to surface. For example, in the twentieth century, the sinking of the Titanic was such an event. The drowning of large numbers of wealthy and powerful whites in their finery aboard a ship that was said to be unsinkable seemed like a stroke of poetic justice to many blacks. Here is a verse that was turned into a song:
All the millionaires looked around at Shine (a black stoker) say
“Now Shine, oh Shine, save poor me.” Say “We’ll make you wealthier than Shine can be”. Shine say, “you hate my color and you hate my race”
Say, “Jump overboard and give those sharks a chase”
Another example is the boxing victory of Jack Johnson over Jim Jeffries in 1910 and Joe Louis’ victories later in the 20th century. These were instances where black men took out their revenge on all whites for a lifetime of indignities. This was so disturbing to the local and state authorities that they passed ordinances against these victories being shown in local theaters.
But in order for hidden transcripts to take root, they need to be rehearsed backstage. Here is an example of a hidden transcript of slaves talking to each other after the master had left the kitchen:
That’s a day a-comin! That’s a day a comin’! I hear the rumbling ob de chariots! I see de flashin ob de guns! White folks blood is a runnin on the ground like a ribber, an de deads heaped up dat high! Oh Lor! Hasten de day when de blows, a de bruises, and de aches and de pains, shall come to de white folks, an de buzzards shall eat dem as dey’s dead in the streets. Oh Lor! roll on de chariots, an gib the black people rest and peace. Oh Lor! Gib me de pleasure ob livin’ till dat day, when I shall see white folks shot down like de wolves when dey come hungry out o’de woods. (5)
There are 4 characteristics of hidden transcript which merit clarification:
Scott develops an interesting spectrum of the range of possible reactions that slaves might express. It seems reasonable that this could also apply to serfs and untouchables. I’ve reorganized Scott’s spectrum so that it conforms with the traditional political spectrum. At the most extreme, right wing of the spectrum of subordination are the performances for a harsh overseer. This requires the most work. The responses to a more liberal lord or overseer is next on the spectrum and last and least demanding of public transcripts are the performances of whites who have no direct authority over slaves, but who still have privileges. The last four parts of the spectrum are the hidden transcripts, moving from sympathetic to the most trusted.
Confiding in other slaves and free blacks in general is certainly more direct than with any whites. More intimate still are the conversations had between slaves of the same master. Next is trustworthiness of one’s closest slave friends. Lastly are those with whom one can be most confidential – the immediate family of slaves.
Spectrum of Hidden and Public Transcript
Hidden Transcript Public transcript
dominant
For members of the same subordinate group
| Immediate family of slaves | Closest slave friends | Slaves of the same master | Slaves and free blacks | Whites having no direct authority, but privileges | Indulgent master/ overseer | Harsh master/ overseer |
Hidden transcript will be least inhibited when two conditions are fulfilled:
The first condition is to have a place to discuss, fantasize, plot and scheme and the second is to have something to talk about.
Need for social spaces for the hidden transcript
Slaves made use of secluded woods, clearing gullies, thickets and ravines to meet and talk in safety. In quarters at night, slaves hung up quilts and rags to muffle the sound. They gathered in circles on their knees and whispered with a guard to watch for the authorities. English historian Christopher Hill points out that the heretical movement, the Lollards, was most rife in pastoral forest, moorland and fen areas where social control of the church did not effectively penetrate. Familists, Ranters and Levellers thrived best in those areas where surveillance was least – the pastoral, moorland and forest areas with few squires or clergy. In European culture, the alehouse, tavern, inn and cabaret were seen by secular authorities and by the church as places of subversion. But what do you do if no site is available? Resistance is rawer when showing itself in linguistic codes, dialects, gestures.
Social spaces are not empty, neutral areas where subordinate groups simply slip into. Social spaces are an achievement of resistance – won and defended in the teeth of domination. Scott emphasizes the importance of having someone to share your perspective with in order to keep resistance alive. He refers to the social psychological Asch experiment. People are very likely to doubt their individually formulated perceptions of a line if enough people volunteer different perceptions. However, with even a minority of support for the individual’s perception, they are likely to stick with their original perception.
Are there subordinate groups that are more likely to stick together than others? Scott argues that among working class men some types of work are more likely to produce solidarity than others. These exist when a social group lacks mobility outside of their trade; there are high levels of cooperation necessary to do a job; there is high level of physical danger involved In the work; and workers are geographically isolated from other workers. That group is the most likely to be militant. What kind of workers are these? They are miners, merchant seamen, lumberjacks and longshoremen.
Conversely, in subordinate positions where there is likely to be an upward mobility built into the job: when the work involves contact with many other workers doing other jobs; the work does not require a great deal of cooperation and the occupation is not dangerous. Those subordinate groups are not likely to build social solidarity.
Furthermore, the lower classes have horizontal mechanisms for controlling defection. These are not pretty and include slander, character assassination, gossip, rumor, public gestures of contempt, shunning, curses, backbiting, and out-casting. Anger will be disciplined by the shared experiences and power relations within that small group, ranging from raw anger to cooked indignation. Sentiments that are idiosyncratic, unrepresentative of the group’s feelings have weak resonance and are likely to be selected against or censored.
Striving to atomize individuals – the dominant at work
The best social institutions at isolating individuals are what have been called by Erving Goffman “total institutions.” Examples are Jesuits, monastic orders, political sects, and court bureaucracies which enact techniques to try to prevent the development of subordinate loyalties. Preventive atomization of caste, slaves and feudal societies includes the following:
As these techniques are usually only partly successful, heavy-handed strategies follow like:
In short, a form of domination creates certain possibilities for the production of a hidden transcript. Whether these possibilities are realized or not depends on the composition of the workers as well as on the constant agency of subordinates in seizing, defending and enlarging a spatial power field and resisting the techniques of atomization by the authorities.
Methodological problems with the hidden transcript
The problem with detecting the hidden transcript is not merely that the standard record is one of the records of elite activities and the ways that reflect their class and status rather than the lower classes. An even more important difficulty is that subordinate groups have an interest in concealing their activities and statements which might expose them. For example, we know little about the rate at which slaves in the US pilfered their masters’ livestock, grain and larder. If the slaves were successful, the master would know as little about this as possible. The goal of slaves is to escape detection.
Resistance through Disguise
Steeling for guerilla warfare
The upper classes sense the lower classes’ resistance which the dominant group interprets as cunning and deceptive. Both classes train themselves in maintaining their cool in the face of insults. Aristocrats are trained in self-restraints in the face of insults by competing aristocrats. Among blacks, “the Dozens” serves as a mechanism for teaching and sharpening the ability of oppressed groups to control anger by deliberately taunting each other with the most personal, family-related and interpersonal insults without blowing up. This is training for dealing with the insensitivity and obliviousness of white racism.
Elementary forms of disguise
Elementary forms of disguise can be divided into types. In one, the message is clear but the messenger is ambiguous. In spirit possession, gossip, witchcraft, rumor, letters and mass defiance, the message is hostility to the authorities but no one can locate the messenger.
In the second type, the messenger is clear but it is their message that is ambiguous. Euphemisms and grumbling and words with double meaning allow the lower classes to communicate dissatisfaction without taking full responsibility for it. If they get “called” on their message, they retreat to the public transcript meaning of what is literally being said.
Disguising the messenger
One form of elementary disguised resistance is possession states. Unlike vision quests which are actively engaged in by egalitarian hunting and gathering societies, possession states are altered states which are more of a reaction. As I.M. Lewis writes, possession states are a covert form of social protest for women and for marginal oppressed groups where they can openly make grievances known. They can curse the authorities and make demands they would never dare to make under non-altered states. The incidence of actual afflictions laid at door of these spirits tends to coincide with episodes of tension and unjust treatment in relations between master and servant.
Two other forms of anonymity are rumor and gossip. Gossip is a way in which the lower classes may comment on the everyday affairs of a lord, slave master or brahman for the purpose of ruining their reputation. Witchcraft is a step beyond gossip. It turns spiteful words about another into secret aggression acts of magic against the authorities. Sorcery is a classic resort by vulnerable subordinate groups who have little or no safe open opportunity to challenge a form of domination that angers them.
Unlike gossip, rumor is a reaction, not to everyday events but to events that are vitally important and about which only partial information is available. Rumors elaborate, distort and exaggerate the information which is given in which oppressed groups can interpret their hopes for the situation they are in.
On the other hand, mass defiance requires effective coordination. These are informal networks of the community that join members of subordinate groups through kinship, labor exchanges, neighborhood and ritual practices. After the State socialist declaration of martial law in Poland in 1983 against the formation of the Solidarity trade union:
Supporters of the union in the city of Lodz developed a unique form of cautious protest. They decided that in order to demonstrate their disdain for the lies propagated by the official government television news, they would all take a daily promenade timed to coincide exactly with the broadcast, wearing their hats backwards. Soon, much of the town joined them.
There was a sequel to this episode when the authorities shifted the hours of the Lodz ghetto curfew so that a promenade at that hour became illegal. In response, for some time many Lodz residents took their televisions to the window at precisely the time the government newscast began and beamed them out at full volume into empty courtyards and streets. A passerby who, in this case would have had to have been an officer of the “security forces”, was greeted by the eerie sight of working-class housing flats with a television at nearly every window blaring the government’s message at him. (140)
Even in prisons without the relative freedom of neighborhood connections, kinship, labor exchanges or the opportunity for collective rituals, prisoners demonstrate mass defiance when they rhythmically beat meal tins or rap on the bars of their cells. Scott describes a more elaborate form of mass defiance that prisoners used against guards in reaction to an up-and-coming race between the two:
The prisoners, knowing that they were expected to lose, spoiled the performance by purposely losing while acting an elaborate pantomime of excess effort. By exaggerating their compliance to the point of mockery, they openly showed their contempt for the proceedings while making it difficult for the guards to take action against them. (139)
Disguising the message
It is easy to think that if anonymity is not possible, complete deference is the only option. But, as Scott says, if anonymity encourages unvarnished messages, the veiling of the message represents the application of varnish. At its best, euphemisms are code phrases to protect the frank description of things that are too personal to speak about in public. However, as we saw, euphemisms are used by the upper classes to mask what they are really up to. The lower classes can also exploit the use of euphemisms. The oppressed can disguise a message just enough to skirt retaliation. However, euphemisms are not just phases that can have double or triple meaning. They can take place when people do not change the words at all but say them in the wrong place at the wrong time. Scott retells a more in-your-face use of this.
Slaves in Georgetown, South Carolina apparently crossed that linguistic boundary when they were arrested for singing the following hymn at the beginning of the civil war:
we’ll soon be free (repeated three times)
When the Lord will call us home
My bruddeer, how long (repeated three times)
Fore we done suffering here?
It won’t be long (repeated three times)
For the Lord call us home
We’ll soon be free (repeated three times)
When Jesus sets me free
We’ll fight for liberty (repeated three times)
When the Lord will call us home.
In another time and place, the same song could be interpreted by slave masters as the slaves pining for an ideal afterlife, rather than justice in this one. Grumblings are a groan, a sigh, a moan, chuckle, a well-timed silence, or a wink. Like euphemisms, grumbling must walk the line between being too cryptic, when the antagonist fails to get the point, but not so blatant that the bearers risk open retaliation.
Elaborate forms of disguise: collective representations of culture
Elaborate forms of disguise tend to be more “built-in” to a subculture and less spontaneous. These include dance, dress, drama, folktales, religious beliefs and symbols which reverse the cultural domination of the elites. In oral countercultures, what is communicated is less precise than when communicated in writing. However, communication through face-to-face, whether voice, gestures, clothes, or dance, the communicator retains control over the manner of its dissemination. Anonymity is retained because each enactment is unique to time, place and audience. With writing, once a text is out of the author’s hands control over its use and dissemination is lost.
Myths
In sacred ceremonies managed by elites, slaves were expected to control their gestures, facial expressions and voices. Dancing, shouting, clapping and participation countered the elites’ attempts to make a coronation out of a religious ceremony. Just as the lower classes were expected to be passive in public secular activities, they were also expected to sit still and keep their mouths shut in sacred contexts. But in their own clandestine services, slaves did the opposite.
This form of disguise also played itself out in the choice of which myths to emphasize. African slaves chose deliverance and redemption themes: Moses in the Promised Land, along with the Egyptian captivity and emancipation. The Land of Canaan was taken to mean the Northern United States and freedom. Conservative preachers emphasized the New Testament with meekness, turning the other cheek, walking the extra mile. Needless to say they were unpopular with slaves. On some occasions, slaves walked out of these services.
In the cultural conflicts that preceded the German Peasants’ War on the eve of the Reformation, there was a struggle over a pilgrimage site associated with the “Drummer of Niklashausen”. This tradition held that Christ’s sacrifice had redeemed all of humankind, including serfs. Access to salvation was democratically distributed. For a while, this church became a social magnet for pilgrimages and subversive discourse.
Folktales
In folktales, the trickster is a main player in folk resistance. Just as the lower classes can rarely stand toe-to-toe with the dominators, so the trickster, Brer Rabbit, makes his way through a treacherous environment of enemies by using wit and cunning. He knows the habits of his enemies and deceives them. North American slaves:
By identifying with Brer Rabbit, the slave child learned…that safety and success depended on curbing one’s anger and channeling it into forms of deception and cunning. (164)
Inverted imagery
There is a pan-European tradition of world-turned-up-side-down drawings and prints in which the hare snared the hunter, the cart pulled the horse, fishermen are pulled from the water by fish, a wife beats her husband, an ox slaughters the butcher, a goose puts the cook into the pot, and a king on foot is led by a peasant on horseback. Needless to say, this did not go over well with the authorities. In 1842 czarist officials seized all known copies of a large print depicting the ox slaughtering the butcher.
Rituals of Reversal, Carnival
Much of the writing on carnival emphasizes the spirit of physical abandon – dancing, gluttony, open sexuality – as a reaction to Lent, which will follow carnival on the Catholic calendar. Michael Bakhtin argues that Carnival focused on functions we share with lower mammals, that is, the level at which we are all alike. But cutting the upper classes down to animals was only part of Carnival. Bakhtin also treats Carnival as the ritual location of uninhibited speech – the only place where undominated discourse prevailed – no servility, false pretenses, obsequiousness or etiquettes of submissiveness. It was a place where laughter with and at the upper classes was possible. For Bakhtin, laughter was revolutionary. Only equals may laugh together. Traditionally, the lower classes may not laugh in the presence of the upper classes. While the serf, slave and untouchable may have difficulty imagining other systems than serfdom, slavery and the caste system, they will have no trouble imagining a total reversal of an existing organization where they are on top, and the elites are on the bottom. This was also part of Carnival. These reversals can be found in nearly every major cultural tradition: Carnival in Catholic countries, Feast of Krishna in India, Saturnalia in ancient Rome, and the Water Festival in Buddhist Southeast Asia, to name a few.
Scott imagines carnival as a kind of people’s informal courtroom: the young can scold the old, women can ridicule men:
Any local notable who had incurred popular wrath, such as merciless usurers, soldiers who were abusive, corrupt local officials, priests who were abusive or lascivious – might find themselves a target… They might be burned in effigy. (174)
In Andalusia in Spain, initially both classes participated in Carnival, but as agrarian conditions worsened, the landowners withdrew and watched Carnival from the balcony. They understood the reversals as getting uncomfortably close to the real thing.
Cultural reversals: hydraulic co-optations or rehearsal for revolution?
Fundamentalist Marxist theorists imagine that carnival is the invention of the elites. They also imagine that the effect of participating in these cultural traditions is to drain off energy that would be better utilized for making a revolution. Scott objects to both this claim and its analysis. If the first notion were true, elites would encourage Carnival. The opposite is more the case. Carnival was seen by the Church and state as a potential site for disorder and it required surveillance. In fact, the Church tried to replace Carnival with mystery plays. The proposal that elites create these rituals as hydraulic drainers confuses the intentions of elites with the limited results they are able to achieve. Rather, the existence and evolving form of Carnival is the outcome of social conflict, not the stage-managed concoction of elites. Bread and circuses are political concessions won by subordinate classes. Carnival was the only time of the year the lower classes were permitted to assemble in unprecedented numbers behind masks and make threatening gestures. It was dangerous indeed!
Now to the issue of whether these cultural acts drain energy away from political action. Scott agrees with the hydraulic theory that systematic subordination elicits a reaction and this reaction involves a desire to strike or speak back. But the hydraulic theory supposes that the desire to strike back can be substantially satisfied in any of the cultural forms mentioned – myths, folktales, reversal imagery and rituals. For theories of hydraulic human interaction, the safe expression of aggression in joint fantasy yields as much or nearly as much satisfaction as direct aggression against the object of frustration. Scott argues against this.
Social psychological experimental studies of aggression today show that aggressive play and fantasy increase rather than decrease the likelihood of actual aggression. Additionally, many revolts by slaves, peasants and serfs occurred during seasonal rituals. The discourse of the hidden transcript is not a substitute for action. It merely sheds light on revolutionary action but it doesn’t explain it. Cultures of resistance help build the collective action itself. The hidden transcript is a necessary but not sufficient condition for practical resistance. In response to Boudreau’s claim that conditioning from childhood socializes the lower classes to miss revolutionary opportunities, Scott argues it is equally important to be explained how working classes have imagined a sense of historical possibility which was not objectively justified, as the Lollards and Diggers of the English revolution found out.
From Resistance to Insubordination and Rebellion: When the hidden transcript goes public
How is it possible that so many people immediately understood what to do and that none of them needed any advice or instruction?
Apathy on the job
It is easy to overlook how much the indifference, lack of creativity on the job and low productivity levels can accumulate, not just in individual acts of frustration, but also in collective frustration that becomes a setting in which status infrapolitics builds up:
The aggregation of thousands upon thousands of petty acts of resistance has dramatic economic and political effects. Production, whether on the factory floor or on the plantation, can result in performances that are not bad enough to provoke punishment but not good enough to allow the enterprise to succeed. Petty acts can, like snowflakes on the steep mountainside, set off an avalanche. (192)
From this dissatisfaction on the job, the hidden transcript grows especially when for military, economic or political reasons, the elites have lost ground. As we saw in the argument against the hydraulic theory of inverted rituals, the rehearsal theory of Scott claims that aggression that is inhibited and may be displaced on other objects is rarely a substitute for direct confrontation with the frustrating agent. Repeated public humiliations can be fully reciprocated only with public revenge.
Defiance in public
In reaction to political, economic and religious downturns, the lower classes begin to become defiant in public. They begin wearing clothing not designated for their status such as turbans and shoes. They refuse to bow or give appropriate salutation. A defiant posture can open acts of desacralization and disrespect. These are often the first sign of actual rebellion.
During the Spanish revolution of 1936 the revolutionary exhumations and desecration of sacred remains from Spanish cathedrals accomplished three purposes according to Scott:
As an historian of the English Civil War, Christopher Hill argues:
Each facet of the popular revolution unleashed and then crushed by Cromwell had its counterpart in low-profile popular culture long predating its public manifestation. Thus, the Diggers and the Levelers staked an open claim to a fundamentally different version of property rights. Their popularity and the force of their moral claim derived from an offstage popular culture that had never accepted the enclosures as just and found expression in the practices of poaching and tearing down fences.
Differentiating resistance from insubordination
There is a difference between accidental or disguised resistance and open insubordination or aggression. For example: the practical failure to comply is different from the declared public refusal to comply; bumping up against someone is different from openly pushing that person; pilfering resources is not the same as open seizure of goods; standing up and then failing to sing the national anthem is different from publicly sitting while others stand. In the forms of resistance, every act is separate. Insubordination calls into question many subordinate acts which, up until now, were taken for granted.
The last chapter of Scott’s book addresses two points about what happens when the hidden transcript becomes public, First, what is it like emotionally for the lower classes when hidden transcripts become public? He addresses how the first acts of defiance are mixed with fear on one hand and elation on the other. He also addresses how the presence of the hidden transcript explains the apparent gap between the docility of the lower classes during normal times and their rebellious collective acts which appear to come out of nowhere. How do the apparent isolated charismatic acts of individuals gain their social force by virtue of their roots in the hidden transcript of a subordinate group?
Emotional experience of going public with the hidden transcript
At the end of the American Civil War there was the open defiance of slaves. There were instances of insolence, vituperation and attacks by slaves on masters. For example, weakening of a damn wall permitting more of the hidden transcript to leak through, increasing the probabilities of a complete rupture.
Frederick Douglass reported an account of a physical fight with his master. Running the risk of death, Douglass not only spoke back to his master, but would not allow himself to be beaten. Out of pride and anger, Douglass fought off his master while not going so far as to beat him in turn.
He reports:
“I was nothing before; I was a man now…After resisting him I felt as I had never felt before. It was a resurrection. I had reached the point where I was not afraid to die”
Douglass and others write of slaves who have somehow survived physical confrontations and have convinced their masters that they may be shot but cannot be whipped. The master is then confronted with an all-or-nothing choice.” (208)
In the Polish uprising against the Soviet government in 1980, the popular enthusiasm in the context of three decades of public silence was overwhelming:
To appreciate the quality of this “revolution of the soul” one must know that for 30 years, most Poles had lived a double life. They grew up with two codes of behavior, two languages – the pubic and the private – two histories – the official and the unofficial. From their school days they learned, not only to conceal in public their private opinions, but also to parrot another set of opinions prescribed by the ruling ideology. The end of this double life was a profound psychological gain for countless individuals…and now they discovered for certain that almost everyone around them actually felt the same way about the system as they did…The poet Stanisław Barańczak compared it to coming up for air after living for years under water. (212)
“For the first time in our lives we had taken a stand against the state. Before it was a taboo. I didn’t feel I was protesting just the price rise, although that’s what sparked it. It had to do with overthrowing at least in part everything we hated.”
There are historical circumstances that suddenly lower the danger of speaking out enough so that the previously timid are encouraged. The glasnost campaign of Gorbachev unleashed an unprecedented flurry of public declaration in the USSR. After the fall of the Soviet Union, state socialist heads in Eastern Europe squirmed, but the jig was up.
Millions of Romanians witnessed just such an epoch-making event during the televised rallies staged by President Nicolae Ceausescu on December 21, 1989, in Bucharest to demonstrate that he was still in command.
The young people started to boo. They jeered as the president, who still appeared unaware that trouble was mounting, rattled along denouncing anti-communist force. The booing grew louder and was briefly heard by the television audience, before technicians took over and voiced-over a sound track of canned applause. (204)
Raw vs cooked publicized hidden transcripts
There is a direct connection between the coherence of an open rebellion and the extent to which the hidden transcript has been “cooked”. The more the development of a hidden transcript has been suppressed by authoritarian regimes who have successfully atomized individuals through surveillance; the deliberately placing of people with geographical and linguistic differences in work groups, the more explosive and less coherent the uprising of public rebellion will be. Conversely, the more the hidden transcript has had a chance to be elaborated through repeated gatherings at subversive social sites, the more coherent and constructive the rebellion will be. Scott compares the degree to which hidden transcripts are shared to the electronic resistances on a single power grid:
We can metaphorically think of those with comparable hidden transcripts in a society as forming part of a single power grid. Small differences in hidden transcript within the grid might be considered analogous to electrical resistance causing losses of current. Many real interests are not sufficiently cohesive or widespread to create a latent power grid on which charismatic mobilization depends. (224)
Charisma as a social fire that transforms the hidden transcript into public transcript
When rebellions break out, one of the first things the authorities do is find out who “the leaders” are. Since it is hard for the authorities to imagine that most people are disgusted by their reign, they suppose that a charismatic leader had duped the well-intentioned or gullible masses down the road to damnation. If the first act of defiance succeeds and is spontaneously imitated by large numbers of others, an observer might well conclude that a herd of cattle with no individual wills or values has stampeded inadvertently. But charisma as a personal quality or aura of an individual that touches a secret power that makes others surrender their will and follow is comparatively rare and marginal. It ignores the reciprocity that must take place between leaders and followers for charisma to work. An individual has charisma only to the extent that others confer it upon them.
The hidden transcript is the socially produced rehearsal that has been scripted offstage by all members of the subordinate group over weeks, months and perhaps years. This hidden discourse created, cultivated and ripened in the nooks and crannies of the social order where subordinate groups can speak more freely. It is only when this hidden transcript is openly declared that subordinates can fully recognize the full extent to which their claims, dreams, and anger are shared by other subordinates with whom they have not been in direct touch. If there seems to be an instantaneous mutually and commonness of purpose, they are surely derived from the hidden transcript.
When some member of the lower castes, classes or religious groups has the nerve to voice what everyone else feels, of course,that individual becomes beloved and unforgettable. However, it is because that person has truly articulated something that was long overdue, an act or speech that truly swelled from the ground up that they are treated specially and followed. In other words, it was the time, place and circumstance that made their deed important, more than their individual qualities. Acts of daring might have been improvised on the public stage, but they had been long and amply prepared in the hidden transcript of folk culture and practice. Those who sing the catalyst’s praises are far from simple objects of manipulation. They quite genuinely recognized themselves in their speech or act. They invoked what Rousseau called the general will.
Scott closes his work majestically:
The first public declaration of the hidden transcript has a prehistory that explains its capacity to produce political breakthroughs. The courage of those who fail is likely to be noted, admired and even mythologized in stories of bravery, social banditry and noble sacrifice. They become themselves part of the hidden transcript.
It shouts what has historically had to be whispered, controlled, choked back, stifled and suppressed. If the results seem like moments of madness, if the politics they engender is tumultuous, frenetic, delirious and occasionally violent, that is perhaps because the powerless are so rarely on the public stage and have so much to say and do when they finally arrive. (227)
• First published at Socialist Planning Beyond Capitalism
The post In the Crevasses Between Submission and Revolution (Part II) first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
By Reiner Brabar in Jayapura
Papua People’s Petition (PRP) protesters have braved brutal police blockades, forced dispersals and assaults while staging simultaneous mass actions across Papua.
The actions were held on Thursday to demonstrate the people’s opposition to revisions of the Special Autonomy Law on Papua (Otsus), the creation of new autonomous regions (DOB) and reaffirming demands for a referendum on independence.
Reports by Suara Papua have covered the following rallies:
Jayapura
A PRP action in Jayapura was held under tight security by police who subsequently broke up the rally, resulting in several people being hit and punched by police.
Four students — Welinus Walianggen, Ebenius Tabuni, Nias Aso and Habel Fauk — were assaulted by police near the PT Gapura Angkasa warehouse at the Cenderawasih University (Uncen) in Waena, Jayapura when police forcibly broke up the student protest.
According to Walianggen, one of the action coordinators, scores of police officers used batons and rattan sticks to disperse them.
Meanwhile, PRP protesters arriving from different places conveyed their demands at the Papua Regional House of Representatives (DPRP) office. Although they were blocked by police, negotiations were held at the main entrance to the Parliament building.
Several DPRP members then met with the demonstrators who handed over a document stating their opposition to the creation of the three new provinces (South Papua, Central Papua and the Papua Highlands) — ratified by the House of Representatives (DPR) during a plenary meeting in Senayan, Jakarta, on Thursday, June 31 — and and demanding that revisions to the Special Autonomy law be revoked.
Timika
In Timika, a PRP action was held in front of the Mimika Indonesian Builders Association (Gapensi) offices but this was broken up by police.
Despite not having permission from police, several speakers expressed the Papuan people’s opposition to Otsus, the DOBs and demands for a referendum. The speakers also called for the closure of the PT Freeport gold and copper mine and the cancellation of planned mining activities in the Wabu Block.
Nabire
In Nabire, PRP protesters held their ground against the police but many people who had gathered at Karang Tumaritis, SP 1 and Siriwini were arrested and taken away by the Nabire district police.
A short time later, demonstrators from several places headed towards the Nabire Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) office where they packed into the Parliament grounds.
While they were giving speeches, the demonstrators who had been arrested rejoined the action after being dropped off by several Nabire district police vehicles.
Meepago
Speakers representing various different organisations and elements of Papuan society in the Meepago region took turns in expressing their views.
PRP liaison officer for the Meepago region Agus Tebai said that the Papuan people, including those from Meepago, rejected Otsus and the DOBs in the land of Papua. Speakers also said that Otsus and the recently enacted laws on the creation of three new provinces in Papua must be annulled.
Tebai said that the Papuan people were calling for an immediate referendum to determine the future of West Papua. These demands were handed over to the people’s representatives and accepted by three members of the Nabire DPRD.
Manokwari
In Manokwari, PRP protesters gathered on the Amban main road and gave speeches.
The hundreds of demonstrators were blocked by police and prevented from holding a long march to the West Papua DPRD offices. Negotiations between police and the action coordinator achieved nothing and the demonstrators then disbanded in an orderly fashion.
Similar mass actions were also held in Yahukimo, Boven Digoel, Sorong and Kaimana in West Papua province.
Wamena
In Wamena, meanwhile, the Lapago regional PRP conveyed its support for protesters who took to the streets via video. According to PRP Lapago Secretary Namene Elopere there was no action in Wamena for the Lapago region in accordance with the initial schedule because they were still coordinating with the Jayawijaya district police.
Aside from protest in Papua, simultaneous actions were also held in Bali, Ambon (Maluku), Surabaya (East Java), Yogyakarta (Central Java), Bandung (West Java) and Jakarta.
Translated by James Balowski for Indoleft. The original title of the article was Begini Situasi Aksi PRP Hari Ini di Berbagai Daerah.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
The lobbying of Uber should, along with those of other corporate giants, only surprise those prone to pollyannaish escapism. Its hungry, desperate behaviour takes place in plain sight, and denials merely serve to emphasise the point. It resembles, in some crudely distant way, the operating rationale of the notorious British sex pest Jimmy Savile, who preyed upon his victims with the establishment’s complicity.
In terms of the gig economy, there are few more ruthless buccaneers than this San Franciscan ride-share company that has persistently specialised in cutting corners and remaking them. Those taken aback by the latest leaked files about Uber’s conduct would do well to remember the initial stages of the company’s growth, and the protests against it. Globally, the taxi fraternity raged against the encroachment of this new, seemingly amorphous bully. Some authorities heeded their wishes, seeing an alternative option in transportation.
In September 2017, Transport for London refused to renew the company’s license, accusing the company of lacking “corporate responsibility in relation to a number of issues which have potential public safety and security implications.” For all such rowdy, boisterous resistance, the company continued to spread its tentacular reach, inculcating users and drivers with ratings, incessant surveillance and behavioural observation.
The Uber leaks give us ringside seats to the decision making of the company. Files numbering some 124,000 spanning the period between 2013 to 2017, were leaked to The Guardian and found their way to 180 journalists across 29 countries through the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). These include the savoury essence of over 83,000 emails, iMessages and WhatsApp messages exchanged between then CEO Travis Kalanick and various company executives.
The ICIJ brings out a big gun from the off. In 2015, France’s taxi drivers showed their incensed displeasure with the company by setting fire to tyres, overturning cars and blocking access to airports. The result of the protest was initially significant, leading to a suspension of the company’s operations and a nationwide ban. “Needing a friend in government to smooth things over,” states the ICIJ with gotcha confidence, “Uber’s chief European lobbyist sought help from a young French minister on the rise: Emmanuel Macron.”
They had good reason to feel plucky. Mark MacGann, the lobbyist in the question, is found sending a text to the then French economy minister on October 21, 2015 expressing concern about the ban. “Could you ask your cabinet to help us to understand what is going on?” Macron promises to “look into this personally” and urges “calm at this stage”.
Within hours, the suspension order was being reconsidered. “The local government in Bouches du Rhones will modify its decision and press release to clean up the statements that set off such confusion,” a relieved and grateful MacGann informs Macron. “Thank you for your support.” Macron expresses his own gratitude for the company’s “measured response.”
This picture, according to the leaked messages, emerges from some dozen undisclosed communications and, at the latest count, four meetings between representatives of Uber and Macron. It prompted French MP Aurélien Taché to call it “a state scandal.” Mathilde Panot, parliamentary leader of the left opposition party France Unbowed gave the perpetrator of the scandal an even better description. Macron had shown himself to be a lobbyist for a “US multinational aiming to permanently deregulate labour law”.
The current French President is not the only one to have been taken in by the service. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, had some advice to give the company. “Right now you are seen as aggressive,” he said with dreary triteness. His solution to Kalanick: “Change the way people look at the company”. Focus on the good. “This will make you seem cuddly.”
Given the protests against Uber globally, both in terms of drivers and users, the company chewed over a strategy of reverse emphasis. The true problem, went this line of marketing, was the vicious, lazy, monopolising taxi driver. Along the way, the company could also discount the welfare of Uber drivers while extolling the merits of a more liberal marketplace hankering for transportation options. “Violence,” exhorted Kalanick like the privateers of old, “guarantee[s] success.”
Spokesperson for Kalanick, Devon Spurgeon, comes close to degrading the old cabbies, suggesting that the Uber model was refreshingly competitive in the face of industry sclerosis. Kalanick and company, explained Spurgeon to the ICIJ, “pioneered an industry that has now become a verb.” To do so required them to break a few eggs and rules on the way “in an industry where competition had been historically outlawed. As a natural and foreseeable result, entrenched industry interests all over the world fought to prevent the much-needed development of the transportation industry.”
Perhaps most revealingly of all, and typical of the East India Company ethos of this titan, was the delight company members found in flouting laws and soiling regulations. Its “other than legal status” was a point of constant excitement, notably in a range of countries from South Africa to Russia. In the uncoated words of Uber’s head of global communications, Nairi Hourdajian, written to a colleague in 2014 as attempts in Thailand and India to shut down the company were afoot, “Sometimes we have problems because, well, we’re just fucking illegal.”
The battles against Uber’s corporate banditry continue, none more passionately and committedly waged than by the workers themselves. Uber drivers have managed to make a case in the Netherlands and the UK that they are protected by the jurisdiction’s labour laws.
The same cannot be said about the United States, where freedom of contract and the tyranny of uneven pay prevail. As Joe Biden, well wooed by Kalanick as US Vice President, said in his adjusted 2016 speech at the World Economic Forum at Davos, there was a company able to give millions of workers “freedom to work as many hours as they wish, manage their own lives as they wish”. The Uber cofounder was less enthused by the vice presidential vessel. “Every minute late [Biden] is,” he wrote in a text to a co-worker, “is one less minute he will have with me.”
The company’s board can also rest easy in one respect. They have majority shareholder support to ensure that a lack of transparency regarding spending and lobbying activities will be permitted to continue. While the veil continues to operate, current CEO Dara Khosrowshahi is also aggressively pursuing a policy of sprucing and cleaning the company’s image. This pirate of transportation is turning cuddly.
The post Barely Legal: The Global Uber Enterprise first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
On July 2, hours after the Supreme Court’s chief security officer asked state officials to enforce laws prohibiting protests outside the homes of justices, a group of protesters read the First Amendment out loud in an impromptu march past Brett Kavanaugh’s house.
“They have an incredible amount of power, and they’re also reaching into our privacy — into our homes and our healthcare and our bodies,” said Sadie Kuhns, an activist with Our Rights DC, one of the groups organizing the protests. “I don’t find it appropriate for them to make decisions for everybody, and then ask for their privacy in return.”
Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, protests outside of the homes of justices have become an increasingly popular form of protest — and a flashpoint for criticism from conservative politicians and pundits. Last Saturday, Marshal of the Court Gail Curley sent a flurry of letters to officials in Virginia and Maryland, asking that they enforce laws that “prohibit picketing outside of the homes of Supreme Court Justices.”
Yet, the activists organizing the protests, which they say have been nonviolent and organized in accordance with local laws, are refusing to back down.
While Maryland and Virginia state laws prohibit picketing at private residences, protesters are typically permitted to march through neighborhoods, as demonstrators have done. However, in her letters, Curley accused protesters of loitering outside of justices’ homes for up to 30 minutes at a time.
In response, state officials have called on federal officials to enforce federal statutes prohibiting picketing at justices’ homes, and criticized a “continued refusal by multiple federal entities to act” on the demonstrations.
“Had the marshal taken the time to explore, she would have learned that the constitutionality of the statute cited in her letter has been questioned by the Maryland Attorney General’s Office,” wrote Michael Ricci, a spokesperson for Maryland Governor Larry Hogan.
The protests themselves preceded the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, but have since grown in size — first following the leak of a draft majority opinion in May, and again in the immediate aftermath of the ruling, when Kuhns said the number of attendees increased from roughly 20 to 100 protesters.
A spokesperson for Ruth Sent Us, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of doxxing or other retaliation from conservative critics, said the group — which has also been organizing protests outside of justices’ homes — saw an increase in attendees after the ruling. The group first formed in response to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and subsequent replacement by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October 2020.
“When it was just the draft [decision], people were hesitant — it seemed like maybe we were going too far,” the Ruth Sent Us spokesperson said. “But now, it’s very different — people think the court went too far.”
According to the spokesperson, the police presence — both federal and local — has also increased in the aftermath of the ruling, and law enforcement officials have been more likely to bully protesters when numbers are small.
So far, the activists don’t plan to ease the protests in the face of new enforcement, though they fear the repercussions for protesters.
“[The justices] want to abuse us, and for us not to even look them in the eye,” the spokesperson said. “If they charge people under that and it’s contested and goes all the way up, the Supreme Court will probably not privilege our First Amendment rights over their convenience.”
So far, Kuhns, who organizes with Our Rights DC, says that the Montgomery County Police have stood behind their right to protest. As for whether they plan to ease demonstrations in light of new enforcement, Kuhns was resolute: “That’s not going to stop us.”
“People say that they’re coming for us next, but they’re coming for us now,” Kuhns said. “We need to feel that sense of urgency.”
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Fuel shortages in Sri Lanka have triggered a wave of protests calling for the resignation of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. This comes as Sri Lanka’s government has forced the closure of all schools and announced plans to cut electricity by up to three hours a day, as well as stop printing currency to quell inflation. Meanwhile, Sri Lanka is also facing a dire shortage of food and medicine, and doctors say the country’s entire health system could collapse. “There is no discussion on the part of the government on how we as Sri Lankans are going to come out of this crisis,” says Ahilan Kadirgamar, political economist and senior lecturer at the University of Jaffna, who explains how the government’s doubling down on austerity measures has devastated the working class.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh, as we go now to the island nation of Sri Lanka, where protests are escalating amidst a growing economic crisis and gas shortage faced by some 22 million people, many forced to wait for days and nights in long lines for fuel.
SRI LANKAN MAN: [translated] When the petrol problem came up, I tried to use WhatsApp group chats to check where petrol was available, but that was not practical. First it was two or three hours in a petrol queue. Then it was four, six and up to eight hours. About three weeks ago, I was in a petrol queue for three days.
AMY GOODMAN: Police fired tear gas and water cannons at hundreds of demonstrators near Sri Lanka’s Parliament Wednesday as they called for the president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, to step down.
Sri Lanka’s government has forced the country’s schools to stay closed for another week because there’s not enough gas for students and teachers to travel to school. Authorities also announced plans to cut electricity by up to three hours a day because Sri Lanka doesn’t have enough fuel. Sri Lanka’s president said Wednesday on Twitter he had reached out to Russian President Vladimir Putin and, quote, “requested an offer of credit support to import fuel.”
Meanwhile, Sri Lanka is also facing a dire shortage of food and medicine, and doctors are saying the country’s entire health system could collapse. On Tuesday, Sri Lanka announced it will stop printing money, as inflation is expected to reach a record 60% this year.
For more, we go to the Sri Lankan capital of Colombo to speak with Ahilan Kadirgamar. He is political economist and senior lecturer at the University of Jaffna in Jaffna, his recent op-ed for the Daily Mirror headlined “When they can’t govern, they must Go Home.”
Welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you start off by explaining the extent of the issue and the significance of Sri Lanka saying it’s turning to Russia for support to get fuel?
AHILAN KADIRGAMAR: Thank you for having me, Amy.
The situation from week to week has been deteriorating. Over the last six months, Sri Lanka was going into a major downturn. But in the last three months — and we’ve had a new prime minister in power since May 11th. And even in those few months, as Sri Lanka has been preparing to go for an IMF agreement debt, an IMF team was in Sri Lanka for two weeks. The last two weeks, an assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury and assistant secretary of the state from the United States were here visiting. Very high officials from India were here. But no deal was made, and now Sri Lanka is in a very dire situation. Even the World Bank and the IMF expect Sri Lanka’s economy to shrink by anywhere from 6 to 8%. That is negative GDP growth of, in my view, probably over 10% this year. So, it’s — farmers have stopped cultivating. Fishermen can’t go to the sea, because they don’t have kerosene oil. And our entire informal sector — 60% of our economy is the informal sector — has come grinding to a halt because of fuel shortages.
And the people are blaming President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe for the continued economic crisis that they are facing. And it’s in that context there is likely to be a very powerful wave of protests starting this Saturday. They saw that two months ago when the president’s brother, Mahinda Rajapaksa, resigned as prime minister. Now, day after tomorrow, there’s going to be very massive protests calling for the resignation of the president and prime minister. And it’s in the context of this wave that the president is also desperately asking various actors, including President Putin of Russia, to provide oil, to try to pacify the masses here in Sri Lanka.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Ahilan, could you talk about how the government has so far responded to these protests? And also, a piece that you wrote earlier this week, headlined “When they can’t govern, they must Go Home,” in which you point out that “The ideology of our ruling class” — namely, Sri Lanka’s ruling class — “for decades has been one of solving all our problems from food security to people’s livelihoods by importing.” Now, what does that have to do with the scale of the crisis right now, the fact that Sri Lanka was so heavily dependent on imports?
AHILAN KADIRGAMAR: Sri Lanka was the first country in South Asia to liberalize its economy, way back in 1977. You know, this was even well before the election of President Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Sri Lanka was put on the neoliberal path with structural adjustment policies of the IMF and the World Bank.
And some of the things that we [inaudible] including in agriculture, which meant that we became even dependent for food in terms of imports. A lot of produce that could have been produced here, whether it’s milk foods, whether it’s vegetables, all of these started to be imported. And it started an economy that was very much even more dependent on the external sector. And that has been further accelerated after the long civil war in Sri Lanka, which ended in 2009, with excessive borrowings in the international financial markets, what are called sovereign bonds.
So, this dependency and this idea that we can import our way out through debt has continued to this day. I would argue, even now, over the last four months, the government thinks that the solution to all our problems is to go for an IMF solution, IMF agreement, and as if the IMF can come into Sri Lanka and completely restructure the economy and make everything fine. In other words, there is no discussion on the part of the government on how we as Sri Lankans are going to come out of this crisis, how we are going to address the great inequalities in this country. But instead, they’ve been implementing austerity measures over the last three, four months, which have made the burden on the people that much more harsher.
So, at the core of this is the class question, in terms of who has benefited from these imports and this inflow of global finance, and who is asked to pay for it now as the cost of living — if you take the price of bread, it has tripled over the last six months, but the incomes and livelihoods of working people have declined or are increasingly disrupted. And that —
AMY GOODMAN: Ahilan — go ahead.
AHILAN KADIRGAMAR: In that context, as people go out on the streets and they start protesting, the police has become increasingly repressive. They are targeting protesters and arresting them. Students have been in the lead of protests, particularly university students. They’ve been tear-gassed. And it’s to be seen what would happen on Saturday, when another big wave of protests are to be launched in Sri Lanka, throughout the country and particularly in Colombo, pressuring the president and prime minister to resign, what the military and the police will do in that context.
The demand now is for both of them to resign and for an interim government to be formed to be able to stabilize the country economically and politically, and also to bring about a people’s council, with representatives of the people, of the protesters, of professional organizations, to be able to stabilize the country until we can have elections and move forward.
AMY GOODMAN: Ahilan Kadirgamar, I want to thank you for being with us, political economist, senior lecturer at University of Jaffna, usually in Jaffna but right now in Colombo. We’ll link to your piece in the Daily Mirror, “When they can’t govern, they must Go Home.”
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
Angry voters in East Sepik and Hela have destroyed ballot boxes and set fire to ballot papers after finding that their names were not on the common roll in Papua New Guinea’s general election.
No reports were received of people or election officials being hurt in the violence.
Polling started on Monday and will run through to Friday in all 22 provinces.
Despite an assurance by the Electoral Commissioner Simon Sinai that more than five million eligible voters would cast the ballots, many voters have been turned away because their names are not on the common roll, while in other locations there are not enough ballot papers for the number of eligible voters.
In Hela, nine ballot boxes were destroyed in various polling stations by angry voters while in Morobe, 300 ballot papers went up in flames by disappointed eligible voters who could not cast their votes because they were not registered on the common roll.
When responding to rumours of hijacking of ballot boxes, Hela provincial police commander Senior Inspector Robin Bore confirmed that ballot boxes were burnt and destroyed by voters on Monday morning.
He said the boxes destroyed were in Komo (4), North Koroba (2), South Koroba (1), Hulia (1) and Tari Pori local level government (1) while polling continued in the other parts of the province.
Polling boycotted
In Morobe, frustrated voters from Wampar urban local level government in Huon Gulf district boycotted polling on Monday and ordered the burning of about 300 ballot papers in the presence of police and Electoral Commission officials.
Huon Gulf returning officer Daniel Wasinak said eligible voters were frustrated that they were not registered on the common roll and they could not cast their votes.
He said about 700 ballot papers were designated for the ward, with two polling places identified.
First polling place is the Igam market just outside the PNG Defence Force Igam Barracks gate while another polling place was inside the army barracks for soldiers and their families.
In Wewak, East Sepik, polling at ward 12 Wewak Urban was suspended, again when names of eligible voters. This time PNG Defence Force soldiers from Moem Barracks could not find their names on the electoral roll.
Polling in Moem Barracks started at 11am with officers opening up the boxes but polling was halted for over two hours and cancelled at 2pm when soldiers argued that if their names were not on the roll, no one would vote, including their wives and children who were registered on the roll.
Polling was suspended indefinitely.
Voters devastated
At another polling station, also in Wewak, hundreds of voters who turned up at the polling booths yesterday were left devastated that they could not vote because they were not registered on the electoral roll.
Many of these voters were not first-time voters as they had voted in previous elections.
Long time families and residents of Makun and Malasi, including the Sauns, Koskys, Bangus and Silings are among those who have not found their names on the electoral roll.
In Aitape-Lumi, West Sepik Province, polling will commence when fuel and candidate lists are made available to the election officials on the ground.
Aitape-Lumi returning officer John Awas said polling has been deferred to whenever polling materials and fuel were made available.
He further confirmed that polling teams were yet to be deployed to their respective polling areas in the district.
Polling deferred
“Aitape-Lumi has deferred polling because payment for fuel to the local suppliers were not received and the suppliers would not give us fuel on credit either to enable us to move around and insert polling teams to their assigned location,” Awas said.
Meanwhile, candidates for several seats in Hela have warned that counting would not be allowed until they sorted out the disputed ballot boxes on record.
Candidate Francis Potape said there were two deaths from fighting at polling stations and six ballot boxes were allegedly hijacked at Takali.
He said yesterday that helicopters were still picking up people who were still polling in places only accessible by air.
Republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Capitol Police arrested 181 pro-abortion demonstrators in Washington, D.C. on Thursday as they waged a sit-in to protest the Supreme Court’s recent overturn of Roe v. Wade.
During the protest by Center for Popular Democracy Action, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Working Families Party – joined by prominent figures like Rep. Judy Chu (D-California) – demonstrators blocked a street near the Supreme Court, demanding that lawmakers take action to protect abortion seekers across the country.
Capitol Police began arresting people around noon on Thursday after surrounding them as the protesters marched to the Supreme Court building, calling for mass civil disobedience and vowing not to back down until abortion rights were restored. Chu, one of the original sponsors of the Democrats’ bill to codify Roe, was among the people arrested, as well as the progressive pastor and activist Rev. William Barber II.
Police said that the reason for the arrests was that the protesters were blocking an intersection, though videos posted on social media show that police closely surrounded protesters as they marched, before the arrests began. Meanwhile, uprisings waged by hundreds of thousands of people over the past week have been met with police violence, including the use of tear gas, which is an abortifacient.
Journalist Chuck Modi documented on Twitter that police were kettling protesters, an anti-protest tactic often used by police to trap protesters in which they surround protesters and confine them to a certain area like an alleyway or a bridge.
Outside SCOTUS Now. Protesters sit-in and block street, and police immediately surround & kettle them, unlike you know when…. #RoeVWade pic.twitter.com/AfjcRBzpZQ
— ChuckModi (@ChuckModi1) June 30, 2022
Modi noted that Capitol Police officers treated the abortion protesters with far more hostility than they did the January 6 attackers – an armed mob with a stated intent of killing political figures and staging a coup backed by the then-president of the United States. D.C. police said that they only arrested about a dozen people out of a mob of thousands of far right militants on the day of the January 6 attack.
Progressive advocates noted that the difference in the police response, while infuriating, was no surprise. “It’s not a coincidence that violent fascists were treated with kid gloves and folks protesting non-violently for abortion are arrested,” said anti-capitalist activist Joshua Potash. “Cops view one group as their friends and the other as an enemy.”
Barber, who said he was held in police custody for over three hours, condemned the police for the arrests. “There is something deeply immoral when you would be willing to use your power, not to provide people living wages, not to provide people voting rights, but to take away a woman’s power over her body,” he said. (Trans men and nonbinary people are also affected by the Roe overturn, and the trans community has seen a wave of attacks on their bodily autonomy even outside of the abortion ruling.)
Abortion advocates have been calling on lawmakers to take immediate action to protect abortion rights and prevent what researchers say will be a sharp uptick in death rates of pregnant people. President Joe Biden called for creating a carveout in the Senate filibuster in order to pass Democrats’ abortion bill, but the pledge means little in the face of recalcitrant conservative Democrats Senators Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona) and Joe Manchin (West Virginia), who were quick to shoot down Biden’s call.
Progressives say that, even if it were possible, creating a filibuster carveout would be wholly insufficient to meet the demands of this moment as the Supreme Court guts Americans’ rights at a rapid clip. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) have called for far right Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe to be investigated and potentially impeached, while other lawmakers have called for expanding the Supreme Court to combat Republican court packing.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The Civil Organisations Solidarity for Papua Land has condemned Indonesia’s Papua expansion plan of forming three new provinces risks causing new social conflicts.
And the group has urged President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo to cancel the plan, according to a statement reports Jubi.
The group — comprising the Papua Legal Aid Institute (LBH Papua), JERAT Papua, KPKC GKI in Papua Land, YALI Papua, PAHAM Papua, Cenderawasih University’s Human Rights and Environment Democracy Student Unit, and AMAN Sorong — said the steps taken by the House of Representatives of making three draft bills to establish three New Autonomous Regions (DOB) in Papua had created division between the Papuan people.
As well as the existing two provinces (DOB), Papua and West Papua, the region would be carved up to create the three additional provinces of Central Papua, South Papua, and Central Highlands Papua.
The solidarity group noted that various movements with different opinions have expressed their respective aspirations through demonstrations, political lobbying, and even submitting a request for a review of Law No. 2/2021 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 21/2001 on Papua Special Autonomy (Otsus).
These seven civil organisations also noted that the controversy over Papua expansion had led to a number of human rights violations, including the breaking up of protests, as well as police brutality against protesters.
However, the central government continued to push for the Papua expansion, and the House had proposed three bills for the expansion.
Wave of demonstrations
The Civil Organisations Solidarity for Papua Land said it was worried the expansion plan would raise social conflicts between parties with different opinions.
They said such potential for social conflict had been seen through a wave of demonstrations that continue to be carried out by the Papuan people — both those who rejected and supported new autonomous regions.
The potential for conflict could also be seen from the polemic on which area would be the new capital province.
In addition, rumours about the potential for clashes between groups had also been widely circulated on various messaging services and social media.
“All the facts present have only shown that the establishment of new provinces in Papua has triggered the potential for social conflicts,” the solidarity group said.
“This seems to have been noticed by the Papua police as well, as they have urged their personnel to increase vigilance ahead of the House’s plenary session to issue the new Papua provinces laws,” said the group.
The group reminded the government that the New Papua Special Autonomy Law, which is used as the legal basis for the House to propose three Papua expansion bills, was still being reviewed in the Constitutional Court.
Public opinion ignored
Furthermore, the House’s proposal of the bills did not take into account public opinion as mandated by Government Regulation No. 78/2007 on Procedures for the Establishment, Abolition, and Merger of Regions.
“It is the most reasonable path if the Central Government [would] stop the deliberation of the Papua Expansion plan, which has become the source of disagreement among Papuan people.
“We urged the Indonesian President to immediately cancel the controversial plan to avoid escalation of social conflict,” said the Civil Organisations Solidarity for Papua Land.
The solidarity group urged the House’s Speaker to nullify the Special Committee for Formulation of Papua New Autonomous Region Policy, as well as the National Police Chief and the Papuan Governor to immediately take the necessary steps to prevent social conflict in Papua, by implementing Law No. 7/2012 on Handling Social Conflicts.
The seven civil organisations also urged all Papuan leaders not to engage in activities that could trigger conflict between opposing groups over the Papua expansion.
“Papuan community leaders are prohibited from being actively involved in fuelling the polarisation of this issue,” the group said.
Republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Members of the Aslef union, the 150 workers rejected a 3 percent pay offer from operator First Group and voted almost unanimously to strike, on a turnout of 86 percent. With inflation at 11.7 percent RPI, the company’s offer amounts to a deep pay cut.
Services were severely disrupted, affecting the Wimbledon tennis tournament, with no trams running between Croydon and Beckenham Junction, Elmers End or New Addington, and only at 20-minute intervals between Croydon and Wimbledon. A second round of strikes is planned for July 13-14.
The post London Tram drivers in Croydon strike against real terms pay cut appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
