If colorblindness rests on the claim that the civil rights movement changed everything, the idea that racism is in our DNA borders on a fatalistic proposition that it changed little or nothing.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
Racism in the United States is not mainly about individual bias but about divisions forged long ago by the super-exploitation and political dispossession of racialized groups.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
Historians have amply demonstrated how central racism has been to the formation and reformation of the United States. But many of those same ideas and institutions have also been vital to combating white supremacy.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
27 August 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the assassination of one of the most prominent leaders of the Palestinian national liberation movement by Israeli military forces. In addition to remembering his life of struggle against oppression, this day should also stand as a reminder of Israel’s flagrant lawlessness in its global assassination campaign.
On 27 August 2001, the Israeli military assassinated Abu Ali Mustafa, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The PFLP is a secular socialist party that has historically been the second largest faction within the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) after Fatah, which has long dominated both the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. In contrast to Fatah, throughout its existence the PFLP has refused to recognize Israel, opposed the Oslo process, and promoted a one-state solution to the conflict (though this latter position is arguably more nuanced than is generally understood).
The attack took place just short of a year into the Second Intifada, a mass uprising of Palestinians against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. US-made Israeli military helicopters launched missiles into his office in Ramallah, the de facto Palestinian capital in the West Bank. According to the BBC, Israel justified the attack with claims that Mustafa had been “creating an infrastructure of PFLP supporters among the Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem”. But the assassination was nonetheless met with widespread condemnation from across the world. An article that appeared in the Irish Times shortly after his assassination remarked:
It is unlikely that Abu Ali was responsible for the string of bombings and shooting attacks for which he is blamed by Israel.
Mustafa was born in 1938 the town of Arabeh near Jenin in the West Bank. In 1955, he joined the Arab National Movement (ANM) and, along with other ANM leaders, formed the PFLP in 1967. In that year he left Palestine during the Six-Day War and subsequently lived in exile in neighboring Arab countries for over thirty years before returning to the West Bank in 1999. Mustafa then became the PFLP’s secretary general in April 2000 after the organization’s long-serving leader and co-founder George Habash stepped down.
Like Habash, Mustafa was noted for both his militancy and his passionate defence of the use of armed struggle against the Zionist occupation. He once said:
The Palestinian people … have the right to struggle using all means, including the armed struggle, because we think the conflict is the constant, while the means and tactics are the variables
Mustafa’s assassination was far from the first time that Israel killed an unarmed Palestinian leader in a surprise military attack. In fact, this has become something of a modus operandi for the Israeli military and its secretive intelligence service the Mossad. The latter assassinated another PFLP leader, Ghassan Kanafani, in a car bomb attack in 1972. Kanafani was killed in the explosion along with his 17 year-old niece, highlighting Israel’s often flagrant disregard for killing civilians as collateral damage.
Other devious tactics that the Mossad have employed include parcel bombs, gunning down unarmed targets in front of their children, and on one occasion even detonating a bomb hidden in a telephone. Together, the Mossad and Israeli military have committed scores of assassinations across the world, a list of which can be viewed here.
And Israel has not only targeted Palestinian leaders in surprise attacks but even nationals of third states on sometimes laughably spurious grounds. In 1981, for example, Mossad agents assassinated Brazilian Air Force Lt. colonel José Alberto Albano de Amarante purportedly in order to “prevent Brazil from becoming a nuclear nation”.
In 1990, Canadian engineer Gerald Bull was found shot dead at his apartment in attack that intelligence experts widely believe was committed by the Mossad. Bull was alleged to have been assisting Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to build a so-called “supergun”.
On the anniversary of Mustafa’s assassination, we shouldn’t only remember his formidable contribution to the Palestinian national liberation struggle. We should also reflect on the broader international campaign of murdering political opponents, whether real or perceived, committed by one of the world’s most ruthless rogue states.
Featured image via Wikimedia Commons
By Peter Bolton
This post was originally published on The Canary.
On 25 August, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) published a review of the police’s use of taser in England and Wales. The report raises concerns about officers’ disproportionate and inappropriate use of the electronic weapon against Black people, people with mental ill health and learning disabilities, and children. Families of people killed by taser have spoken out, calling for a ban on the use of the electric weapon. And campaigners argue that the police watchdog’s recommendations seeking improvements should go further in order to prevent further harm.
For its report, the IOPC reviewed 101 taser investigation cases. It found that between 2015 and 2020 police in England and Wales were more likely to taser Black people for prolonged periods than their white counterparts. The watchdog also found a pattern of inappropriate tasering against people experiencing mental health crises. It highlighted five cases of police allegedly firing the electrical weapon wrongfully. IOPC director general Michael Lockwood concluded by saying that “policing has to change and be more responsive to community concern or risk losing legitimacy in the eyes of the public”.
Responding to the report’s findings, the IOPC highlighted concerns about the police’s use of the electronic weapon. It set out 17 recommendations to the College of Policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and the Home Office. These include “improvements to national guidance and training; scrutiny and monitoring of taser use; and data and research”.
The IOPC’s findings are in line with concerns raised by rights organisations including The Children’s Rights Alliance for England, Amnesty UK, and the Omega Research Foundation.
In 2020, the coroner investigating the death of Marc Cole following repeated police tasering warned about the increasing use of the weapon. In spite of evidence of the harm they can cause, the Home Office announced in 2019 that it would spend £10m on arming more police officers with the electronic weapon.
The families of people who have died after being tasered by police spoke out following the IOPC’s report. Some are calling for a ban on the use of taser against people experiencing mental health crises. In 2017, Cornwall police tasered Marc Cole while he was experiencing a mental health crisis. His sister Lisa Cole told the Guardian:
They should immediately ban the repeated and prolonged use of Taser against people clearly exhibiting the symptoms of mental ill health until and if they have robust medical data showing that it is safe.
In 2017, police repeatedly tasered, beat, and sprayed Darren Cumberbatch while he was experiencing a mental health crisis. Although the police’s excessive use of force contributed to his premature death, none of the officers involved have faced disciplinary action. Cumberbatch’s sister said:
We’ve already had numerous shoddy reports and unimplemented recommendations since the Macpherson review. Our families are ending up ruined from fighting for justice against a system built against us.
Calling for accountability for the death of her brother – as well as the deaths of Cumberbatch, Adrian McDonald, and others who have died following police tasering – Lisa Cole said:
Our families urge the IOPC to now look at the key finding patterns in all the cases listed in the deaths and injuries section of the report and to urgently review and robustly reinvestigate all these cases.
In a statement responding to the IOPC’s review, INQUEST director Deborah Coles said:
This review is welcome but the recommendations do not go far enough to create the systemic change needed. Tasers are highly dangerous weapons which have resulted in serious injuries, harm, and deaths. They are increasingly used as a first not last resort.
She added:
We don’t just need more scrutiny, community oversight, or training or guidance. We need the IOPC, police chiefs and oversight bodies to hold police officers to account when they abuse their powers and to confront the reality presented by this evidence. We need strong action: stop the further rollout of Tasers to more officers now.
While campaigners say the IOPC’s recommendations should go further, police chiefs have condemned the report. Responding to the watchdog’s findings, National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for Less Lethal Weapons and chief constable Lucy D’Orsi said:
Unfortunately, this report by the IOPC is vague, lacks detail, does not have a substantive evidence base and regrettably ignores extensive pieces of work that are already well underway and, indeed, other areas where improvement could be made.
She added:
Only 101 Taser uses over a five year period were reviewed and these were all ones that had been investigated by the IOPC. It is concerning that this only represents 0.1 per cent of all Taser uses in the same period, which totals 94,045.
National vice chair of the Police Federation Ché Donald called the IOPC’s findings “statistically insignificant”, adding:
We are naturally disappointed our 130,000 members were not consulted and this study is based on 0.1 per cent of Taser uses over a five-year period.
Campaigners and families remain steadfast in their calls for institutional change and accountability. Many are urging the state to halt the rollout of more tasers, and instead invest in communities, health and mental health services, and welfare and education to reduce harm at the hands of police.
Featured image via Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona/Unsplash
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Travel giant TUI actively runs government deportation flights from the UK. Now, it’s facing a day of action against its contribution to this hostile environment.
SOAS Detainee Support (SDS) is an abolitionist group that supports people the UK government wants to deport. It says on its website that it works:
in solidarity rather than charity, and try to meet people in detention on their own terms and without preconceived notions about their situation or desires.
Specifically, SDS visits people the UK government holds in detention centres. The group says it offers them:
emotional support and practical support that could include help with finding a solicitor or medical expert, bringing toiletries and other essential items, and campaigning alongside people in detention. We do not offer legal advice.
Now, SDS has turned its attention to one of the UK’s leading travel companies.
TUI is one of the largest holiday firms in the UK and the world. Previously Thomson, in 2017 it rebranded itself. At the time it unveiled a new slogan:
We cross the ‘T’s, dot the ‘I’s and put ‘U’ in the middle
But TUI also puts deportees ‘in the middle’ of its operations. Because Corporate Watch accused it of being:
the main airline carrying out charter deportation flights for the UK Home Office. In November 2020 alone it conducted nine mass deportations to 19 destinations as part of Operation Sillath, and its deportation flights continue in 2021.
The Canary has documented some of the deportation flights that the government has run. These include deporting people who’ve lived in the UK for most of their lives to places like Jamaica. SDS claims that the firm has operated at least 21 deportation flights so far this year.
So, how much money does TUI make from deportation flights? This is difficult to know.
According to Corporate Watch, the government uses third party travel agent Carlson Wagonlit. It books the deportation flights for the government with companies like TUI. Carlson Wagonlit’s contract with the government is worth around £5.7m. TUI is possibly part of this system. But because the bookings are all made by and in the private sector, we don’t how much money companies like TUI make from deportation flights.
Of course, deportation flights are probably fairly good business for the likes of TUI. Corporate Watch noted that between November 2017 and October 2024:
The Home Office estimated… that it will spend £200 million on deportation tickets and charters
So, SDS is holding a national day of action against TUI’s role in the flights. On Saturday 28 August, it will be demonstrating outside TUI branches across England:
It has also written an open letter to TUI. You can read and sign it here. SDS says it wants the firm:
to act in the interests of justice, and discontinue your collaboration with the UK Home Office. Stop upholding this system. Stop the planes.
But deportation flights are not the only controversy surrounding TUI.
The campaign group Boycott Turkey noted how TUI operates in Turkey. It said that:
TUI profits greatly if tourism numbers to Turkey increase.
The issue here is the Turkish government’s human rights record. As The Canary‘s Eliza Egret documented, it commits numerous ongoing abuses of people’s rights. These include it:
So, Boycott Turkey is calling for protests outside TUI branches, because it continues to operate in the country.
Corporate Watch also said TUI has been:
pressuring hotels in the Canary Islands to stop hosting migrants arriving on wooden boats, fearing it would damage the islands’ image in the eyes of TUI customers.
The Canary asked TUI for comment. But a spokesperson said that they were “unable to comment” on the situation.
Of course, TUI doesn’t have to do any of this. Even Richard Branson’s Virgin Airlines has refused to run these “involuntary” deportation flights.
As long as TUI continues to assist the UK government’s hostile environment, people need to hold it to account. If you can, attend a demo on Saturday 28 August. And maybe the public can force TUI to change its position on these toxic deportation flights.
Featured image via TUI – YouTube
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on The Canary.
The murderous hysteria over white patrimony is inseparable from the private capture of both economic opportunity and political authority.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
The child welfare system is a powerful state policing apparatus that functions to regulate poor and working-class families.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
ExxonMobil isn’t exactly known for being an environmental justice champion. But according to a scorecard published last week, the oil major is dead last among the S&P 500 companies when it comes to racial equity and environmental racism.
The scorecard was compiled by the shareholder advocacy group As You Sow, whose racial justice initiative aims to hold large corporations responsible for their contributions to systemic racism. It released an earlier version of the scorecard in March, evaluating the 500 largest publicly traded companies on 26 racial justice performance indicators — things like workplace diversity, promotion rates of employees of color, and donations to organizations fighting for racial justice.
But following criticism that the scorecard failed to capture big polluters’ impact on nonwhite communities, an update from As You Sow puts environmental justice front and center. One new criterion rewards companies for acknowledging environmental justice issues, and three others dock points from firms that have violated environmental regulations, incurred pollution penalties, or harmed nonwhite communities. This update, said Olivia Knight, manager of As You Sow’s Racial Justice Initiative, has helped paint a more complete racial justice profile for each company. “We see the environmental and racial justice as completely linked,” Knight said. “You can’t have racial justice without acknowledging and remedying environmental justice.”
The evaluation’s results weren’t rosy for any of the S&P 500 companies — Microsoft and CVS, tied for first place, got a total score of only 60 percent — but the energy sector stood out for its particularly bad performance. Overall, the sector scored an average of just 3 percent, with seven companies’ scores dipping into the negative numbers — meaning that their actions had done more harm than good to low-income and nonwhite communities. Fossil fuel producers made up half of the scorecard’s worst 10 companies on racial justice, with ExxonMobil at the very bottom, along with other oil and gas firms like Marathon Petroleum and Valero Energy.
According to Knight, the energy companies’ low scores were largely attributable to the sector’s ongoing legacy of polluting nonwhite communities. Across environmental justice criteria, all of the S&P 500’s 23 energy companies received scores below zero. ExxonMobil, for example, was penalized for its activities in Beaumont, Texas, where one of its crude oil refineries has regularly been in noncompliance with the Clean Air Act, spewing carcinogens into a majority-Black neighborhood.
“Environmental racism is built into their business plan,” Knight said. “They have allowed all of these environmental violations to become just business as usual.”
In response to the report, ExxonMobil — which was given a negative-23 percent score by As You Sow — told Grist it had a “rich history of support for equality, minority involvement in our business, and for minority education and minority-led business development,” citing contributions it made to an industry handbook for sustainable reporting guidelines.
The report also mentions Marathon Petroleum’s oil refineries near Black and brown communities in southwest Detroit, where vapor releases and chemical leaks have exacerbated local cancer and asthma rates. According to the government watchdog Good Jobs First, Marathon and its subsidiaries have accrued nearly $1.5 billion in penalties for environmental, safety, and health violations since 2000. The company got a negative-17 percent score from As You Sow. Marathon Petroleum told Grist that the scorecard was “based on incomplete information” about the company’s equal employment reporting and that it was committed to engaging with As You Sow and other stakeholders to discuss equity concerns.
Valero, which got 491st place on As You Sow’s scorecard, was criticized for a proposal that would have routed a natural gas pipeline through 7 miles of 97-percent-Black neighborhoods in Memphis, Tennessee, avoiding majority-white suburbs in the north of the city. The proposal was ultimately canceled, but the company drew further criticism for natural gas flares at its south Memphis refinery, which As You Sow said may contribute to the region’s elevated cancer rate, four times the national average. Valero Energy did not respond to Grist’s request for comment in time for publication.
Beyond its habit of putting polluting infrastructure in predominantly nonwhite neighborhoods, another reason the energy sector underperformed on the scorecard was what As You Sow called a “serious lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion disclosure.” According to the group’s press release, relatively few S&P 500 companies have made public extensive data on their workplace composition, retention rates, and hiring practices, making it difficult to evaluate the companies on those criteria. Most energy companies also failed to acknowledge systemic racism, make donations to racial justice organizations, or state that they were listening to Black employees, contributing to their low scores.
Knight expressed optimism that awareness of racial and environmental justice has grown since last summer’s nationwide protests over the police killings of George Floyd and other unarmed Black people, and that some companies have approached As You Sow for advice on upping their racial equity scores. But because of their core business model, she said, fossil fuel companies are lagging far behind. Oil and gas will always pose an environmental justice issue even if it’s not from localized pollution; their burning causes climate change, which is already harming nonwhite communities.
“There’s no way around their disproportionate climate impacts,” Knight said. “We don’t have time to beat around the bush — we need to fundamentally demand change.”
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A new scorecard ranked companies on environmental racism. Guess who came in last? on Aug 23, 2021.
This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Joseph Winters.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Heavy rain from Storm Grace has drenched Haiti after an earthquake devastated the nation. The earthquake killed over 2,000 people, and injured more than 12,000. The tropical storm hindered urgent attempts to find shelter and survivors. It has also caused further damage to the nation’s compromised infrastructure. People with Haitian ties are urging those looking to support disaster relief to avoid large NGOs, and instead contribute to grassroots organisations that are creating resilience on the ground.
Tropical Storm Grace deluged Haiti with heavy rains while people were searching for survivors and safety in the wake of a 7.2 magnitude earthquake. The earthquake caused devastating damage to the nation’s homes, roads, and infrastructure, and trapped people under rubble. The disaster has left tens of thousands of people without homes, and hospitals are beyond capacity.
The country is marred by its brutal history of slavery, colonialism, and neocolonialism. 21 August will mark the 230th anniversary of the beginning of Haitian Revolution, in which enslaved Africans defeated Spanish, British and French colonial powers in a 13 year war. In 1825, France forced the Haitian government to pay 150 million francs (over $21bn in today’s terms) in order to certify Haitian independence, plunging the nation into debt.
Continuing the practice of western imperialist intervention in the region, the US occupied Haiti for 19 years from 1915, and exploited the nation’s people, land, and resources. Some argue that neocolonial western powers continue to hamper development in the region under the guise of foreign aid.
The most recent natural disasters struck at a moment in which Haiti is struggling with political turmoil. In July, unidentified attackers assassinated the nation’s president, leaving a power vacuum. And the nation is still recovering from the devastating 2010 earthquake, which killed over 200,000 people.
Concerned members of the international community are coming together seeking to support relief efforts in Haiti. Notably, US tennis star Naomi Osaka pledged her championship prize money to relief efforts. But people with Haitian ties are urging those looking to support survivors to avoid donating to large NGOs. The Haitian Women’s Alliance urged Osaka support local grassroots organisations, as “many of these large NGOs have taken advantage of Haiti during natural disasters”.
Responding to recommendations that people donate to organisations including the Red Cross, Save the Children, the World Food Programme, and UNICEF, one person tweeted:
As a Haitian I say other than Doctors Without Borders Do Not Donate to these organizations, especially the Red Cross which failed Haiti terribly last earthquake
Urging people to hold off donating to large international NGOs, another person shared:
Wait a couple days for people in the affected regions, and people with ties to the affected regions, to suggest smaller groups and organizations that are best equipped to respond to this crisis.
Planting Justice director Ashley Yates tweeted:
Haitians have consistently asked people NOT to donate to the Red Cross to support the island.
People donated $500m to the Red Cross in the wake of Haiti’s 2010 earthquake. The organisation planned to build 700 new homes, and claimed to have “provided homes for more than 130,000 Haitians”. But according to a ProPublica and NPR investigation, four years after the earthquake, the Red Cross had built just six permanent homes by 2015. According to the Red Cross budget, the expatriate project manager received $140,000 in exchange for his efforts (ProPublica).
Although NGOs have carried out and continue to carry out vital work in Haiti and beyond, the region has a history of abuses of power carried out by leaders in the aid sector. Oxfam stands accused of covering up allegations that senior staff in Haiti hired sex workers, some of whom were potentially underaged. In 2018, the Haitian government withdrew Oxfam GB’s right to operate in the country “for violation of Haitian law and serious violation of the principle of the dignity of the human beings”. And at least 134 UN peacekeepers have been accused of child sex abuse in Haiti between 2004 and 2007.
These abuse scandals are part of a bigger problem with foreign aid in the region. Haiti is known as the ‘Republic of NGOs‘. Before the 2010 earthquake, up to 10,000 NGOs operated in the region. The sector boomed in the wake of the disaster. These large international organisations wield more money and power than the Haitian government, and now comprise something of a de facto government with little to no accountability and regulation. And while international food aid does provide affordable nutrients, it comes at the cost of local agriculture and self-determination.
Meanwhile, the predominantly western, white, and male leadership in the aid sector has neocolonial and imperialist overtones. This dynamic continues to withhold power from Black people, Indigenous people, and People of Colour working on the ground in the global south.
Those with Haitian ties are urging people to contribute to grassroots organisations which are rooted in local communities. People can donate to foundations such as the Centre Hospitalier de Fontaine, which supports underfunded schools and hospitals in Haitian communities. The group Locally Haiti supports “locally led programs and community-based work” in the region’s rural areas. And the Ayiti Community Trust is a Haitian-led foundation which provides grants to local initiatives. Anticonquista’s Nicholas Ayala recommends donating to grassroots organisations such as the Haiti Action Committee and the Haiti Emergency Relief Fund. Meanwhile, the Haiti Response Coalition has coordinated a live document of reputable organisations that members of the concerned international community can donate to.
We must listen to the voices of those directly affected by the recent disasters. The region doesn’t need further foreign intervention. It needs support building resilience and self-determination from the ground up. We can start by donating to organisations which directly fund and empower local communities.
Featured image via BBC News/YouTube
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Cahokia Heights, a small city in southern Illinois, has gone through a lot of changes this year. Its new name is the result of a merger of the three towns of Centreville, Alorton, and Cahokia — a move that bolstered the St. Louis-area suburb’s municipal budget and gave residents hope for more adequate services. One thing that hasn’t changed, however, is the regular occurrence of sewage overflows that line its streets with human excrement — a problem that has plagued the area’s predominantly Black residents for four decades and even pushed some to purchase boats to navigate feces-filled waters when roads become impassable.
Since January 26, at least 28 sewer overflows have occurred in Cahokia Heights. The city is not alone: Communities of color in the U.S. are disproportionately burdened by aging and failing wastewater infrastructure. Wastewater networks across the country received a D+ grade in an analysis done by the American Society of Civil Engineers — and these problems are being exacerbated by increasingly frequent severe weather events linked to climate change.
In March, Cahokia Heights residents thought a solution was on the horizon. City officials claimed that with the merger of the three towns, the new city would be able to qualify for a $22 million grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to improve their sewage system, which has deteriorated for decades amidst reports of neglect and corruption by elected officials. That solution went down the proverbial toilet, however, when FEMA rejected the city’s grant application. This month, the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, stepped in. Over the past three weeks, the federal agency has issued two orders intended to prevent drinking water contamination and stop sewage overflows. Two major obstacles remain: No financial support is attached to the orders, and no specific deadlines for compliance have been set by the EPA.
Yvette Lyles, a resident of Centreville (once dubbed the “poorest town in America”) for over 25 years, expressed disappointment at the government’s failure to commit substantial resources to the problem.
“It’s a heartbreak when they give you a name as being the poorest city in America — and you have money dangled in front of you that could’ve really helped our community, and then we never see it,” she told Grist.
In July, Lyles joined more than two dozen other residents in bringing a federal lawsuit against the city and local water district for failing to maintain the sewage system over the last 30 years. “It is time for them to poop or get off the pot,” she said of local officials.
The flooding has periodically forced Lyles from her home and threatened her health, as well as that of her family members. Cahokia Heights residents are exposed to heightened levels of bacteria and mold, and local doctors have speculated that the area’s water may even be linked to heart attacks.
“If I was younger and I wasn’t old and disabled, I’d be up out of here,” Lyles added. “But my home is paid for, and I can’t afford to go nowhere else on social security. So all I’m left to do is wait for them to do the right thing.”
The EPA is mandating that the city submit plans to control sanitary sewer overflows, which leads to water backing up in residents’ homes and yards. One of the biggest issues facing the system is that the area’s pump stations — which are designed to guide sewage away from local streets and homes — haven’t been updated since World War II. Additionally, the order calls on the city to train sewer staff on sewer-system inspections and develop a routine inspection and maintenance plan, as well as plans to better address complaints and work orders from residents. Because the city sits in a low-lying area, short rains can cause flash flooding; the EPA says the city needs to be better prepared for these weather-related events.
“This order will assist the city in focusing on identifying the most urgent needs for repair of the sewer system in order to protect the public’s health,” said EPA Region 5 Administrator Cheryl Newton in a press release.
However, without substantial money allocated to fund these improvements, residents fear their city will see more of the same. In 1989, the EPA awarded a grant to a neighboring town, which shares the same water system as Cahokia Heights, to repair the sewage system. But rather than fix the problems, officials used the funds to alleviate other debts.
Cahokia Heights Mayor Curtis McCall — who some residents eye with suspicion, given that he once chaired the agency that manages the city’s dilapidated sewer system — has said that the flooding issues are his top priority. He’s promised to use all of the funding allocated to the city through the American Rescue Plan Act, or ARPA, to address the problem. And if the U.S. Senate’s bipartisan infrastructure package ever goes into effect, $56 billion would be used to update aging drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems across the country. But as it stands now, ARPA funding available to Cahokia Heights amounts to just $2.8 million — less than 15 percent of the money the city originally expected from FEMA.
For Lyles and other Cahokia Heights residents, it’s back to the waiting game. They’re fully aware that substantial support from the federal government can take years, if it ever comes at all.
“We live in the richest country in the world, but not everyone is given the resources they deserve,” Lyles said. “We are human beings and citizens of this country, we’re not livestock.”
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The EPA just ordered this Illinois city to fix its sewage problem — again on Aug 20, 2021.
This post was originally published on Grist.
The UK government has announced its resettlement scheme for 20,000 Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban’s sudden takeover of the country. The government will only allow 5,000 Afghan refugees to enter the country in the first year, with more to follow over the coming years. Many have raised concerns that this proposal is insufficient, particularly given the UK government’s significant contributions to the crisis in Afghanistan. Others have highlighted the resurgence of dehumanising rhetoric about ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ refugees and asylum seekers.
The government has heralded its plans to welcome up to 20,000 Afghan refugees over a number of years as “one of the most generous resettlement schemes in our country’s history”. Putting the scheme into perspective, Khaled Beydoun shared:
Tajikistan
— a small nation of roughly 9 million people — is taking in more Afghan refugees than the US, Canada, the UK, France and Australia combined.
— Khaled Beydoun (@KhaledBeydoun) August 19, 2021
Looking at the current distribution of Afghan refugees, Kevin Watkins shared:
Just to put the UK Afghan resettlement debate in context. The current distribution of Afghan refugees
pic.twitter.com/TTranKTTn4
— Kevin Watkins (@Kevin_Watkins_) August 19, 2021
The crisis in Afghanistan – which the UK government helped create – comes in the midst of the home secretary’s harsh crack down on immigration. Indeed, under her proposed draconian immigration bill, Afghans desperately seeking safety could be criminalised. But the home secretary isn’t opposed to all immigration.
In January, the home secretary announced a new visa for Hong Kongers fleeing persecution under the Beijing regime. As Byline Times‘ Hardeep Matharu highlighted, “people from this heritage have traditionally been categorised as a ‘model minority’”. This disparity in immigration policies begs questions about who our government – and society – deem worthy of safety and protection. This divisive qualification of ‘desirable’ asylum seekers and refugees versus ‘undesirable’ ones is deeply inhumane.
Many are urging the government to do more to support Afghans fleeing violence and turmoil in the region. Responding to the proposed resettlement scheme, Detention Action director Bella Sankey shared:
This is pathetic. 5000 this year doesn’t even equal the number of Afghan people we’ve forcibly removed in the past decade. https://t.co/F6PMwcXffZ
— Bella Sankey (@BellaSankey) August 17, 2021
Indeed, according to Streatham MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, the government has forcibly removed and denied asylum to tens of thousands of Afghans seeking safety in the UK:
The UK government has rejected 32,000+ Afghan asylum claims since 2001.
More Afghans have been denied asylum or deported than will be offered safety under the Government's resettlement scheme.
They must urgently revise it to reflect the scale of the turmoil the UK has created. https://t.co/VDa3zvOYCB
— Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (@BellRibeiroAddy) August 18, 2021
Setting out the devastating impact of this, Taj Ali said:
Over the past decade, the UK has forcibly removed tens of thousands of Afghans back to Afghanistan, including young adults and children. Many of those deported have faced attacks by armed groups and fled life-threatening situations.
— Taj Ali (@Taj_Ali1) August 17, 2021
Responding to the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan following the western coalition’s swift departure from the region, prime minister Boris Johnson said that Britain’s “priority is to make sure we deliver on our obligations to UK nationals, to all those who have helped the British effort in Afghanistan over 20 years, and to get them out as fast as we can”.
He made no mention of the people of Afghanistan. Rhetoric such as this creates a hierarchy of human lives, as it suggests that those who supported the West in the region are more deserving of safety than those who didn’t. At times like this, we must clearly and loudly state that no human life is worth more than another. Reflecting on rhetoric about ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ refugees, one Twitter user shared:
also think the they didn't stay and fight line, including from biden, is not just excuse but also to reinforce the idea that there is no moral obligation to accept refugees beyond a small number that actively cooperated with military
— Frank Sobotka (@cymrurouge) August 17, 2021
Lola Olufemi added:
something deeply unsettling about the response to people *clinging to moving aircrafts* in order to escape stopping at “asylum for those who need it most!” & other hierarchies based on deservingness. The border should not exist. That’s not a pipe dream.
— lola olufemi (@lolaolufemi_) August 17, 2021
Philip Lee said:
This attitude of Britain, that we can't help thousands of people in dire need, because someone whom we deem does not deserve that help might "slip through the net", is a sickness.
— Dr Philip Lee (@drphiliplee1) August 15, 2021
Underlining just how preposterous ideas about ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ refugees and asylum seekers are, Jason Okundaye shared:
I do think it’s important for those of us who belong to these marginal groups whose “vulnerability” is equipped through projects of homonationalism and femonationalism to loudly say “not in my name”. That’s why it’s called “Lesbians & Gays Support the Migrants”
— Jason Okundaye (@jasebyjason) August 17, 2021
Others have highlighted the problematic mainstream focus on providing safety for Afghan women and girls but not Afghan men. This patronising rhetoric is racism and Islamophobia wrapped in false humanitarianism. Explaining this, Shahed Ezaydi said:
so this has angered a lot of people it would seem.. why aren't Muslim men worth saving then? why is the misogyny in our community seen as ~so much~ worse than any other group of men? https://t.co/edWOKKSKRj
— Shahed Ezaydi (@shahedezaydi) August 18, 2021
Another Twitter user shared:
Moments like this always reveal how “some people’s” claim to feminist politics depends on a myopic understanding of gendered vulnerability that absents how gendering itself is made possible through the workings of capital, race and empire.
— Abeera (@discoursekhala) August 17, 2021
They concluded:
which inevitably has gendered effects. also a tired and obvious tactic to remove themselves as beneficiaries of this violent apparatus and make (Afghan) men the looming spectre threatening the fictive woman “us”.
— Abeera (@discoursekhala) August 17, 2021
Someone else added:
We just need to be honest how about how problematic western gender politics is and how it has created myopic and essentialist (highly racialised) forms of “manhood” that are deemed irreparably undeserving of saving. https://t.co/Fm19zVoYFv
— Tangled Fog of Pulsating Yearning (@fanoniscanon) August 16, 2021
Another said:
Any gender based analysis that ignores colonialism and imperialism will inevitably result in (often Western) feminists weaponizing a flat understanding of patriarchy to deny the humanity of colonized and racialized men.
— yara (@yaraxsh) August 17, 2021
The UK has a moral obligation to provide safety for any Afghans fleeing the crisis which our government helped to create. We must urgently call on the government to meet its obligation by committing to resettling more refugees and ensuring amnesty for any Afghans already living in the UK. We must also reject divisive rhetoric peddled by politicians and the mainstream media about who is or isn’t deserving of safety. An understanding that human rights are universal and not subject to conditions must sit at the heart of efforts to support Afghans during this crisis.
Featured image via Katie Moum/Unsplash
This post was originally published on The Canary.
The clash over whether the Trump era represented the rebirth of fascism represents a disagreement about the role of language and history in shaping contemporary political agendas.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
The unemployment rate for Black and Minority Ethnic workers has risen three times faster than for white workers over the past year.
New figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that the unemployment rate for BME workers has increased from 6.1% in 2020 to 8% this year.
In contrast, the rate for white workers has increased much slower – from 3.6% to 4% in the same time period.
Unions say the new figures illustrate the continuing disproportionate impact of the pandemic on minorities.
TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said:
BME workers have borne the brunt of the pandemic. They’ve been more likely to be in low-paid, insecure work and have been put at greater risk from the virus. They’ve also been more likely to work in industries that have been hit hard by unemployment, like hospitality and retail.
As we emerge from the pandemic, we can’t allow these inequalities in our jobs market to continue. Ministers must take decisive action to hold down unemployment, create good new jobs and challenge the discrimination that holds BME workers back.
The TUC is calling for the extension of the furlough scheme while it’s needed, and for the government to create a short-time work scheme for the future. This would mean employers could reduce workers’ hours on a temporary basis, but the government would cover most of their lost pay.
According to figures from November 2020, Black people were “twice as likely to catch coronavirus”. Asian people were also 1.5 times more at risk than white people.
And figures from October 2020 show that Black and South Asian people were more likely to die from coronavirus.
Furthermore, research by Mind in 2020 found that Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic people were also more likely to report a decline in their mental health during the pandemic.
The ONS figures also showed that 917,000 people are still on zero-hours contracts in 2021.
Women from BME backgrounds are over-represented in this figure at nearly twice the percentage of white men on such contracts. This can leave BME workers in much less secure positions in their jobs.
The TUC is therefore calling on the government to end zero-hours contracts. O’Grady said:
Too many BME workers are stuck on zero-hours contracts, and face a triple whammy of low pay, limited rights, and an increased risk of dying from the virus.
This is what structural racism at work looks like – BME workers getting trapped in jobs with the worst pay and the worst conditions, struggling to pay the bills and feed their families.
Featured image via YouTube/Trades Union Congress (TUC) & YouTube/The Telegraph
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Even as their budgets have climbed upward, police departments have deprived sexual assault units of proportional funding for decades. Today, advocates in Texas are trying to transform the state’s approach to sexual violence.
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
According to Press Association, at least 592 people were rescued or intercepted attempting to cross to Britain on 12 August – a record for a single day. Tragically, a 27 year old Eritrean man died after he and four others jumped overboard as their boat started to sink. Altogether, more than 11,000 people have succeeded in crossing the Dover Strait aboard small boats in 2021.
Meanwhile, home secretary Priti Patel’s response is to criminalise refugees. Her Nationality and Borders Bill has passed its second reading in parliament. Should it be enacted in its present form, the UK could be in contravention of several international laws and conventions. Ultimately, it may see the Johnson government open to condemnation and prosecution in the international courts.
When the bill was first introduced, Patel told the Commons that:
Anyone who arrives illegally will be deemed inadmissible and either returned to the country they arrived from or a safe third country.
According to London Immigration Lawyers, if the bill is enacted, it will also mean that:
Border Force officers would have the power to turn back migrant boats using ‘reasonable force if necessary’.
Furthermore, according to the Refugee Council, if enacted the bill would mean that:
Refugees who do not arrive in the UK directly from a country of persecution (for example, those who travel across Europe) will not enter the asylum system when they make a claim for protection. Instead their claim will be treated as inadmissible while the Government tries to remove them from the country. They will also be under threat of a four-year prison sentence for ‘entering illegally’. If removal isn’t possible within a particular period of time, then their asylum claim will be heard.
However, even when these refugees are granted asylum, and therefore recognised as in need of protection after fleeing war, persecution, and tyranny, it will be under the guise of ‘temporary protection’. This means they will be given a lesser period of leave to live in the UK, which will need to be regularly renewed. They will be at risk of being removed from the country each time their leave is renewed.
The Council points out that this approach:
flies in the face of the Refugee Convention, which states that the status of an asylum claim should not be dependent on the mode of entry into a country.
Indeed, Article 31 of the convention bans states from imposing any sanction or punishment on a refugee or asylum seeker because of the way in which they arrived.
In its explanatory notes to Patel’s bill, the Home Office states that anyone helping a refugee to enter the UK will be liable to life imprisonment.
However, the Home Office denies this applies to certain organisations helping those in distress at sea:
This doesn't apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea.
— Home Office (@ukhomeoffice) July 7, 2021
If the claim is genuine, this provision in the bill would presumably apply to individuals not party to officially recognised rescue organisations.
It’s not clear if this would apply, for example, to Channel Rescue – a grassroots organisation that provides onshore assistance to refugees arriving ‘unofficially’ in the UK by boat:
2/2 Once the people on the boat reached the shore our vols went to greet them and were accosted by a number of people shouting and behaving in a hostile way. Our vols then made a statement about what they had witnessed to Border Force #SafePassage #ChooseLove
— Channel Rescue (@ChannelRescue) July 19, 2021
Certain international laws and conventions require the UK to provide a duty of care to refugees. Erik Røsæg, professor at the Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law, points out that this duty is recognised by:
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees further clarifies that asylum-seekers and refugees who are smuggled should not be deprived of any rights regarding access to protection and assistance.
In March, a leaked Home Office document listed countries to which the UK was considering transporting refugees. These include Papua New Guinea, Ascension Island, St Helena, Morocco, and Moldova. Also under consideration were the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, and other islands off the British coast.
However, should such transportation and incarceration proceed, the UK would be in contravention of more international laws and conventions. For example, the Council of Europe (CoE) is responsible for the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in which Article 5 prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention. (The UK helped set up the CoE, which is distinct from the EU.)
Australia notoriously imprisoned refugees and asylum-seekers, who were trying to enter Australia by boat, on offshore islands such as Manus (Papua New Guinea) and Nauru. The refugees, including children, were detained and abused over many years. Suicides were attempted, there were numerous instances of self-harm, and lives were lost.
The leaked ‘Nauru Files’ reveal events on the island state that include “attempts of self-harm, sexual assaults, child abuse, hunger strikes, assaults and injuries”. They include more than “2,000 incident reports” at the refugee centre: “seven reports of sexual assault of children, 59 reports of assault on children, 30 of self-harm involving children and 159 of threatened self-harm involving children”.
But the International Criminal Court. has declared arbitrary detention of refugees and asylum-seekers unlawful. That judgement, which can apply to any state, was based on the Rome statute, to which the UK is signatory.
A powerful video by Channel 4 News shows the dark side of Australia’s “Operation Sovereign Borders” policy, to which Patel’s proposed measures bear similarity:
If Patel’s bill is enacted, there would be aspects – such as imprisonment of anyone helping a refugee to enter the UK – that would likely see condemnation and even prosecution. Likewise if the Johnson government adopts Australian-style ‘offshore processing’ (aka detention) of refugees.
The bill is yet another expression of the Conservative government’s ‘hostile environment’. That’s enough reason for it to be ditched altogether.
Featured image via Flickr/Global Justice Now
By Tom Coburg
This post was originally published on The Canary.
The Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games drew to a close on 8 August, but the repercussions of its racist, transphobic policies continue to impact the lives of Black athletes.
Over the course of the games, we saw organisers promoting discriminatory policies that pander to Eurocentricity at the expense of Black athletes – particularly Black women. This came as no surprise, as racism and white supremacy have played a central role in the development of the games. If the International Olympic Committee (IOC) really does want to “build a better world through sport”, it must challenge its inherent racism and transphobia to ensure that Black women can participate fully in future games.
On 3 August, former Polish sprinter Marcin Urbaś requested that Olympic organisers test 18-year-old Namibian runner Christine Mbomba “to find out if she definitely is a woman”. In July, World Athletics banned Mboma – along with her teammate Beatrice Masilingi – from running in the 400m race at the Tokyo 2020 games because of their “naturally high testosterone levels”.
In September 2020, the Swiss supreme court ruled that Olympic gold medalist Caster Semenya would not be allowed to compete unless she takes hormone-suppressing drugs or undergoes “surgical interventions”. World Athletics has since used this ruling against Kenyan runners Maximila Imali, Evangeline Makena, and Magaret Wambui; Burundian runner Francine Niyonsaba; Ugandan runner Annet Negesa, and Nigerian sprinter Aminatou Seyni.
This archaic binary classification of gender is inherently transphobic. This rule – which disproportionately excludes Black African women – reflects white supremacist constructions of womanhood which deem Black women as ‘other’ and ‘abnormal’. Encouraging Black women to take drugs or even surgery in order to compete in the games is incredibly sinister.
Ahead of the Tokyo games, FINA banned the Soul Cap – a swim cap that is designed to accommodate natural afro hair. The ban coincided with Alice Dearing’s qualification to participate in the games. Dearing is a Soul Cap ambassador, and the first Black female swimmer to make it into Britain’s Olympic team. According to the International Swimming Federation, the cap was banned because it doesn’t fit “the natural form of the head”. This ban pushes the narrative that natural Black hair is abnormal and deviant. Policies such as this help to perpetuate racial disparities in white-dominated sports such as swimming.
The IOC banned US sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson after she tested positive for THC – the main active ingredient of cannabis. Following her one month ban, the US women’s team kicked her out of the Tokyo 2020 squad. The ongoing ban on marijuana continues to target People of Colour, even though it isn’t a performance-enhancing drug.
After completing a counselling programme, Richardson faced a one-month Olympic ban. Although she could have legitimately competed in the US women’s relay race, the US team decided to keep her off the track and field squad. Meanwhile, the US fencing team went to great lengths to develop a “safety plan” to ensure that Alen Hadzic could compete in the midst of an investigation into a number of accusations of sexual assault.
This is not the first Olympic Games that has discouraged Black athletes from participating. The IOC has tolerated and promoted discrimination against Black athletes for decades. In 1904, organisers made African tribesmen compete against trained white athletes at the St. Louis Olympics “to demonstrate Black inferiority”. During the 1930s, commentators described Black female athletes using racist terms, including ‘dancing monkeys‘. In the 1980s, organisers targeted Florence Griffith-Joyner – one of the fastest women in the world – for rigorous drug testing because her competitors claimed she was using steroids. She never tested positive.
During the Tokyo 2020 games, Black, gay, female shotputter Raven Saunders raised her arms in an ‘X’ above her head, speaking to “the intersection of where all people who are oppressed meet”. The IOC proceeded to investigate whether the gesture was in breach of its rule against “gestures of a political nature, like a hand gesture or kneeling”. The IOC has a bad track record when it comes to athletes using their Olympic platform to take a stand.
Organisers permitted Nazi salutes in the podium behind Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics. But the IOC ostracised US track stars Tommie Smith and John Carlos for raising their fists in support of Black people’s human rights after winning gold and silver at the 1968 games in Mexico. They were expelled from the Olympic Village and kicked out of the US team. The IOC still refuses to apologise to the pair, but is now capitalising off the moment by promoting it as “one of the most iconic moments in the history of modern Olympic Games”. The Olympics have set the stage for countless acts of political protest. But this has always been at the expense of marginalised athletes.
The Olympics may be over, but the repercussions of the games’ discriminatory policies continue to impact the lives of Black athletes – particularly Black women. Looking to the future, the IOC must ensure that its policies respect the rights and voices of Black athletes. Organisers can’t leave it up to individual athletes to drag the Olympics into the 21st century.
Featured image via Kyle Dias/Unsplash
This post was originally published on The Canary.
On 1 August, a Black estate agent was showing a house to a Black man and his teenage son when police officers arrived at the property with their guns drawn. Footage shows the armed officers handcuffing the three when they left the house.
Police later said racial profiling was not a factor in this case. However, when responding to the decision of US Senate Democrats to vote with Republicans to penalise “local governments that defund the police”, Black Lives Matter has demanded:
we must divest from the systems that are killing us and reimagine public safety as a public health imperative for Black people.
Estate agent Eric Brown was showing Roy Thorne and his 15-year-old-son a property in a Wyoming suburb. The home was the site of a previous arrest on 24 July. A neighbour called police on 1 August, incorrectly reporting that the suspect had returned and entered the house.
Footage shows officers ordering the two men and the teenager to leave the house in single file with their hands in the air. Officers placed all three in handcuffs. According to Thorne, police kept their guns drawn until each of them was in handcuffs. Fearing for his son’s life, Thorne stepped out in front of the 15-year-old in case police opened fire.
Brown told reporters:
They didn’t come there to talk. The way that they moved around the house… It flipped from we’re showing a house to we need to make it out of here alive.
He added:
I trusted that we were in danger, very serious danger.
Brown told reporters that he felt that the neighbour and police had racially profiled the himself and his clients. But on 6 August, Wyoming police issued a statement claiming that racial profiling wasn’t a factor in the incident. It said:
After a thorough internal review of the actions of each of our public safety officers who responded to this incident, we have concluded race played no role in our officers’ treatment of the individuals who were briefly detained, and our officers responded appropriately.
It added:
While it is unfortunate that innocent individuals were placed in handcuffs, our officers responded reasonably and according to department policy based on the information available to them at the time
White onlookers’ weaponising of the police against Black people is nothing new. In 2020, a number of viral videos circulated social media showing white people calling, or threatening to call the police on innocent People of Colour.
Reflecting on the traumatic incident, Thorne said:
If you see people – Black people, any minority – don’t report people doing normal things. You do that, you don’t realize that you can change their life or have their life taken, just you making a phone call. In this instance, it could have been three.
On 11 Aug, Senate Democrats voted with Republicans on an amendment to a budget bill that would block federal funding for local governments that defund the police. Black Lives Matter organisers in the US are urging supporters to challenge the amendment to ensure that local governments seeking alternatives to policing maintain federal funding.
Featured image via Global News/YouTube
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Home secretary Priti Patel and the UK government have once again deported UK residents to Jamaica – despite legal interventions and outcry from campaign groups. Amongst those deported was a 66-year-old with suspected dementia.
As The Canary‘s Sophia Purdy-Moore previously reported, the Home Office was set to deport dozens of people on 11 August. Some media outlets placed the figure at 90. It was sending them to Jamaica. Many of those the government detained came to the UK as children, and some have children in the UK. As Purdy-Moore wrote:
Campaigners have raised concerns that people who came to UK as children are at risk of being on a charter flight to Jamaica on 11 August. This includes members of the Windrush generation and their descendants. According to the detainees that campaign group Movement for Justice interviewed, some facing deportation have lived in the UK for 19 to 30 years.
Following legal interventions, the Home Office has stated that a number of those potentially facing deportation will no longer be travelling on the planned flight. But the government still intends to go ahead with the deportation.
On 11 August, the Home Office ran the deportation flight. The Guardian reported that the government ended up deporting seven people. It said that the cost of each deportation was around £43,000. But the human cost was far greater.
The Voice reported that there was an outbreak of coronavirus (Covid-19) at the detention centre holding the people prior to the flight. It noted that:
those detained suffer from multiple health conditions and some are elderly
Karen Doyle from campaign group Movement for Justice told the Voice:
The majority of the Jamaica 50 detainees include people in their 60s and this puts them more at risk.
Also, as the Guardian reported, one of the deportees:
lost a child in a case ruled by a coroner to be due to medical negligence and he had to leave his partner, the mother of their child, to grieve alone.
Once the plane landed in Jamaica, the effects of the deportation became apparent:
*Update* #Jamaica50 the plane has landed. got call from confused 66y/o son of Windrush we suspect has dementia. They gave him £40, he has no phone of his own, he has zero family/friends in JA, needs care & medication – this is BRUTAL INJUSTICE! #StopThePlane #StopCharterFlights
— Movement for Justice (@followMFJ) August 11, 2021
But the flight is not a one off. The Canary has previously reported on other flights and the campaigns to stop them. Yet so far, the Home Office has shown nothing but indifference.
Purdy-Moore wrote:
The campaign to stop the impending mass deportation flight to Jamaica is ongoing. Campaign group Black Activists Rising Against Cuts (BARAC) is calling on people to sign the group’s petition and write to their MPs calling for an end to the government’s planned mass deportations over summer. Others are calling on people to boycott TUI, the main airline carrying out deportation flights for the UK Home Office.
Doyle told the Voice that:
The whole system of mass charter flight deportations is unjust. Those being held are more British than Jamaican, in some cases they have spent their entire lives here but are still facing removal. These deportation flights are unnecessary.
The flights are unjust, and the Home Office must end them. Whether it will or not remains to be seen but it’s essential that everyone keeps up the pressure to stop them for good.
Featured image via Sky News – YouTube
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Twitter removed more than 1,900 racist, abusive tweets in the wake of the Euro 2020 final, with the majority coming from accounts in the UK, the social media giant has said.
The platform said it identified and removed 1,622 tweets during the final and in the 24 hours after the game – rising to 1,961 three days after the game. Following defeat to Italy in the final, England players Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho, and Bukayo Saka were racially abused online after missing penalties in the shootout at Wembley last month.
The social media giant said racism was a “deep societal issue” still also taking place offline, but acknowledged it needed to do better to make its platform safe and encouraged further collective action alongside government and football authorities. In an update on its response to the incident, Twitter said it had put in place plans to “quickly identify and remove racist, abusive tweets targeting the England team and wider Euros conversation” before the tournament.
The site and others have been accused of being slow to respond to online abuse and removing it, but Twitter said as a result of these plans, only 2% of the tweets removed following the final generated more than 1,000 impressions, or views, before being taken down.
It said it was continuing to work on ways to reduce the visibility of this type of content to ensure fewer people see it before it removed. The company also said the UK was “by far” the largest country of origin for the abusive tweets on the night of the final and the days that followed.
In response to the incident, some campaigners have called for ID verification to be introduced to social media to cut the spread of online abuse and help quickly identify those involved, but Twitter said its analysis suggests this would have been unlikely to prevent the abuse during the Euros from happening.
Canary writer Sophia Purdy-More has argued that making ID verification mandatory is “fundamentally flawed”, and that it:
could result in denying many marginalised people access to a social media account. And it would give a draconian government greater powers to police our activity. If we want to see an end to vile online abuse, we must deal with its root causes.
According to Twitter’s data, 99% of the account owners it suspended during the tournament for abuse rule breaches were identifiable and not posting anonymously. Twitter UK said:
Our aim is always that Twitter be used as a vehicle for every person to communicate safely – be it in highlighting injustice or giving a voice to those communities who have been historically under-represented.
There is no place for racist abuse on Twitter and we are determined to do all we can to stop these abhorrent views and behaviours from being seen on our platform. We can do better. We fully acknowledge our responsibility to ensure the service is safe – not just for the football community, but for all users.
However, we also have to be honest that the progress we will be able to make alone would be magnified by greater interventions across the board.
As long as racism exists offline, we will continue to see people try and bring these views online – it is a scourge technology cannot solve alone. Everyone has a role to play – including the government and the football authorities – and we will continue to call for a collective approach to combat this deep societal issue.
Last week, police investigating the online racial abuse of England players following the Euro 2020 final have made 11 arrests so far.
The UK Football Policing Unit say its investigation team has received more than 600 reports from individuals, charities, clubs, and other organisations across the country, and 207 were criminal in nature, with 34 accounts identified as being in the UK.
By The Canary
This post was originally published on The Canary.
The UK Home Office has detained over 30 people ahead of a mass deportation charter flight to Jamaica on 11 August. Many of those detained arrived in the UK as children, and some have children in the UK. Campaigners, lawyers, and MPs are calling for the government to cancel the planned deportation, regarding it as an unjust form of “double punishment”. Organisers are urging members of the public to join the campaign to stop the planned deportation.
Campaigners have raised concerns that people who came to UK as children are at risk of being on a charter flight to Jamaica on 11 August. This includes members of the Windrush generation and their descendants. According to the detainees that campaign group Movement for Justice interviewed, some facing deportation have lived in the UK for 19 to 30 years.
Following legal interventions, the Home Office has stated that a number of those potentially facing deportation will no longer be travelling on the planned flight. But the government still intends to go ahead with the deportation. In November 2020, the Home Office agreed that they wouldn’t place anyone who arrived in the UK as a child on a charter flight to Jamaica. However, according to the Jamaica High Commission, this only related to a specific charter flight in December 2020. The Home Office removed 44 people from this particular flight, which was found to be in breach of human rights.
On 4 August, Movement for Justice campaigners protested outside the Jamaican High Commission calling on the Jamaican authorities to refuse the planned flight. Campaigners shared a video of distressed detainees speaking to protestors on the phone:
Detainees joining us from inside detention #StopThePlane #StopCharterFlights #EndDetention #endDeportations pic.twitter.com/H8czuxPxo1
— Movement for Justice (@followMFJ) August 4, 2021
Labour MPs joined calls for the Home Office to halt the planned mass deportation. Hackney MP Diane Abbott shared a statement, saying:
I am shocked to learn that the Home Office is planning another mass deportation on the 11th of August.
I urgently call on the Home Office to cancel these flights and end the Hostile Environment. pic.twitter.com/Q3FC1PpMeD
— Diane Abbott MP (@HackneyAbbott) August 4, 2021
Streatham MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said:
The Government must cancel next Wednesday’s mass deportation flight to Jamaica.
Rather than ramping up the same discriminatory policies that have caused so much suffering already, they need to cancel this flight and end the Hostile Environment.https://t.co/H6CJlOJmJG
— Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (@BellRibeiroAddy) August 4, 2021
On 5 August, Movement for Justice shared the news that five of those potentially facing deportation will no longer be travelling on the planned flight:
Update: 5 tickets cancelled for #Jamaica50 flight – all came UK as kids (3mths, 4y/o, 5y/o, 7y/o, 11y/o) we know of 3 w/ tickets who came u18 (9y/o, 10y/o, 11y/o & 17y/o). Maybe more not aware of. No1 should be deported who was born/raised in UK. #Jamaica50 #StopThePlane
— Movement for Justice (@followMFJ) August 5, 2021
Yet these individuals still faced the distressing experience of detention and the fear of potentially never seeing their homes and families again. These abrupt cancellations raise serious questions about the Home Office’s policy of automatically considering people for deportation under the 2007 Borders Act.
The campaign to stop the impending mass deportation flight to Jamaica is ongoing. Campaign group Black Activists Rising Against Cuts (BARAC) is calling on people to sign the group’s petition and write to their MPs calling for an end to the government’s planned mass deportations over summer. Others are calling on people to boycott TUI, the main airline carrying out deportation flights for the UK Home Office. These mass deportations are a central tenet of the government’s racist hostile environment. We must unite to challenge all mass deportations, the unjust 2007 Borders Act, and the proposed, draconian Nationality and Borders Bill.
Featured image via Tim Dennert/Unsplash
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) has published its report on “racial equality”. It highlights significant race disparities in the force’s policing – from stop and search to the use of force. However, the report fails to acknowledge the existence of institutional racism in the force. Instead, it suggests that over-policed communities are responsible for persistent race disparities in the force’s policing. Much like the government’s controversial race disparities report, this is yet another case of racist institutions gaslighting Black communities.
GMP’s Achieving Racial Equality report cites data from April 2020 to March 2021. It sets out that during this period, Black people were over five times more likely to stop and searched than their white counterparts. They were four times more likely to have force used against them by police officers. And Black people were nearly six times more likely to have a Taser used against them. It adds that officers were “more likely to refer to the physique of Black people when recording the use of force impact factors”.
Greater Manchester Race Equality panel chair Elizabeth Cameron told the Guardian that this suggests that officers are falling back on “racist tropes” to explain their excessive and disproportionate use of force against Black people. Manchester police were also more than twice as likely to arrest Black people.
In spite of the overwhelming evidence pointing to institutional racism in the force, the report’s authors fail to acknowledge it. Indeed, the 50-page report refers to the word “racism” once. The Northern Police Monitoring Project (NPMP) highlights that the report refers to the word “in a broad, generic reference to the Black Lives Matter Movement, detached from discussions of policing”.
The report goes on to cautiously suggest that the “biases” of individual officers “may” have an impact on their use of force. This frames racial disproportionality in the force’s policing as a case of a few bad apples. Such framing fails to reflect the reality that the entire force is institutionally racist.
Rather than acknowledging the reality of institutional racism, the report suggests that over-policed communities are to blame for persistent race disparities. It argues that racial disproportionality in GMP’s policing is partly driven by “the concentration of crime and policing in the City of Manchester, where a majority of Black residents of GMP live”. It goes on to argue that Communities of Colour “are more youthful than the White population”. These statements speak volumes of the way in which GMP regards young, Black, and working class communities.
This could serve as further evidence of problems with the force’s outlook and methods, and may go some way in explaining why the force polices certain communities so heavily. Further, as NPMP highlights, crime statistics are subjective. It’s ultimately up to the police and justice system to decide who to police and who to criminalise. Rather than asking interesting questions about why the force feels the need to focus its efforts on certain communities, the report simply reaches these conclusions to further justify the over-policing of under-protected communities, and to dismiss the real and harmful realities of institutionalised racism within the force.
The report’s introduction sets out that “GMP is committed to reinforcing the legitimacy of its practices”. And GMP chief constable Stephen Watson told the Guardian: “I do not accept that GMP is institutionally racist, but I do accept that a lot of people think we are”. This suggests that the report is more focused on optics, rather than acknowledging racism within the force, or bringing about real and lasting changes to its disproportionate policing of certain communities.
The report’s recommendations include commitments to recruiting more officers of colour, publishing data on the use of stop and search and force, and the establishment of a Diversity and Equality Board led by Watson. Highlighting these recommendations, NPMP said:
the report’s recommendations focus less on substantive operational changes than reframing public perceptions of GMP as accountable, representative, and transparent.
It adds:
These are recommendations designed to address perceptions of racial disproportionality not ‘achieve racial equality’ as the report claims.
Over-policed and under-protected communities don’t need a report to tell them that policing in Manchester is disproportionate. They need real commitments and solutions that tackle the issue of excessive and disproportionate policing head on. The force can’t claim to be trying to ‘achieve racial equality’ if it refuses to acknowledge the existence of institutional racism.
Featured image via Sushil Nash/Unsplash
This post was originally published on The Canary.
Right-wing commentator Nigel Farage has attacked the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) for its work saving the lives of migrants at risk of drowning in the English Channel. In a statement responding to attacks from the right, anonymous RNLI volunteers shared their first-hand experiences of humanitarian rescue missions. This includes reports of abuse directed at ill, exhausted migrant families coming ashore.
People quickly took to social media to express their support for the charity and the work its volunteers do. It looks like attacks from Farage and other right-wing culture warriors may have prompted a rise in online donations to the voluntary offshore rescue service.
In his latest attempt to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment, Farage attacked the RNLI, calling it a “migrant taxi service” that facilitates immigration to the UK. Right-wing commentator Darren Grimes chipped in with an abhorrent couple of tweets, suggesting that the RNLI should refuse to help migrants at risk of drowning to “end the expectation that anybody can get to Britain illegally”. These attacks come after home secretary Priti Patel proposed a new immigration bill which could potentially criminalise RNLI volunteers who help refugees and asylum seekers at sea.
Responding to the attacks, RNLI chief executive Mark Dowie issued a statement saying that the volunteer rescue service is “incredibly proud” of its lifeboat crews’ work at sea. Sharing their first-hand account of an English Channel rescue mission, an anonymous RNLI volunteer recounted being confronted by an “angry mob” shouting “F*ck off back to France” at the lifeboat crew and two migrant families with small children. Another crew member said that a “drunken yob” threw a beer can at a group of migrant women and children, while others hurled abuse. Hitting out at attacks from right-wing culture warriors such as Farage, the RNLI took to social media to post:
We're proud of the lifesaving work our volunteers do in the Channel – we make no apology for it. Those we rescue are vulnerable people in danger & distress. Each of them is someone’s father, mother, son or daughter – every life is precious. This is why we launch: pic.twitter.com/lORd9NRpdP
— RNLI (@RNLI) July 28, 2021
Reacting to the RNLI’s dignified response, Farage doubled down on his comments, telling GB News viewers that the RNLI has become “a taxi service for illegal trafficking gangs”. However, the RNLI was met with an outpouring of support from people on social media.
Calling out right-wing culture warriors for whipping up anti-immigrant sentiment, Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana tweeted:
This is where the hate whipped-up by the likes of Nigel Farage, Priti Patel & the right-wing press has led us:@RNLI – a charity that saves men, women & children from death at sea – is being forced to justify their heroic work.
Shame on the bigots whose hate diminishes us all. https://t.co/yrmlD4Ks77
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) July 28, 2021
Emphasising the important work the RNLI does at sea, Migrant Voice UK shared:
#WeStandWithTheRNLI and its work rescuing migrants.
"A number of our members have been rescued by the RNLI while crossing the Channel," says MV director @NazekRamadan.
"We know how essential and life-saving the RNLI’s work is."
Read our article here: https://t.co/fMkeObOOJ3 https://t.co/SO4VPQ9h6c
— Migrant Voice
(@MigrantVoiceUK) July 28, 2021
Calling out the racism inherent in attacks on the RNLI for rescuing migrants at sea, Max Morgan shared:
I wonder whether the fucking arseholes attacking the RNLI for rescuing refugees would have them ask the colour of the people in difficulty before deploying a lifeboat?
Or would they prefer them to rush into the sea regardless, but turn back if they see drowning brown people?
— Max Morgan
(@SpillerOfTea) July 29, 2021
Expressing his dismay at the state of the nation, Jon Jones said:
RNLI is made up of people who volunteer to risk their lives to save others, sometimes to the point of losing their own lives.
What an ugly little nation we have become that we wish others to drown and threaten those that save lives.
— Jon Jones (@JonJonesSnr) July 29, 2021
Neil Mackay added:
Any nation which finds itself debating whether lifeboats should save people at sea is in truth engaged in its own moral death.
Donate to the RNLI
— NeilMackay (@NeilMackay) July 29, 2021
First minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon said:
Beyond depressing that saving human life is work that an organisation is forced to ‘defend’. Migrants are human beings whose lives matter. Thank you, @RNLI for all that you do. https://t.co/FY2IidVvaD
— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) July 28, 2021
Even Gary Lineker weighed in with this comment:
Keep up the great work @RNLI because as some of your disparagers repeatedly told us All Lives Matter.
— Gary Lineker
(@GaryLineker) July 29, 2021
Doubling down on his assault on the RNLI, Farage told GB News viewers that he was just “pointing out the truth”. But his attempts to discredit the charity appear to have been in vain. It looks like the offshore rescue service may have seen an uptick in online donations since Farage’s outburst. Encouraging people to donate to the charity, Dr Mike Galsworthy shared:
The last sentence of this video is Farage saying he’s happy to fight with the @RNLI
That’s all the reason you need to donate to the RNLI. Regardless of all else, RNLI are battling to save lives. Farage is battling to save his reputation, according to what he says here. https://t.co/AD8JwEd0eA
— Dr Mike Galsworthy (@mikegalsworthy) July 28, 2021
Laura Waters added:
Thank you Nigel Farage & Daily Mail for criticising the incredible work the @RNLI does to rescue migrants. Due to you highlighting their endeavours I'm now donating every month @DewsnapClaire #RNLI https://t.co/9MryJIsqIS
— Laura Waters (@drlaurajwaters) July 29, 2021
RS Archer tweeted:
I return to Twitter to discover that the odious filth that is Nigel Farge is attacking the @rnli for saving lives at sea.
So I sent them £100
— RS Archer (@archer_rs) July 29, 2021
Right-wing attacks on the RNLI for saving lives at sea reflect just how inhumane their agenda really is. They have also highlighted that the RNLI needs our support. Anyone looking to donate to the offshore rescue service can do so via their website.
Featured image via Rob Pumphrey/Unsplash
This post was originally published on The Canary.
On 27 July, Boris Johnson unveiled his Beating Crime Plan. And it only took him eight words to destroy any shred of credibility in his proposals.
The prime minister’s crime plan will make enhanced stop-and-search powers under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act permanent.
Johnson described the discriminatory power as:
a kind and a loving thing to do.
Unsurprisingly, people were quick to point out how detached the PM is from reality:
Stop and search is not kind and loving it is discriminatory and very very disproportionate. It’s a tool used to target black people and other ethnic minorities. They just use stop and search as an excuse to fine and prison people. https://t.co/Gs8UYLe2wJ
— z a i n a b
(@hyukohzee) July 27, 2021
Stop and search powers have long been shown to be disproportionately used against Black people. Black people are on average ten times more likely than white people to be stopped.
On the same morning that Johnson released his plan, Greater Manchester Police published its race equality report, which found that Black people in Manchester are more likely to be stopped and searched, and more likely to be tasered by police.
Furthermore, there is little evidence stop and search has had a positive effect on crime figures historically. In fact, as some Twitter users pointed out, the opposite has sometimes been true:
2011, in the aftermath of the riots, this piece was published:
"Reading the Riots: 'Humiliating' stop and search a key factor in anger towards police"https://t.co/n03my6apz9
2021, Johnson declares stop and search "a kind and a loving thing"
— Nigel Whitfield (@nigelwUK) July 27, 2021
Making the expanded powers permanent has therefore prompted criticism from many people:
We all know what this will lead to: black people are 9 times more likely to be stopped and searched and 6 times more likely to face force by the police than white people in the UK. Stop and search is both ineffective and rooted in racismhttps://t.co/Bn7iNZb7TW
— Mike Bankole (@mxkes_) July 27, 2021
Section 60 gives police officers the power to stop and search people without reasonable suspicion in designated areas if they anticipate serious violence. In 2014, then home secretary Theresa May issued guidance to officers on how the powers should be used.
But this guidance was reversed by Priti Patel, and a Section 60 expansion pilot was rolled out to 43 police forces in August 2019.
Patel’s pilot essentially lifted the conditions from the guidance, meaning Section 60 could be authorised by lower-ranking officers, and changed the wording to whether a serious incident ‘may’ occur rather than ‘will’ occur.
It further allowed Section 60 orders to be in place for a longer period of time. But as the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) highlighted, the government hasn’t even published the results of the pilot:
In an apparent effort to appease fractious police unions, the government's "Beating Crime Plan" proposes expanding wholly ineffective, racist stop & search powers, despite ministers failing to publish a pilot study or offering any other supportive evidencehttps://t.co/zafhW8zFSY
— Netpol (@netpol) July 27, 2021
Trainee solicitor Laura Chapman, meanwhile, described the power as a “disproportionate and ineffective policing tool”:
Seems like a good time to re-share this thing I wrote about Section 60 in 2019. Spoiler: it’s anything but “kind and loving”…Section 60 Stop and Search: a disproportionate and ineffective policing tool https://t.co/IEfKQjhtCl via @bindmansllp
— Laura Chapman (@LauraChapman13) July 27, 2021
Johnson’s proposals also seemed to be more about headline grabbing than effective policy:
This is a policy driven by the desire for favourable headlines. I has nothing to do with tackling crime or making people safer. https://t.co/HehSEgUJG2
— Diane Abbott MP (@HackneyAbbott) July 27, 2021
And as Netpol coordinator Kevin Blowe told The Canary, the plan seems to be more about ‘appeasing’ the police at a time when the government is under fire over police pay:
This is a cynical attempt by the government to appease the police at a time when the Police Federation says it has no confidence in Priti Patel over pay.
It gives the police permission to intensify their use of already racialised and discriminatory stop and search powers and will make a bad situation even worse. It is young Black people who will feel the impact and who the government has thrown under a bus to play politics with policing.
Not only are Johnson’s comments ludicrous, they’re an insult to every person who’s ever experienced the humiliation of being stopped and searched or had to deal with the mental health impacts of being targeted by the police. This is a racist power that should be abolished, not expanded.
Featured image via screengrab
This post was originally published on The Canary.
The Home Office “appears to be failing” the Windrush generation a second time through its ill-thought-out compensation scheme, MPs have warned. They said the remuneration scheme is too complex and too slow to hand out money. They also described it as being understaffed, with only six people at first hired to deal with a predicted 15,000 claims.
The Windrush scandal erupted in 2018 when British citizens, mostly from the Caribbean, were wrongly detained, deported, or threatened with deportation, despite having the right to live in Britain. Many lost homes and jobs and were denied access to healthcare and benefits.
Following public outcry, the UK government put in place a compensation programme designed to reimburse those impacted by the scandal. But the Public Accounts Committee, after reviewing the Home Office’s progress, criticised the approach to redressing the wrongs done to the Windrush generation.
The cross-party group found that some people had died before their claims were dealt with, while fewer than a quarter of claimants have received a payout.
In its Windrush Compensation Scheme report, published on 27 July, the committee said:
The Home Office promised to learn lessons from the Windrush scandal, but having failed the Windrush generation once, it appears to be failing them again.
The Empire Windrush carried one of the first large groups of West Indian immigrants from Jamaica to the UK after the Second World War. They were among tens of thousands of people – known as the Windrush generation – to arrive from 1948 to help rebuild post-war Britain.
The committee’s findings come less than a week after home secretary Priti Patel announced she was scrapping the April 2023 deadline to submit compensation claims, instead making it indefinite.
Committee chairwoman and Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier said:
Let’s not lose sight of the scale of wrongs that the Home Office has promised to right here. Lifetimes in this country were discounted, people’s homes, families and livelihoods were interrupted and uprooted, some were forced from the country.
Some were approaching the end of those lifetimes as this tragedy befell them. Some have died without ever seeing justice or receiving the compensation they deserve.
Far from learning and applying lessons as promised, the Windrush compensation scheme is beset with the very same issues that led to the initial terrible mistakes.
The 17-page report said that when MPs took evidence in June, only 412 of the 2,367 claims submitted had received a final payment despite the process being open for two years. In an update to the Commons earlier this month, Home Office minister Kit Malthouse put the number of people who had been awarded money at 732, with £24m paid out from the £32m on offer.
The PAC report also said people were “still waiting far too long to receive compensation” and that Patel’s department had made “little progress” in processing claims where people had died, resulting in “future distress” for those families.
Only four out of 132 claims made on behalf of the estate of someone who had died had received payment, it added.
The scheme design was “too complex”, failing to take into consideration that many of the original difficulties suffered by the Windrush generation were due to not having the documentation they needed to back up their right to remain in Britain. The MPs notes:
The department designed a scheme which demands evidence it acknowledges many claimants do not have
They said government estimates for how many of those hit by the scandal would apply for compensation had been “completely wrong”, while there were also criticisms of the lack of caseworkers hired.
The Home Office initially estimated it would receive around 15,000 eligible claims, but so far 2,631 have been submitted.
The PAC found that the Home Office was employing just six caseworkers at its launch to deal with processing claims, compared with the 125 it considered it would need. The committee concluded:
It has never caught up and appears to still be significantly understaffed
By The Canary
This post was originally published on The Canary.
In an attempt to respond to a volcanic eruption of discourse around systemic racism and police brutality, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce masqueraded in a modern version of blackface.
Roughly a month after the murder of George Floyd last year, the nation’s leading business lobby held a national town hall on inequality with marquee names such as basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, television host Gayle King, and Howard University President Wayne Frederick. A couple weeks later, in an op-ed, Chamber President Suzanne Clark pledged to put the “collective muscle of American business behind an urgent nationwide push for equality of opportunity.”
The muscle came nowhere close to where the lobby’s mouth was.
As I wrote last summer, the town hall was a cruel mockery, especially as viewed through the lens of the health of Black and brown communities nationwide – and the Chamber’s contributions to that plight. After all, the chamber’s top known funders have included megapolluters Chevron and Dow. And it had opposed most climate change and environmental measures enacted by the Obama administration, cheered on most of the rollbacks of the Trump administration, and supported a host of environmentally regressive Republican senatorial candidates in their elections or reelections.
Since the Biden administration began, the chamber has only doubled down on backing policies that impede the fight against climate change, abetting companies whose activities imprison people of color in clouds of fossil fuel pollution. Many of the same politicians the Chamber backed in 2020 also happen to be pushing for voting rights restrictions that experts say will primarily suppress the voices of people of color – hardly a step toward the equality Clark promised to fight for.
More recently, the Chamber’s vigorous anti-climate agenda has involved trying to water down the clean energy standard included in Democrats’ $3.5 trillion reconciliation plan. The lobby sent a letter to congressional committees this week, according to the Washington Examiner, calling Biden’s timeline for decarbonizing the power sector unrealistic and suggesting that natural gas be considered partially compliant with the standard.
Perhaps its most staunch opposition is to a push by progressives to force corporations to disclose to shareholders the contributions a firm’s current operations have to climate change – and any efforts to reduce them. The effect of the warming climate on the bottom line of the economy and government budgets is already being felt in the exponential increase over the last half century of hurricanes, wildfires, and severe storms racking up billions of dollars in damages. Portfolios directly tied to the fossil fuel industry are at particular risk – the more that nations invest in renewable energy, the greater the chance that coal, oil, and gas infrastructure would become so-called “stranded assets,” reaching obsolesence or falling out of use before its time.
A Financial Times analysis last year identified $900 billion worth of potential stranded assets in the fossil fuel industry, adding that one third of the current value of the top oil and gas companies would “evaporate” if nations engaged in a concerted effort to fight climate change. Holding global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) would require leaving 59 percent of fossil fuel reserves in the ground. An even more aggressive effort of limiting the rise to 1.5 C (2.7 F) would leave more than 80 percent in the ground.
The pressure to slow oil extraction compelled the Biden administration to issue an executive order in May mandating that federal agencies assess climate risk to government operations and across the economy. “The failure of financial institutions to appropriately and adequately account for and measure these physical and transition risks threatens the competitiveness of U.S. companies and markets, the life savings and pensions of U.S. workers and families, and the ability of U.S. financial institutions to serve communities,” the order said.
Biden himself cannot directly order disclosures from corporations. But he can task federal agencies with devising regulations that go beyond the current system of voluntary disclosures from fossil fuel companies. The oil and gas industry’s chief lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Institute, in the face of growing public and investor pressure, last month issued voluntary greenhouse gas reduction guidelines. Such nonbinding prescriptions are laughable on their face given the industry’s opposition to the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (and praise for the Trump administration’s rollback of it).
Part and parcel of getting away from fossil fuels is ameliorating environmental injustice. Many studies show how Black and Latino people disproportionately live close to pollution from fossil fuel facilities, waste sites, and transportation exhaust. While White Americans are the disproportionate source of fossil fuel particulate emissions via their outsize consumption of goods and services, Black and brown people disproportionately breathe them in.
Biden’s executive order acknowledges this dichotomy, calling for the federal government to identify areas where investment in reaching net-zero emissions advances “economic opportunity, worker empowerment, and environmental mitigation, especially in disadvantaged communities and communities of color.”
Like Biden, House Democrats recently took action regarding climate-risk disclosures, passing a bill requiring public companies to report environmental, social, and governance metrics to shareholders. It barely passed by a 215-214 vote and is certain to face fierce opposition in a bitterly divided Senate.
Nevertheless, the governance consulting world has noted momentum for such disclosures — as well as their relation to the health of poor and vulnerable communities. The ACA Group, a financial services company that advises on risk, said in May: “Dots continue to be connected between high-priority issues such as diversity, equity & inclusion, climate change, and social justice both in government policy and in the public consciousness. Investors would do well to remain current on these developments.”
One thing we know for sure is that fossil fuel interests and their enablers, notably among them the Chamber, remain vigilant in their cynicism toward these developments, fighting back hard against disclosure at every turn. The Chamber, the American Petroleum Institute, and right-wing think tanks like the Koch Brothers’ Americans for Prosperity and the like-minded Heritage Foundation are either outright opposing or interrogating the legality of disclosure efforts in Congress, as well as Biden’s effort to increase the scrutiny of disclosures to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC.
The Chamber opposed the House measure, complaining that stronger scrutiny on governance is a “misguided approach” that would “impose enormous compliance costs.” Americans for Prosperity attacked the prospect of new SEC regulations, calling it a “sweeping expansion of government power and mission creep.”
Most of the groups also banded together in a joint letter last month to oppose efforts in Congress to provide tax incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. That is no shock since health care and social justice have always been of little concern for the fossil fuel industry. Between two-thirds and three-fourths of contributions to congressional candidates in the 2020 election cycle from ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron went to Republican candidates, nearly all of whom oppose serious climate change mitigation. Elliot Negin, my colleague at the Union of Concerned Scientists, where I am a fellow, wrote a comprehensive review of how ExxonMobil has given $37 million to funded climate-denier groups the last two decades and, like Chevron, is a patron saint of the Chamber of Commerce, giving it millions of dollars to, among other things, renovate its Washington, D.C., offices.
A stark reminder of what that money nets ExxonMobil came with the release this month of a Greenpeace UK sting video. In it, an ExxonMobil lobbyist boasts about how the oil giant publicly supported a carbon tax in the U.S. under the assumption that it would never be passed by a sharply divided Congress. The lobbyist called the Biden administration’s goals to slash greenhouse gas emissions “insane.”
What is truly insane, and utterly ignored by this corporate whining, is the downwind and downstream effects of their business operations on communities of color.
For environmental justice activists, the drive for climate change risk disclosure is merely a placeholder for the real work that needs to be done. Dallas Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network and Erika Thi Patterson of the Action Center on Race and the Economy both responded to Biden’s executive order by labeling it simply a commendable and critical first step. They added that any drive for “net-zero” emissions must involve scuttling schemes that allow polluters to balance their emissions sheets with reductions in privileged, whiter communities while at-will boosting the transport and processing of fossil fuels in low-income frontline neighborhoods and communities of color. Goldtooth said he was worried that “net-zero” could end up as a policy of “minimizing risk, rather than stopping the actual expansion of fossil fuels.”
He is right to be worried. A year ago, amid the protests that sprung up in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth declared, “I share the anger and pain felt by so many Americans at the recent killings of unarmed black men and women.” And after former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s April conviction in the murder of Floyd, the Chamber put out a statement saying: “The U.S. Chamber will continue to bring together the business community to advance sustainable solutions that address America’s disparities and close the economic divide.
All the evidence is quite to the contrary. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce — and the fossil fuel industry that supports it — is all about minimizing the risk to itself while forcing the continued expansion of fossil fuels. They remain about the business of unsustainable solutions that will maintain the divide and the disparities as to who profits from fossil fuels and who is sickened by them.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The Chamber of Commerce says it cares about people of color. The receipts say otherwise. on Jul 23, 2021.
This post was originally published on Grist.
Tommy Robinson has lost a libel case brought against him by a Syrian schoolboy who was filmed being attacked at school.
The English Defence League founder – whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – was sued by Jamal Hijazi, who was assaulted in the playground at Almondbury Community School in Huddersfield in October 2018.
Shortly after the video of the incident went viral, Robinson claimed in two Facebook videos that Jamal was “not innocent and he violently attacks young English girls in his school”.
In the clips viewed by nearly one million people, the 38-year-old also claimed Jamal “beat a girl black and blue” and “threatened to stab” another boy at his school, allegations the teenager denies. At a four-day trial in April, Jamal’s lawyers said that Robinson’s comments had “a devastating effect” on the schoolboy and his family who had come to the UK as refugees from Homs, Syria.
Robinson, who represented himself, argued his comments were substantially true, claiming to have “uncovered dozens of accounts of aggressive, abusive and deceitful behaviour” by Jamal. However, in a judgment delivered on 22 July, justice Nicklin ruled in Jamal’s favour and granted him £100,000 in damages.
Catrin Evans QC, for Jamal, previously said that Robinson’s comments led to the teenager “facing death threats and extremist agitation” and that he should receive damages of between £150,000 and £190,000.
During the trial, Evans described Robinson as “a well-known extreme-right advocate” with an “anti-Muslim agenda” who used social media to spread his views. She added that Robinson’s videos “turned Jamal into the aggressor and the bully into a righteous white knight”.
However, Robinson maintained he was an independent journalist during the trial, telling the court:
The media simply had zero interest in the other side of this story, the uncomfortable truth.
A hearing will follow the judgment to consider the consequences of the ruling.
By The Canary
This post was originally published on The Canary.
In a House of Commons debate on 14 July about the racist abuse of England footballers in the aftermath of Euro 2020, Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana accused prime minister Boris Johnson and home secretary Priti Patel of “stoking the fire of racism”. Sultana’s accusations included references to Johnson’s column describing Black people as “picaninnies”, and home secretary Priti Patel’s remark stating that footballers taking the knee was simply “gesture politics”. Sultana said that in response, safeguarding minister Victoria Atkins told her to ‘lower her tone’. People took to Twitter to highlight the racism, classism, and misogyny inherent in Atkins’ attempts to silence the young MP.
Sultana’s speech came after England footballer Tyrone Mings called out the home secretary’s ‘pretend disgust’ at the racist treatment of Black players after ‘stoking the fire’ of racism. In her powerful speech, the MP accused the prime minister and home secretary of “stoking the fire of racism” and “giving the green light to racism” in the UK. She highlighted Johnson’s description of “Black people as ‘picaninnies’ with ‘watermelon smiles’” and “Muslim women as ‘letterboxes’ and ‘bank-robbers’”. She also called attention to the prime minister’s refusal to condemn fans who booed England players who took the knee ahead of matches, and the home secretary’s ‘derision’ of their message as “gesture politics”.
Safeguarding minister Victoria Atkins refuted Sultana’s fact-based allegations, saying:
I don’t genuinely think the honourable lady is accusing either the prime minister of this country or indeed the home secretary of racism. That would be a truly extraordinary allegation to make.
After the debate, Sultana took to Twitter, saying that the minister telling her to ‘lower her tone’ was “shameless”. Further clarifying her stance after the debate, Sultana tweeted:
When I confronted Tory minister Victoria Atkins with Boris Johnson's racism – calling black people "piccaninnies" & Muslim women "letterboxes" – she said it's "extraordinary" to accuse him of racism.
Some news for Vicky: He's racist.
The only extraordinary thing is denying it.
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) July 14, 2021
People soon took to Twitter to call out Atkins’ racist, classist, misogynistic tone policing of Sultana, a 27-year-old British Pakistani woman who attended what she describes as a “rough” school in Birmingham. Explaining that Atkins’ response is a typical of someone seeking to silence marginalised voices, psychologist Guilaine Kinouani said:
To the untrained eyes, roles would switch and Zarah would have become, the irrational, unthinking, emotional absurd interlocutor/agent. Some of us know better and can clearly see how the white MP is trying to locate the disturbance into Zarah as deflection & distraction.
— Guilaine Kinouani (@KGuilaine) July 14, 2021
Underlining the ‘familiarity’ of Atkins’ response, The Canary‘s Maryam Jameela shared:
Victoria Atkins sneering and condescending to Zarah Sultana is so familiar – white women wrap themselves tightly in being softly spoken, measured, gently troubled at racism, calm
racism often comes with a polite veneer – in fact, that's the most British thing I can think of
— Maryam Jameela
(@yammatron) July 15, 2021
Alex Tiffin added:
Imagine telling the only MP of colour present to talk about racism, to "lower the tone."
Yep, that's Tory Minister Victoria Atkins' response to Zarah Sultana. https://t.co/rVbgoc7YpB
— Alex Tiffin (@RespectIsVital) July 14, 2021
Highlighting that Patel wasn’t present in the House to take part in the debate, Mark Conway said:
Priti Patel was too cowardly to come and answer questions. So she sent her tone police officer Victoria Atkins. Lovely flare of classist “don’t dare speak like that to me.” pic.twitter.com/SWwwESNekc
— Mark Conway (@MarkConway87) July 14, 2021
Urging MPs to support Sultana, Jo Grady shared:
This is racial tone policing packaged as a request for civility in Zarah’s place of work. It is deployed to invalidate her voice. It’s unacceptable, it should be called out by fellow workers (in this case MPs across the bench), and it shouldn’t be left to Zarah to self advocate. https://t.co/VH6InwV4bZ
— Jo Grady (@DrJoGrady) July 14, 2021
Order in the House?
Sharing a montage video comparing scenes of MPs and ministers shouting and jeering in parliament with Sultana’s clear, measured speech, Russ Khorma responded to Sultana with:
Just for context so that we all know exactly the level that Victoria Atkins was expecting Zarah to 'lower her tone' to…. pic.twitter.com/V2pBfm26lV
— Russ Khroma (@russkhroma) July 14, 2021
Agreeing with this sentiment, Sian Norris shared:
Victoria Atkins' response is really offensive – asking Zarah Sultana to "lower the tone" and referring to Sultana's comments as not being "measured" – when Sultana delivered her views calmly and clearly.
Considering this is the space where white men holler and boo. https://t.co/zYeqC9JiA4
— sianushka (@sianushka) July 14, 2021
Recalling the moment when former health secretary Matt Hancock suggested Labour MP and A&E doctor Rosena Allin-Khan should consider her “tone” in the House of Commons, another Twitter user added:
Today, Victoria Atkins told Zarah Sultana to "lower the tone.” Matt Hancock similarly tone policed Rosena Allin-Khan. Yet, it’s perfectly acceptable for the rest of the house to belch as loud as they wish. This micro-aggression is a way to say, “know your place.” #everydaysexism
— Shuaib. (@ShuaibKhan26) July 14, 2021
Highlighting that respectability politics will not help us to disrupt and dismantle systems of racist oppression, Lauren Corelli shared:
zarah here doing everything right to be “measured” + “respectable” in the eyes of the institution and bureaucrats — and it’s still not enough. the powers that be will never be moved by politeness and calm conversation — they will only ever be moved by force + our collective will. https://t.co/3jZfha8wvK
— lauren corelli (@corelliLAUREN) July 14, 2021
Atkins’ attempt to derail this urgent conversation is a classic deflection technique. But whether it acknowledges it or not, this government is racist. On 14 July, the Runnymede Trust accused the government of being in breach of numerous human rights obligations under the UN treaty on racial discrimination. In November 2020, an inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights suggested that Black people’s human rights aren’t being respected in the UK.
The government’s own statistics lay bare the structural racism that exists in education, employment, housing, healthcare, policing, the justice system, and beyond. But it felt emboldened to publish a report that denies its existence. In response to the report, the UN accused the government of attempting to “normalise white supremacy”. Once again, the Tories have demonstrated that they have no intention of tackling the racism that is ingrained in our society. That’s why we need bright, bold MPs like Sultana to hold them to account.
Featured image via @zarahsultana/Twitter
This post was originally published on The Canary.
The UK government is in breach of its human rights obligations under a key UN treaty aimed at eradicating racial discrimination, a report has warned.
Racism is systemic in England, and legislation, institutional practices, and customs continue to harm minority ethnic groups, according to research compiled by the Runnymede Trust. It found the government is in breach of numerous articles of the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).
The government is required to submit regular reports to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which monitors adherence to the treaty. These are accompanied by shadow reports from civil society groups, both of which are used by the UN to assess progress on racial equality.
However, the government did not submit a report due in April 2020 after agreeing an extension amid the coronavirus pandemic.
A spokesperson said the government has made “significant progress” since it last reported to the ICERD. It’s working on submitting its next report later this year.
The latest report, produced by the Runnymede Trust following an Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) tender, was drafted with evidence from more than 100 civil society groups.
Its publication comes amid condemnation from the prime minister, Duke of Cambridge and others over the tide of racist abuse directed at Black football players following England’s defeat in the Euro 2020 final against Italy on 11 July. Boris Johnson, however, has attracted criticism of his own:
Boris Johnson and Priti Patel gave a green light to the racism our England stars are facing. They stoked this abuse.
Now they're feigning outrage. None of us are fooled. pic.twitter.com/avRApTpAzK
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) July 14, 2021
PM: “I’ve commented many times about the words I’ve said in the past…I think the House understands that you can take things out of context.”
— Lewis Goodall (@lewis_goodall) July 14, 2021
Blackford: “After the shocking racism on show over the last week does the prime minister stick by his belief that systemic racism isn’t a problem in the UK?”
— Lewis Goodall (@lewis_goodall) July 14, 2021
The PM repeats his claim that those words were taken out of context. He’s the article from which those words were taken: “it is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies.” pic.twitter.com/sDDwdp8z5F
— Lewis Goodall (@lewis_goodall) July 14, 2021
The report says minority ethnic groups face sustained disparities across health, the criminal justice system, education, employment, immigration, and politics. The authors write that they believe the government’s new approach to equalities will fail to improve these outcomes “and may in fact worsen them”.
They also question findings from the UK’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (Cred) earlier this year, which concluded that the system is no longer “deliberately rigged” against ethnic minorities in Britain. They argue that Cred’s conclusion “misrepresents the scale and complexity of the issues” and starkly contrasts with the evidence received for the current report.
Evidence suggests racial inequality has worsened in some areas since the last shadow report was published in 2016, the report finds. It says it is “particularly alarmed” over the Government’s Electoral Integrity Bill, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and the new plan for immigration.
It believes the government’s immigration measures “stand in clear breach of ICERD” and the new Immigration Bill could pose a “significant threat” to ethnic minorities’ rights. They also say the government has not acted on several recommendations made by the ICERD in 2016, such as to provide protection to victims of dual or multiple discrimination and to make caste an aspect of race under law.
Senior policy officer Alba Kapoor said areas of concern include disproportionality in the criminal justice system, health inequalities, and a rise in hate crime.
She told the PA news agency:
There are very clear signs that things are much worse in certain areas than they were before, and also upcoming legislative choices that are being put forward… have real implications in each of these areas in terms of the rights of black and minority ethnic groups.
Kapoor said it is “hugely significant” that some UN recommendations were not acted upon, with health identified as an area of concern. She added:
Particularly around health inequalities, the fact that these weren’t listened to five years ago, we now see the very real implications of that in the devastating death rates for black and minority ethnic groups during this crisis.
Dr Halima Begum, Runnymede Trust chief executive, said progress has been made, citing the rollout of the coronavirus (Covid-19) vaccine to ethnic minority groups and efforts to address the Windrush scandal. She continued:
But race has become a needlessly fractious issue in the national discourse, and many members of our black and minority ethnic communities continue to experience stark disproportionate outcomes in their life chances.
From stop and search to inequalities in maternal health, lower levels of home ownership to constraints on pay and professional opportunities, this report provides further evidence that taking a colourblind approach to equality will not be the most effective way to achieve social mobility.
A government spokesperson said it will provide a response to the Cred recommendations which will form its action plan for tackling inequalities:
We have made significant progress and in fact have gone far beyond our commitments to the ICERD since our last report in 2015 and will provide an update in due course.
They also attempted to discredit the report, claiming:
The Runnymede Trust’s shadow report contains many errors and is too simplistic in saying that structural or systemic racism is driving all the disparities outlined in their report.
A Cred spokesperson said it is reaffirming its call for the government to deliver its recommendations following the “tragic events” of the last week. He said:
We stand in solidarity with those black English footballers who received vile racist abuse after doing us all proud.
We know from our own experiences as commissioners both before and after our report was published what it is like to be singled out and abused online because of your race. There must be no safe space for racists.
The Runnymede report is calling for the government to ensure its laws and policies fully comply with the ICERD’s definition of discrimination, and urgently implement a strategy to advance race equality. Other recommendations include engaging with social media platforms to tackle the incitement of racial hatred online, and ensuring effective systems for reporting hate crime and recording data.
Simon Woolley, a former government adviser on race and director of Operation Black Vote, said:
The divisive and dishonest Sewell report into race inequality represents the biggest lost opportunity to effectively tackle systemic racism in the UK.
This shadow report, in sharp contrast, offers a number of strategic recommendations which together present a sorely needed comprehensive race equality strategy fit for the 21st century.
By The Canary
This post was originally published on The Canary.
