Category: usa

  • Listen to this article:

    Hey remember when we learned that the CIA unilaterally funds its own clandestine operations via drug trafficking without the permission or oversight of any elected body and then everyone went “meh” and forgot about it?

    It’s strange how many westerners who grew up watching Star Wars still side with the evil empire on every foreign conflict.

    A foreign policy perspective which does not begin with and account for the fact that the US government is the most powerful and destructive force on earth, and that its behaviors are aggressive instead of defensive in nature, is a foreign policy perspective based on fantasy.

    People tell me, “You just hate America!”

    I don’t even know what this means. What specifically is it that I hate? The people? The dirt the country is built on? Or is it possible that my actual target is the most powerful and destructive government in the world and the oligarchy which runs it?

    “I hate the USA” is as nonsensical a statement as “I love the USA”; the land that label points to is so vast and its people so diverse that nobody can have any emotional relationship with it. Beyond that it’s a just collection of conceptual constructs which exist only in our imagination.

    Americans: Help!

    Republicans: Fuck you.

    Democrats: We need to come together and have a conversation about the help you need because these things take time and there’s a process and really it’s not just about the what it’s also about the how and the how sometimes gets lost in the what of the how of the how what how…

    “The Oscars” is a big fancy party where vapid airheads who’ve profited immensely from the status quo give each other trophies for making movies which reassure everyone that the US empire is awesome and capitalism is totally working.

    It’s not just mainstream politics and mainstream news media, it’s the entirety of mainstream culture: all its movies, books, music, values systems, ideals. It’s all inseparably intertwined with the sick status quo we now find ourselves in and the manufactured worldviews which consent to it.

    Teenagers understand this better than adults. There’s an intuitive rejection of mainstream culture; it feels weird and dissonant. Adults make fun of them for it–“Ooh, it’s not ‘alternative’ enough for you?”–but that rejection is arising from a very healthy impulse. Mainstream culture should be rejected, because it’s what got us into this mess. It’s sick. The instinct to reject it is as healthy as the immune system’s instinct to attack a pathogen.

    Every part of this tweet is hilarious:

    The more you read it, the funnier it gets.

    The US Coast Guard is where now? On the other side of the planet from any US coast? And they’re being “harassed”, are they? Oh, by the Persians? Where are the Persians harassing them? Oh? In the Persian Gulf? The US Coast Guard is being harassed in the Persian Gulf, by Persians?

    This is like saying “Burglar Harassed In Living Room By House Occupants”.

    Our media are so truthful and objective that they always take care to give us all the different perspectives from the full range of political opinion: both liberal corporate warmongers and conservative corporate warmongers.

    Telling the mainstream media to do their job and report the news truthfully is like walking into a shoe factory and telling them to do their job and make dentures. It isn’t the mass media’s job to tell the truth, it’s their job to administer propaganda. And they do a great job.

    It sure was nice, that brief window between the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of China where westerners temporarily paused their hysterical shrieking about communism.

    When people object to criticisms of the US-centralized empire, it isn’t because those criticisms are unfounded. It’s because if those criticisms are valid, it will mean everything they believe about the world is wrong. It would be a kind of death for them, and people fear death. Because perception is reality, finding out that your entire worldview is wrong is experientially the same as losing your entire world. Losing your entire world, your belief systems, your knowing, your understanding and all the stability it gives you, is like experiencing death.

    That’s why we’ve got whole cognitive defense systems in place designed to keep information that is incongruous with our worldview out of our heads. We protect our worldview like we’re protecting our own identity, because, in a very real sense, we are.

    It’s funny how of all the many desires people have, the desire for their own minds to be purged of illusion barely features. Some want for themselves, some want for others, but hardly anyone even considers the possibility that the mind which forms those wants could be deluded.

    If people just put the desire for freedom from delusion above all other desires, the other desires would quickly fall into their proper place.

    _______________________________________

    I’m celebrating the hardback release of Woke: A Field Guide For Utopia Preppers by making a pay-as-you-feel PDF available.

    The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on , following my antics on , or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi or . If you want to read more you can buy my books. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    Feature image via Pxhere.

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • ANALYSIS: By Clare Corbould, Deakin University

    The unprecedented conviction of police officer Derek Chauvin in the United States for the murder and manslaughter of George Floyd is testament to the hard work of Black Lives Matter organisers and protesters.

    It might seem as though someone who spent nine minutes and 29 seconds pressing his weight through his knee into another man’s neck – all captured on video – would be a slam dunk for a conviction. But history shows us otherwise.

    Thirty years ago, blurry footage taken with a home camcorder from an apartment balcony showed the world four white police officers beating Rodney King, an African American man on his knees. The police used batons, between 53 and 56 times.

    Those officers were charged with excessive force and assault. Their lawyers argued they could not get a fair hearing in Los Angeles, so the trial was moved to a conservative county with a higher proportion of white residents – reflected in the makeup of the jury.

    Their lawyers also argued, successfully, that the audio on the recording be omitted because it would prejudice the jury. Instead, they screened it frame by frame.

    Without the sounds of the blows striking King and the screams of bystanders urging the police to stop, the video persuaded jurors of the defence lawyers’ arguments that the officers were acting in self-defence.

    One juror later told reporters she believed King was in “total control” of the event. That juror believed one of the defence lawyers, who said “there’s only one person who’s in charge of this situation and that’s Rodney Glenn King”. She was sure a Black American man presented a violent threat, even while on his knees and clearly injured.

    Justified police violence
    This idea – that Black bodies somehow contain coiled violence ready to be unleashed at any moment – has justified police violence for years. This is true for police perceptions of African American women, such as Breonna Taylor in her own home, as well as for African American men.

    Guilty verdict reaction
    People react to the news of a guilty verdict in front of a mural to George Floyd in Atlanta. Image: AAP/EPA/Eric S. Lesser

    It has meant the legal test of whether the use of force is “excessive” has fallen further along the spectrum of violence when it comes to cases in which the victim is Black.

    This is true in Australia, too, where more than 400 Indigenous people have died in custody since the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and not one person has been convicted of a crime.

    This belief means that even when police killings are captured on video, as in the cases of Eric Garner, Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, prosecutors find reasons not to indict and juries find reasons not to convict.

    This belief also means that even when the victim of a police shooting is a child, like 12-year-old Tamir Rice, shot by an officer previously deemed unfit for the job, no police officer was charged with a crime.

    Of course, police violence that disproportionately targets African Americans long predates portable video cameras.

    As many have noted since Floyd’s murder, the origins of US policing lie in the control of supposedly disorderly populations – whether of enslaved people or, after the end of slavery, an impoverished class of labourers including Black people and immigrants.

    George Floyd’s brother Philonise Floyd
    George Floyd’s brother Philonise Floyd wipes his eyes during a press conference after the verdict was handed down. Image: AAP/AP/Julio Cortez

    Black people the target
    As African Americans migrated from the agricultural southern states to cities in the US South and North, police forces adapted accordingly. Ever since, at every stage of the “law enforcement” process, Black people are disproportionately the target.

    This includes in law-writing; neighbourhood patrols; the exercise of discretion over arrest, indictment, and plea bargains at trial; jury decisions; and judges’ decisions regarding fines and sentences.

    Whether it’s the so-called 1960s War on Crime or the 1980s War on Drugs, the whole of policing in the US rests on anti-black racism.

    As historian Khalil Gibran Muhammad argues in his excellent book, The Condemnation of Blackness, the entire justice system itself rests on the criminalisation of Black Americans. For many, the apparent criminality of Black people is evident in the proportion of them in prison or on bail or remand or parole. It’s a vicious circle.

    Reports and commissions by government, not-for-profit organisations and academics have long identified racism as the cause of the problem. This started in the 1920s with the report into the 1919 Chicago Race Riot. The 1968 Kerner Commission Report made recommendations that have been repeated reports since.

    So why is the problem so intractable?

    In short, profit. The “justice system” in the United States generates enormous revenue for a small group of people. Its services, ranging from public and private prisons, reform programs, well-resourced police and other legal systems, pays the salaries of literally millions more.

    Policed, charged, and incarcerated
    Where African-descended people were once enslaved to provide cheap labour, they are now policed, charged, indicted and incarcerated at staggering rates.

    It cannot be left to police departments to reform themselves. The only reason Chauvin has been convicted is because of the extraordinary labour of activists, which has focused attention on this case.

    Almost simultaneous with the verdict on the charges being read out, another African American child — this time a 15-year-old girl called Ma’Khia Bryant — was shot dead by Ohio police.

    It is time, rather, that calls to abolish police be taken more seriously. To many, this campaign seems outlandish. But as the work of Ruth Wilson Gilmore and others points out, democracies elsewhere in the world flourish with only a small fraction of the proportion of incarcerated people as in the United States.

    Where life is precious, life is precious,” Gilmore says.

    Achieving a society in which police and prisons are not necessary is no easy task, especially when those profiting from current arrangements hold so much sway. We need, as writer, Mellon Foundation president, and inaugural poet Elizabeth Alexander says, the imagination and courage of Black artists.

    Alexander points to Pat Ward Williams, who asked in 1986 of photographs of lynched Black people, “Can you be Black and look at this?

    In his closing statement to the jury, prosecutor Jerry Blackwell said with anguish:

    You were told, for example, that Mr. Floyd died because his heart was too big […] [but] the truth of the matter is – that the reason George Floyd is dead is because Mr Chauvin’s heart was too small.The Conversation

    Dr Clare Corbould is associate professor, Contemporary Histories Research Group, Deakin University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ANALYSIS: By Clare Corbould, Deakin University

    The unprecedented conviction of police officer Derek Chauvin in the United States for the murder and manslaughter of George Floyd is testament to the hard work of Black Lives Matter organisers and protesters.

    It might seem as though someone who spent nine minutes and 29 seconds pressing his weight through his knee into another man’s neck – all captured on video – would be a slam dunk for a conviction. But history shows us otherwise.

    Thirty years ago, blurry footage taken with a home camcorder from an apartment balcony showed the world four white police officers beating Rodney King, an African American man on his knees. The police used batons, between 53 and 56 times.

    Those officers were charged with excessive force and assault. Their lawyers argued they could not get a fair hearing in Los Angeles, so the trial was moved to a conservative county with a higher proportion of white residents – reflected in the makeup of the jury.

    Their lawyers also argued, successfully, that the audio on the recording be omitted because it would prejudice the jury. Instead, they screened it frame by frame.

    Without the sounds of the blows striking King and the screams of bystanders urging the police to stop, the video persuaded jurors of the defence lawyers’ arguments that the officers were acting in self-defence.

    One juror later told reporters she believed King was in “total control” of the event. That juror believed one of the defence lawyers, who said “there’s only one person who’s in charge of this situation and that’s Rodney Glenn King”. She was sure a Black American man presented a violent threat, even while on his knees and clearly injured.

    Justified police violence
    This idea – that Black bodies somehow contain coiled violence ready to be unleashed at any moment – has justified police violence for years. This is true for police perceptions of African American women, such as Breonna Taylor in her own home, as well as for African American men.

    People react to the news of a guilty verdict in front of a mural to George Floyd in Atlanta. Image: AAP/EPA/Eric S. Lesser

    It has meant the legal test of whether the use of force is “excessive” has fallen further along the spectrum of violence when it comes to cases in which the victim is Black.

    This is true in Australia, too, where more than 400 Indigenous people have died in custody since the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and not one person has been convicted of a crime.

    This belief means that even when police killings are captured on video, as in the cases of Eric Garner, Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, prosecutors find reasons not to indict and juries find reasons not to convict.

    This belief also means that even when the victim of a police shooting is a child, like 12-year-old Tamir Rice, shot by an officer previously deemed unfit for the job, no police officer was charged with a crime.

    Of course, police violence that disproportionately targets African Americans long predates portable video cameras.

    As many have noted since Floyd’s murder, the origins of US policing lie in the control of supposedly disorderly populations – whether of enslaved people or, after the end of slavery, an impoverished class of labourers including Black people and immigrants.

    George Floyd’s brother Philonise Floyd
    George Floyd’s brother Philonise Floyd wipes his eyes during a press conference after the verdict was handed down. Image: AAP/AP/Julio Cortez

    Black people the target
    As African Americans migrated from the agricultural southern states to cities in the US South and North, police forces adapted accordingly. Ever since, at every stage of the “law enforcement” process, Black people are disproportionately the target.

    This includes in law-writing; neighbourhood patrols; the exercise of discretion over arrest, indictment, and plea bargains at trial; jury decisions; and judges’ decisions regarding fines and sentences.

    Whether it’s the so-called 1960s War on Crime or the 1980s War on Drugs, the whole of policing in the US rests on anti-black racism.

    As historian Khalil Gibran Muhammad argues in his excellent book, The Condemnation of Blackness, the entire justice system itself rests on the criminalisation of Black Americans. For many, the apparent criminality of Black people is evident in the proportion of them in prison or on bail or remand or parole. It’s a vicious circle.

    Reports and commissions by government, not-for-profit organisations and academics have long identified racism as the cause of the problem. This started in the 1920s with the report into the 1919 Chicago Race Riot. The 1968 Kerner Commission Report made recommendations that have been repeated reports since.

    So why is the problem so intractable?

    In short, profit. The “justice system” in the United States generates enormous revenue for a small group of people. Its services, ranging from public and private prisons, reform programs, well-resourced police and other legal systems, pays the salaries of literally millions more.

    Policed, charged, and incarcerated
    Where African-descended people were once enslaved to provide cheap labour, they are now policed, charged, indicted and incarcerated at staggering rates.

    It cannot be left to police departments to reform themselves. The only reason Chauvin has been convicted is because of the extraordinary labour of activists, which has focused attention on this case.

    Almost simultaneous with the verdict on the charges being read out, another African American child — this time a 15-year-old girl called Ma’Khia Bryant — was shot dead by Ohio police.

    It is time, rather, that calls to abolish police be taken more seriously. To many, this campaign seems outlandish. But as the work of Ruth Wilson Gilmore and others points out, democracies elsewhere in the world flourish with only a small fraction of the proportion of incarcerated people as in the United States.

    Where life is precious, life is precious,” Gilmore says.

    Achieving a society in which police and prisons are not necessary is no easy task, especially when those profiting from current arrangements hold so much sway. We need, as writer, Mellon Foundation president, and inaugural poet Elizabeth Alexander says, the imagination and courage of Black artists.

    Alexander points to Pat Ward Williams, who asked in 1986 of photographs of lynched Black people, “Can you be Black and look at this?

    In his closing statement to the jury, prosecutor Jerry Blackwell said with anguish:

    You were told, for example, that Mr. Floyd died because his heart was too big […] [but] the truth of the matter is – that the reason George Floyd is dead is because Mr Chauvin’s heart was too small.The Conversation

    Dr Clare Corbould is associate professor, Contemporary Histories Research Group, Deakin University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A new “threat assessment” by the US intelligence cartel has named China the number one threat to the United States today, followed by Russia, Iran, and North Korea. This has of course led to blaring news headlines like “China poses the biggest threat to the U.S., a new intelligence report says” from The New York Times, instead of something a little less propagandistic like “Here’s who the CIA wants you to be afraid of in order to advance its geostrategic power agendas.”

    The report makes a bunch of evidence-free assertions which serve no purpose other than to help manufacture consent for the movement of expensive weaponry around the globe at the facilitation of unscrupulous war propaganda firms like The New York Times. Not only that, but I can now report that this US intelligence threat assessment is squarely contradicted by my own intelligence source.

    Far from being threatened in any meaningful way by Beijing, Moscow, Tehran or Pyongyang, my intelligence source tells me that the greatest threat facing the United States today is actually the policy and behavior of the US itself.

    Graph showing that 1 out of 5 prisoners in the world is incarcerated in the U.S.

    My source informs me that infinitely more threatening to Americans than China is their own government’s policy of maintaining more and more severe domestic austerity measures and relying on a racist, violent and increasingly militarized police force to bash its most impoverished populations into line instead of simply helping them. The fact that America’s primary system of care for those who fall through the cracks is its immense prison-industrial complex poses a far greater threat to America than Moscow, Iran or North Korea ever will.

    “When prison has become your country’s social safety net and you’re incarcerating at a rate unseen anywhere else in the world, it is not the time for you to worry about Kim Jong Un,” the intelligence source tells me.

    But this crushing poverty and authoritarianism is necessary when a nation is the hub of a globe-spanning empire and its rulers need to make sure the populace remains too poor, busy and propagandized to begin interfering in the mechanics of the war machine. If Americans began using the power of their numbers to force their political system to cease hemorrhaging money and resources into interminable occupations and ever more expensive acts of military expansionism so that people could be cared for at home, the empire would fall. And that would make the imperialists sad.

    According to my source, the real threat to America today is the standing policy of overextending US military commitments in a futile effort to maintain unrivaled unipolar planetary hegemony on a world that is forever out of control while impoverishing and oppressing Americans at home, all to preserve a failed competition-based model of mass-scale human behavior that our species needs to evolve beyond anyway.

    Okay, my intelligence source is between my ears.

    Anyone with a brain can see that there is no real threat to the United States from outside US borders. US unipolar domination might be under threat from an ever-changing world in which empires are always temporary. Imperialism’s days might be numbered. Capitalism may be on the way out. But the US itself is not being threatened on the world stage by any foreign actor.

    The US government is the one threatening nations with obliteration if they do not obey its dictates, not the other way around. Nobody is threatening America.

    Your own intelligence sources will, with some rigorous usage, tell you that the real threat to America comes from oligarchs, imperialists and war profiteers who see the US government and its historically unprecedented military force as a tool for expanding power and wealth no matter what the human cost might be.

    We can trust our intelligence sources on that matter my friends. Our story is much better-sourced than any we’ll ever see in The New York Times.

    _____________________

    New book: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix.

    The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on , following my antics on , or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi or . If you want to read more you can buy my books. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Ramsey Clark, who was attorney general in the Johnson administration before becoming an outspoken activist for unpopular causes and a harsh critic of US policy, has died. He was 93. see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/6790030F-0B3B-2518-90DF-DD16787FCA9F

    After serving in President Lyndon B Johnson’s cabinet in 1967 and 1968, Clark set up a private law practice in New York in which he championed civil rights, fought racism and the death penalty and represented declared foes of the US including former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic and Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. He also defended former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

    “The progressive legal community has lost its elder dean and statesman,” civil rights attorney Ron Kuby said. “Over many generations, Ramsey Clark was a principled voice, conscience and a fighter for civil and human rights.”

    Clark defended antiwar activists. In the court of public opinion, he charged the US with militarism and arrogance, starting with the Vietnam war and continuing with Grenada, Libya, Panama and the Gulf war. When Clark visited Iraq after Operation Desert Storm and returned to accuse the US of war crimes, Newsweek dubbed him the Jane Fonda of the Gulf

    Clark said he only wanted the US to live up to its ideals. “If you don’t insist on your government obeying the law, then what right do you have to demand it of others?” he said.

    The Dallas-born Clark, who was in the US Marine corps in 1945 and 1946, moved his family to New York in 1970 and set up a pro bono-oriented practice. He said he and his partners were limiting their annual personal incomes to $50,000, a figure he did not always achieve.

    Clark’s client list included such peace and disarmament activists as the Harrisburg seven and the Plowshares eight. Abroad, he represented dissidents in Iran, Chile, the Philippines and Taiwan, and skyjackers in the Soviet Union.

    He was an advocate for Soviet and Syrian Jews but outraged many Jews over other clients. He defended a Nazi prison camp guard fighting extradition and the Palestine Liberation Organization in a lawsuit over the killing of a cruise ship passenger by hijackers.

    “We talk about civil liberties,” he said. “We have the largest prison population per capita on Earth. The world’s greatest jailer is the freest country on Earth?”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/11/ramsey-clark-attorney-general-critic-us-policy-saddam-hussein-dies-aged-93

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • This blog has a special interest in human rights awards and their laureates (see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/02/02/digest-of-laureates-ready-this-blog-changes-orientation/)

    Still, it is rare to see an item that so openly advances a candidate as in Newsfile Corp. of April 1, 2021. It states that recently, David William McBride was nominated for four international human rights awards: 2021 Distinguished Services to Humanism Award, 2021 FrontLine Defenders Award, 2021 Sydney Peace Prize, and 2021 Václav Havel Human Rights Prize. These four awards have all made outstanding contributions to the development of international human rights and have a good reputation and recognition.

    For the “FrontLine Defenders Award”, the “Sydney Peace Prize” and the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize (Council of Europe), see the Digest: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest

    From 2014 to 2016, McBride successively provided the American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) with information about the war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan, and reported the details in 2017. The following year, he was charged with five crimes related to national security, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. He was not guilty of every charge at the preliminary hearing in May 2019 and is still awaiting trial. In the same year, the “Brereton report” was released. The report found that the Australian Special Forces allegedly killed 39 unarmed prisoners and civilians in Afghanistan, and 2 of them were even tortured and killed. Severe condemnation of the incident was issued around the world. After the fact verification was announced, the Australian people and politicians began to call for the revocation of the prosecution against McBride. Previously, McBride stated that my duty is to “stand up and be counted”, and I did it. What has happened from now on is irrelevant in many ways. I did what I thought was necessary. My main enemy is not the command system, or even the police, but myself. When the reporter asked what he thought of the upcoming charges, McBride said, “They keep threatening me to go to jail. If I am afraid of going to jail, why would I become a soldier?”

    The winners of the four awards will be announced around April.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/david-william-mcbride-nominated-four-095700067.html

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • ICC permanent premises
    Permanent premises of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the Netherlands. © 2018 Marina Riera/Human Rights Watch

    US President Joe Biden’s cancellation of punitive sanctions targeting the International Criminal Court (ICC) removes a serious obstacle to the court’s providing justice to the victims of the world’s worst crimes, Human Rights Watch said on 2 April 2, 2021. Biden revoked a June 2020 order by then-President Donald Trump authorizing asset freezes and entry bans to thwart the ICC’s work. This was expected after an appeal by many NGOs, see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/02/19/large-group-of-ngos-call-on-biden-administration-to-repeal-icc-sanctions/

    In announcing the repeal of the executive order, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that “[t]hese decisions reflect our assessment that the measures adopted were inappropriate and ineffective.” The State Department also lifted existing visa restrictions.

    “The Trump administration’s perversely punitive sanctions against the ICC showed stark contempt for the victims of grave international crimes and the prosecutors who seek to hold those responsible to account,” said Richard Dicker, international justice director at Human Rights Watch. “In removing this unprecedented threat to the global rule of law, President Biden has begun the long process of restoring US credibility on international justice through the ICC.”

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/04/02/us-rescinds-icc-sanctions

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • The US-centralized empire is waging nonstop wars that have killed millions of human beings just since the turn of this century, and people will still say things like “We’ve really got to do something about Cuba.”

    The US-centralized empire is circling the planet with hundreds of military bases, working to destroy any nation which disobeys its dictates and brandishing armageddon weapons at its enemies like a drunken hillbilly with a shotgun, and people are still like “Something must be done about China’s intellectual property theft!”

    Among the violent and destructive governments in our world, one towers high above all the others in a league entirely of its own. Add in the malign behavior of its allies, who effectively function as arms of the same single empire on foreign policy, and the gap between it and the next-worst offender grows even greater. And yet, somehow, many people act as though this power structure should not face a unique level of criticism and scrutiny.

    A lot of propaganda-addled empire loyalists bleat the terms “whataboutism” and “false equivalency” at anyone who responds to criticisms of nations like Russia or China by pointing out the terrible things the US does and continues to do, implying that America is far better than those other nations and that even bringing them into the same conversation is absurd. And they are correct, it is absurd, but for the exact opposite reason they think: the US is far, far worse.

    There is no other power structure that is anywhere near as violent, thuggish and authoritarian as the one that is currently using its military and economic might to murder, starve, bully and cajole the rest of humanity into submission and obedience to its interests. No one else comes anywhere remotely close. Any analysis of international dynamics which fails to place this fact front and center in its understanding is necessarily a flawed, power-serving analysis.

    It’s not just the brainwashed human livestock of the mainstream who fail to take this reality into account, but also many self-styled “anarchists” and other ideologues who fancy themselves to be up-punching critics of power. The mantra “I oppose all governments equally” will often see such types enthusiastically supporting the downfall of US-targeted governments like Syria and China, simply because those governments are more authoritarian than they’d like. Because it’s not informed by a reality-based weighting of world power dynamics as they actually exist, their “anti-authoritarianism” sees them supporting the most tyrannical agendas of the most tyrannical power structure on earth.

    You’ll hear them called “anarcho-imperialists” or “anarcho-neocons” by anti-imperialists; people whose internet anarchism leads them to actively facilitate western propaganda initiatives against targeted governments because those governments are not pure and utopian enough for the delicate sensibilities in their blond dreadlock-adorned heads. They’ll pay lip service to opposing the US government too, but “opposing all governments” without that opposition reflecting the fact that one government is orders of magnitude worse than any other is supporting that very government.

    The fallacy of “I oppose all governments equally” is best summarized by the Anatole France quote, “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” All things are not equal, and treating all governments as though they are the same will always serve the interests of the most powerful government.

    It’s like those American libertarians who say “I oppose all forms of welfare, including corporate welfare!” Well guess what mate? Put your shoulder against that value system and shove, and then watch whose welfare ends up getting cut. I’ll give you a hint: it won’t be the rich guys.

    Force always flows most freely when it’s being directed against those who power opposes, next most freely when it’s directed against those to whom power is indifferent, and least freely when it’s directed against the most powerful themselves. It’s always far easier to flow with power than against it; that’s why the richest people are always those who collaborate with existing power structures. Firing your energy at “all governments equally” will see that energy picked up and ran with wherever it opposes the governments the largest power structure doesn’t like.

    As journalist Maitreya Bhakal recently put it:

    “Neither Washington nor Beijing”, is essentially (and secretly) a pro-Washington, anti-Beijing position. Equating both sides always helps the more evil side. Just because both US and China are wrong, doesn’t mean both are equally wrong.

     

    The problem is the nation that is infinitely less wrong than the other, is criticized infinitely more. Criticism should be proportional to the crime. This is why those who push for “equality before law” in China – ignore it while comparing China to US.

     

    It’s basically like saying “Neither Hitler nor Obama”: Imagine how pleased Hitler would be at being equated with Obama – no matter the latter’s crimes. Those who call for nuance when opposing “whataboutism” fail to apply nuance when comparing US and China. Thus, the effect (and in many cases, the purpose) of Bothsidesism is to not only to make the more evil side look less evil, but also to justify the more evil side’s evil atrocities against the less evil side.

    People often tell me “You don’t oppose imperialism, you only criticize US imperialism!” And to them I always reply, well, show me the other government that’s circling the planet with hundreds of military bases, waging nonstop wars and orchestrating the destruction of any nation which disobeys it. I’ll criticize that one too.

    I make no bones about the fact that I prefer to focus my criticisms on the most powerful and destructive power structure in the world. It’s not weird and suspicious to do this, it’s weird and suspicious that more people don’t do it. It is the sane and normal thing to do, and the fact that this isn’t the default assumption says so much about how extensively our society is wound around the convenience of the powerful.

    Not only is focusing your opposition on the most powerful and destructive government the most rational use of your energy, it’s also impossible to circulate criticisms of US-targeted nations without facilitating and participating in the US propaganda campaigns against those governments. I guarantee you that if I changed my tune and suddenly began authoring articles decrying the treatment of Alexei Navalny and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province, those articles would go more viral than anything I have ever written, because they flow in the direction of existing imperialist propaganda campaigns. I would be responsible for the consequences of my doing this.

    And there would be consequences. Before they launch missiles, they launch narratives. Before they drop bombs, they drop propaganda. The path to every bullet in every war is paved with mass-scale narrative manipulation, and when we choose to participate in that paving we are just as culpable for the death and destruction that ensues as the guys who drop the actual bombs. The devastating effects of war against nations like Syria or Iran and the potentially world-ending consequences of cold war aggressions against Russia and China rest on the shoulders of those who helped circulate the narratives which facilitated them.

    So be real with yourself about what you’re putting out there, and be responsible about it. Be mindful of whether you’re helping to advance an agenda with a lot of energy behind it from the most powerful forces on earth, because those are the agendas that will be enacted. Don’t let your “anarchism” turn you into a goddamn stormtrooper for the empire.

    ________________________

    Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on , following my antics on , or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi or . If you want to read more you can buy my new book Poems For Rebels (you can also download a PDF for five bucks) or my old book . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Living close to Turkey, I follow the situation there perhaps with more worry than others. And nothing good seems to happen:

    Turkish police detained three district heads of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) and seven others in Istanbul on Friday over alleged links to militants, police said, two days after a court case began over banning the party.

    Separately, Turkey’s Human Rights Association (IHD) co-chairman Ozturk Turkdogan was arrested by police at his home, IHD said, prompting human rights groups to call for his release. Turkdogan was then released on Friday evening, the association said.

    Responding to the arrest today of Öztürk Türkdoğan, the president of Turkey’s Human Rights Organisation, Esther Major, Amnesty International’s Senior Research Adviser for Europe, said:

    “The detention of Öztürk Türkdoğan is outrageous. With ink barely dry on the Human Rights Action Plan announced by President Erdoğan two weeks ago, his arrest reveals that this document is not worth the paper it is written on.

    After over three years in jail without a conviction, one of Turkey’s highest-profile detainees, Osman Kavala, is “not optimistic” that President Tayyip Erdogan’s planned reforms can change a judiciary he says is being used to silence dissidents.
    A philanthropist, 63-year-old Kavala told Reuters that after decades of watching Turkey’s judiciary seeking to restrict human rights, it was now engaged in “eliminating” perceived political opponents of Erdogan’s government.
    Kavala was providing written responses via his lawyers to Reuters’ questions days after Erdogan outlined a “Human Rights Action Plan” that was said will strengthen rights to a free trial and freedom of expression. See: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/09/16/osman-kavala-and-mozn-hassan-receive-2020-international-hrant-dink-award/ and

    Not surprisingly this is leading to reactions, such as a bipartisan letter penned by 170 members of the US Congress to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in which the lawmakers have urged President Joe Biden’s administration to consider the “troubling human rights abuses” in Turkey.  “President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party have used their nearly two decades in power to weaken Turkey’s judiciary, install political allies in key military and intelligence positions, crack down on free speech and (the) free press,” the letter said. Dated 26 February but made public on 1 March, the letter asks Washington to formulate its policy regarding Turkey considering human rights, saying that the Erdogan administration has strained the bilateral relationship. 

    On top of this Turkey has pulled out of the world’s first binding treaty to prevent and combat violence against women by presidential decree, in the latest victory for conservatives in President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling party. The 2011 “Istanbul Convention| [SIC], signed by 45 countries and the European Union, requires governments to adopt legislation prosecuting domestic violence and similar abuse as well as marital rape and female genital mutilation. Conservatives had claimed the charter damages family unity, encourages divorce and that its references to equality were being used by the LGBT community to gain broader acceptance in society. The publication of the decree in the official gazette early Saturday sparked anger among rights groups and calls for protests in Istanbul. Women have taken to the streets in cities across Turkey calling on the government to keep to the 2011 Istanbul Convention.

    Gokce Gokcen, deputy chairperson of the main opposition CHP party said abandoning the treaty meant “keeping women second class citizens and letting them be killed.” “Despite you and your evil, we will stay alive and bring back the convention,” she said on Twitter. Last year, 300 women were murdered according to the rights group We Will Stop Femicide Platform.
    The platform called for a “collective fight against those who dropped the Istanbul convention,” in a message on Twitter.
    The Istanbul convention was not signed at your command and it will not leave our lives on your command,” its secretary general Fidan Ataselim tweeted.

    Kerem Altiparmak, an academic and lawyer specializing in human rights law, likened the government’s shredding of the convention to the 1980 military coup. “What’s abolished tonight is not only the Istanbul convention but the parliament’s will and legislative power,” he commented.

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/1822001/middle-east

    https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/turkey-outrageous-arrest-lawyer-makes-mockery-erdogans-human-rights-reforms

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/1828581/middle-east

    https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-03-19/turkish-police-detain-pro-kurdish-party-officials-anadolu

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/1818641/middle-east

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Wanjiku Gatheru, who goes by the name ‘Wawa’, is an environmental justice trailblazer. After founding the grassroots platform Black Girl Environmentalist, an intergenerational community of Black girls, women and non-binary environmentalists, she aims to use climate activism to help pave the way for Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) communities in the environmental movement.

    Gatheru is making space for underrepresented voices in climate conversations but also campaigns for BIPOC to be included in the environmental decision-making process.

    Growing up in the US, she took environmental studies at the University of Connecticut before becoming a prestigious Rhodes Scholar, and student at Oxford University, UK.

    Now Gatheru’s started a new initiative called Reclaiming Our Time to “promote and solidify visibility for Black climate activists”. In collaboration with Pass the Mic Climate and Generation Green, the campaign matches 30+ activists worldwide with organisations like Greenpeace UK, Sierra Club, and Earthrise. In a series of Instagram live takeovers, activists educate followers about the intersections between social justice, environmentalism, and groundwork. Mark Ruffalo and Anne Hathaway are among those involved.

    Running throughout February and March, founders hope to continue the discussions in the lead up to International Mother Earth Day on 22 April.

    Gatheru spoke to The Canary’s Aaliyah Harris about all things climate, race and politics.

    Why climate activism?

    A lot of my interest has come from understanding my family’s history, as well as the experiences of Black communities in the US. My parents are both immigrants from Kenya which is a frontline country experiencing climate change. The environmental movement is overwhelmingly white-led and as an organiser at university, I have been the only person of colour, not just the only Black person, in most environmental spaces.

    You tweeted about Black youth being erased/ignored/side-lined in the climate and environmental movement. How is the environmental movement’s history racist?

    It’s an issue with the environmental movement at large and the media. The environmental movement has been historically white-led and has a very troubled racist history, which led to the intentional exclusion of poor people and people of colour. Especially people who live at the intersection of both of those demographics. A lot of the founding fathers of the environmental movement were racist. They conceptualised definitions to accommodate racialised environments that essentially crafted environments worth protecting, and those that weren’t. Those racialised conceptions of nature and wilderness were used to accommodate the white elite, at the very intentional exclusion of poor people and people of colour. This past year, with the world’s reckoning with anti-black racism, [we’ve seen] the environmental movement at large, non-profits, the private sector and academia begin to reckon with this racist history. But [they’re doing it] without exploring the way that history continues to inform the present: from who’s represented in the green workforce to which voices are understood and articulated as those capable of being leaders, particularly when it comes to youth climate activism.

    Why is youth climate activism significant for environmental change?

    Youth climate activism hit the mainstream around 2019 with Greta Thunberg gaining international attention. However, something we’ve seen since and before, is that many youths of colour who also participated in doing great organising work in their communities don’t get the same airtime or credibility. We often aren’t distinguished as being leaders within the environmental movement and sometimes in response it’s, ‘Oh, well, that’s all ego why should you get recognition?’. But it’s much bigger than that because particularly for youth of colour, black youth and indigenous youth, our communities are already experiencing climate change first and worse. A huge concern is, if the media and environmental movement are ignoring our voices now on how climate change is impacting our lives, then what does that mean when it gets worse? Our narratives need to be incorporated within climate policies.

    What environmental issues must be addressed?

    Understanding the intersectionality of environmentalism, and the social dimensions that take a central role in the way that people experience environmental harm and climate change. This will allow us as a global community to be better equipped to deal with the climate crisis and environmental degradation. COP 2021 (the United Nations Climate Change Conference) need to integrate youth voices at the decision-making table, have more women, indigenous and Black participation. COP set a huge precedent for how the folks that do gather engage with environmental decision-making in countries. If a top environmental body doesn’t articulate indigenous or Black women’s voices to be important, what’s there to say about the rest of the world does.

    Any upcoming plans to tackle the climate crisis?

    Black Girl Environmentalists has exciting mentorship opportunities, book clubs and video calls to discuss environmental hazards that exist such as those in skin lightening creams. Studies show that lighter skin tones are considered to be more desirable which has led to disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards through skin lightening creams detrimental to overall health. Yet, online there aren’t many resources for information, nor has the environmental movement ever really centred on those things which are part of the lived experiences for many people of colour. Particularly in Nigeria, India and China. We deliberately create space to discuss hazards and we’ll be providing educational resources filling the gaps in the mainstream environmental movement.

    Check out Black Girl Environmentalists next live panel and IG takeover here.

    Featured image via Wikimedia and Kevin Gill

    By Aaliyah Harris

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Lock-down Tibet Lobby Of Your Representative

    Image: engineered by @tibettruth

    Greetings to our friends and subscribers across the USA.

    Today we launch our online lobby supporting Tibet.

    With a few taps and swipes of your device you can ensure that your MP is made aware of Tibet’s status as an independent nation under an illegal occupation. There’s also an important question on Tibet included which asks your political representative to present to the head of Foreign Affairs.

    Join the action- resource pack here: https://tibettruth.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/uslobby4rangzen.pdf

    We hope you will spare a few moments online and help to ensure that the issue of Tibet is neither ignored our misunderstood within governments. Thanks

    This post was originally published on TIBET, ACTIVISM AND INFORMATION.

  • Saudi activist Loujain al-Hathloul had been sentenced to almost six years in jail (AFP/File photo) By Ali Harb in Washington

    After more than 1,000 days in detention where she endured torture and hunger strikes, Saudi women’s rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul is expected to be released on Thursday, her sister revealed in a tweet on Monday. 

    A Saudi court sentenced Hathloul to close to six years in prison late in 2020 on charges of contacting foreign organisations stemming from her human rights work. With time served and the court suspending part of the jail sentence, she was set for release in March. [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/12/29/loujain-al-hathloul-sentenced-to-over-5-years-prison-by-saudi-terror-court/]

    Her early release would come weeks into the administration of US President Joe Biden, who has vowed to “reassess” relations with Riyadh and prioritise human rights in its dealings with the kingdom. In a phone call with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan last week, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken stressed “several key priorities of the new administration including elevating human rights issues and ending the war in Yemen”, according to a statement by the State Department.

    In 2019, Hathloul and fellow detained feminist activists Nouf Abdulaziz and Eman al-Nafjan received the PEN/Barbey Freedom to Write Award. In 2020 she received the Prix de la Liberte (Normandy) and the Magnitsky award [see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/1a6d84c0-b494-11ea-b00d-9db077762c6c] See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/01/18/%e2%80%8b%e2%80%8bmartin-ennals-award-finalists-2021-announced/

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/loujain-al-hathloul-saudi-activist-be-freed-sister-says

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Mohammed Ismail, above in 2019, faces charges of sedition and terrorism financing, which human rights defenders say are bogus and thinly veiled revenge against the family for embarrassing the state security services.
    Mohammed Ismail, above in 2019,.Credit…Saiyna Bashir for The New York Times

    Jeffrey Gettleman and Zia ur-Rehman report in the New York Times of 3 February 2021 that Mohammed Ismail, father of the women’s rights activist Gulalai Ismail, now faces harsh terrorism charges that critics say are about revenge, not justice. (Digest: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/91dafeaf-7056-466f-82b9-4a380ba6391a]

    Gulalai Ismail, one of Pakistan’s boldest human rights defenders and a stalwart critic of Pakistan’s security services, succeeded in escaping to the United States in 2019, humiliating the authorities who had been persecuting her. Now Pakistan has taken aim at her parents, accusing them of terrorism, and throwing her father, who was recovering from Covid-19, into jail.

    A bail hearing ended with Mohammed Ismail being led away in handcuffs. He faces charges of sedition and terrorism financing, which human rights defenders say are bogus and thinly veiled revenge against the family for embarrassing the state security services.

    Ms. Ismail, who now lives in New York and has applied for political asylum in the United States, said the charges against her and her parents were “malicious and false.” “This is about setting a precedent,” she said on Wednesday, by phone from Brooklyn. “If a woman raises her voice, the whole family will face consequences.

    Ms. Ismail made a name for herself by spotlighting the rampant abuse of women and girls in Pakistan, especially gang rapes perpetuated by government soldiers. She also joined the Pashtun Protection Movement, a human rights protest group known as the P.T.M., and whose rallies became the focus of a massive crackdown by the Pakistani security forces. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2017/10/06/gauri-lankesh-and-gulalai-ismail-win-2017-anna-politkovskaya-award/]

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • By Roni Roseberg

    The dictionary definition of “hijab” is a “traditional scarf worn by Muslim women to cover the hair and neck and sometimes the face.” The term can refer to any head, face, or body covering worn by Muslim women that conforms to Islamic standards of modesty.

    I met Kristin Dieng online through the Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom, a non-profit organisation dedicated to building unity between Muslims and Jews thorough dialogue, education and social action.

    Kristin is American-born, a Muslim by choice and living in the US – a place that is not always friendly to Muslims. At one point, she mentioned that she previously wore hijab.

    For various reasons, she made the difficult decision not to continue wearing it. Her decision interested me, and I decided to ask her about it.

    Kristin Dieng

    In some ways, her experience has paralleled my experience as a Jewish woman, being in a minority in the US, facing questions about the meaning of being on the fringes of US society or assimilating.

    Her experience as a Muslim has also overlapped with that of Muslims who come to the US from abroad. In other ways, it has been different from theirs.

    When she wore hijab, her light skin and eyes, native command of English and complete familiarity with US culture baffled Muslims she met and sometimes provoked their questioning of her commitment to Islam.

    Additionally, Kristin is aware that her husband, originally from West Africa, and her three brown-skinned sons with Arabic names, face a variety of challenges that a white, Christian family never would face.

    Kristin is in the precise position to observe white privilege in action, racism and the reactions of communities, Muslim and non-Muslim.

    In our dialogue here, she reflects on both the obvious and subtle nuances of in-group and out-group dividing lines. Our exchange was not only educational for me but ends with practical suggestions for society. 


    In our initial conversation, you unpacked white privilege and observed that it is not only a set of advantages, but a code for kindness among people who look similar. When you appeared different from white people due to your hijab, you were discriminated against by white Americans.

    Does that now (since you’ve chosen not to wear your hijab) make you feel suspicious or jaded about what had originally appeared to be an inherent kindness before you put on the hijab?

    Yes, I have to be honest and say that I am very suspicious of people’s kindness now, as I often question whether they would be as kind of they knew I was Muslim, or knew that I have a black husband and children. 

    I definitely often feel like a person who is “passing” (similar to a black person who is fair-skinned and not immediately identified as black, but assumed to be white) with people assuming I am Christian, when I have other identity allegiances. 

    I do think people’s kindness is genuine when they’re kind to those who appear similar to them.  But I think many people are unaware of how they limit their kindness. 

    When I do mention that I’m Muslim, or discuss my black family, I do often get a quick physical reaction, whether a pulling back or a blinking of the eyes, and then other reactions. Often that includes a deep silence and a feeling that they’re uncomfortable, followed by a foundering around for a new topic of conversation. 

    Rarely am I asked about my religion, or my family. Instead, I’m almost always presented with a change of topic to something that’s common or familiar to them. In other cases, people quickly find ways to leave my presence.

    However, I do think there are other things at play in these interactions.

    By people assuming I am Christian, or assuming that my whole family (hence allegiance to “white culture”) is white, I think that assumption of assumed “commonality” establishes an assumed trust, or an assumed common background and similarity of thinking, that results in an openness and a willingness to be kind, that lays a foundation for our interactions. 

    This openness, or kindness, is held back from people who look different, until an actual commonality is determined through conversation. If the effort to find such commonality is even made.

    Knowing, from my experiences with hijab, or my experiences with my black children, that many people hold aggressively racist or prejudiced opinions, though, I often wonder if I should even mention my religion or my family (assuming it’s relevant to the conversation). 

    Do I mention why I don’t eat pork when presented with a meal containing pork? 

    Do I mention where my husband is from (West Africa) when people express interest in him? 

    Do I discuss the struggles with racism that my kids experience when others are discussing their children’s difficulties in school? 

    Because the truth is that, often, my sharing my own truth results in unkindness or a deep withdrawal from conversation with me.

    That need to filter myself from others, or carefully share the realities of my life, results in a certain frustration with those who don’t have to filter their thoughts and sharing of personal details.

    How are you supposed to be open to others, or trust others, when so often you receive a negative reaction when you’re honest about yourself?

    With this said, there is a common shared experience among black people, native people, Jewish people, etc. of dual-identity, or a need to filter one’s personal details, thoughts and opinions.  Where you present one identity to the white community, and a separate identity to your religious or racial community.

    The topics of conversation you choose, the language and idioms you use, and the opinions you feel comfortable discussing, they all change. For white people, this difference, or a different way of thinking and interacting with the world, can result in the larger white community no longer considering you “of their own.” 

    The easy comfort and kindness often disappears and a feeling of distrust or suspicion takes its place. You, in effect, lose your “membership” in the white community but in exchange you gain community with a multitude of other groups.

    Wearing hijab in America often recognises someone as belonging to an ethnic minority community.

    On the other hand, Muslims extended themselves to you, especially seeing your hijab as a link. So how are the two groups (“white” Americans and Muslims) juxtaposed in your mind? Is there less emphasis on skin colour in the Muslim world?

    When you’re a white Muslim, there is limited acceptance in the larger Muslim community.

    Due to theology and a common belief system, Muslims will accept you as one of their own.  However, there is often a certain distrust that you’re a “real Muslim.” Due to the assumed, and real privileges that white Americans possess, immigrants are often very distrustful of a white person choosing to be part of a largely marginalised group. 

    With the American Muslim community made up primarily by first generation American immigrants, not being an immigrant means you stand out. This results in both curiosity and suspicion – whether you wear hijab or not.

    Hijab, though, does play a role in a white woman’s interactions with the Muslim community. If you wear hijab full-time, there is a certain assumption that you have “thrown your lot in with the Muslim community” and you’re given a greater acceptance. 

    By being a visible minority and losing many of the privileges that you have as a white American, everyone understands that you’re now experiencing prejudice that all visible Muslims experience. You now have a commonality of experience. 

    If you are white and don’t wear hijab, though, this commonality disappears, and, with it, the natural shared kindness that I described above in the white community.

    African Americans then have a completely different experience interacting with the Muslim community, with racism playing a role, as well as other realities (i.e. born American vs. immigrant), that I can’t speak of as a white Muslim.

    You say that your whiteness protects your sons in a way that a black parent might not experience. What does that say to you about the black experience in America?

    What change would you like to see for black parents?

    I have to be careful, as I can’t reference black experiences in America first-hand, I can only share my understanding of that experience through my reading of books and articles and conversations I’ve had with black friends and family. 

    But I can say, yes, white American’s tolerance for difference limits their willingness to accept behaviours different than their own (music, art, conversational topics, etc.). This then forces African Americans and other minorities to behave according to white-determined accepted norms, rather than perhaps what they themselves would consider appropriate. 

    In addition, minorities need to constantly interact with white people’s nuanced prejudices.

    For example, there is often an assumption that black people raising their voices communicates extreme anger. Whereas a white person raising their voice is assumed, often, to be passionate or deeply concerned or authoritative. 

    A white person can thus raise their voice when having a conversation with school authorities, if concerned about something in school, in a way that black parents often cannot. Or a white parent can discuss concerns about racist incidents involving her child that often an immigrant, or a black person, cannot. 

    I’ll give you an example. When my son was in middle school, white children on his bus bullied an immigrant Muslim student with constant chants of “ISIS” or “terrorist.” The boy, after weeks of constant taunts, yelled the f-word at the kids and was promptly kicked off the bus.

    The bus driver ignored the weeks of bullying but she immediately acted on the one incident of misbehaviour of the brown student. My son reported this incident to me and I called the school to report the whole situation. I spoke with school officials, the transportation department, I demanded they pull bus videos and I reported the whole situation to a national civil rights organisation. 

    I received an immediate response that was responsive, cooperative and helpful. They took the situation seriously. I am doubtful whether the boy’s mother, an Indian immigrant, would have received a similar reaction had she reported the situation from her son’s perspective.

    I believe my whiteness, and my familiarity with the language and culture of the school administration, got me a more proactive response. I have had many conversations with black friends about how they’re often labelled as “problem parents” when they call themselves to report racist incidents involving their kids. I haven’t been labelled as such when reporting incidents involving my own children.

    What does this say about the black experience?

    It says that black people must behave according to white norms in order to be accepted, tolerated or successful. In social, school and professional settings, where the administration of rules is run by run almost completely by white individuals, white culture is dominant. With other cultures often barely tolerated but rarely celebrated. 

    It reminds me of the constantly used phrase “but I don’t see race” as a way to defend against racism.

    That line starts with an assumption that seeing race is a bad thing, acknowledging race is a bad thing. Rather than the truth – which is that race and difference can be celebrated and educational (understanding and learning from other cultures and nationalities) and it should be acknowledged.

    Race does affect that daily experiences of minorities – ignoring their experiences is a denial of their humanity.

    What change would you like to see for black parents?

    Since white Americans hold most of the power in the United States, change needs to start with them. I’d like to see white Americans become more tolerant of differences. Differences in language, culture, ways of seeing the world, worldviews and religions. 

    I’d like to see white Americans listen more, rather than always dominating conversations and public spaces. There has to be a willingness to not assume that the “white way” is the “correct” way to do everything. 

    There needs to be better working knowledge of cultural differences in all settings, but especially by those in charge of schools, businesses etc. White people need to better understand their biases and often unconscious racism in order to treat others more equitably and with greater humanity.

    The recent death of George Floyd in the USA highlighted the ongoing struggles faced by Black Americans.

    If you were teaching a class to high school teens, what would you like to tell them?

    That the world, including and especially the United States, is made up of a multitude of people, with various ways of understanding and interacting with the world. It’s important to study other languages, cultures and religions in order to open one’s mind to differences. 

    Understanding differences will also help you better understand your own beliefs and assumptions. For example, it’s very hard to truly understand what makes America great, and not great, without having a deep understanding of alternative ways of doing things and being able to compare between different options.

    Live abroad. Experience other cultures first-hand and be able to then see your own culture and country from a new, more educated perspective. It’s when you truly experience something different from what you assume is the “norm” that you start listening more, understanding more, and pre-judging less.

    This isn’t just something that the white community needs to do (although it’s perhaps most necessary given the sheer power of the white community in all areas of the United States).  It’s something that all communities need to do in order to interact with, and appreciate, people different from themselves.

    I would honestly like for all white Americans, and even non-white Americans, to wear traditional Muslim clothing for one month. Without telling anyone you’re not Muslim. I’d like for people to inhabit, outwardly, the Muslim identity and interact with the wider American populace, experiencing what it’s like to be something different than you are. 

    I’d love if people could inhabit other races, but that’s too difficult. It’s not difficult, however, to wear some different clothing. Especially as Muslim clothing tends to be at the centre of discrimination and prejudice. 

    It’s then possible for people to experience prejudice and hate first-hand (white Americans, that of a minority group, African Americans that of an immigrant, etc.).  It’s very hard to know what privileges you have without losing them.

    I’d love to educate high school students on actual Islamic theology, so that opinions are based on facts rather than misinformation. And I’d like students to speak with actual Muslim women about why their wear hijab, rather than them making assumptions of oppression and external force.

    Much like I wouldn’t ask a Muslim to teach on the essence of Christianity, I think people should be educated on topics by those who are experts within their own fields.

    Has your bicultural, biracial family experienced discrimination in your town? If so, have you considered changing states or countries? What fears do you have for your husband and children? 

    Yes, my husband has been called the n-word more often than we could count. My children have also been called this term, both in public places and at school. 

    To be honest, though, I find such racist incidents happened a lot more when I’m present, when my children were younger in age. Then incidents at parks and playgrounds were common.  Parents called my kids names and moved their children away from mine. Some incidents were quite threatening. 

    As my sons have grown older, and larger, adults realise that they’re likely to get push-back to physical and verbal threats, and so they remain quiet. Prejudice more often takes the form of unkindness, silence and passive aggressive interactions.

    My greatest fear is my children having a violent interaction with police, either a racist officer or an officer scared of black people, and thus more likely to react inappropriately to a “perceived” threat. For example, an officer making the assumption that my son is reaching for a gun when he’s reaching for his ID (think Amadou Diallo in 1999 in New York). 

    There is nothing more terrifying to a mother than losing her child. I’m scared of this happening with my husband as well, but I trust my husband to remain calmer in complicated situations due to his life experience.

    My sons are 18 and 20. They haven’t yet interacted enough with the world to know how to respond to nuance and danger.

    Of course I’m also concerned about the ways in which discrimination may impact my kids’ opportunities – their ability to succeed in employment and provide for families. I want them to thrive.

    We have considered moving abroad. Something a man said recently stuck with me – an African American who now lives in Germany. He said that they have racism there, but it’s not backed by the threat of guns that exists in the United States. That the threat of guns heightens the danger inherent in all situations here.

    I find that true. It’s the sheer number of guns among our populace to puts the lives of police in danger and thus they are more sensitive when working and more likely to shoot civilians. With that said, we spend a lot more time considering what city we’ll live in. 

    My father builds homes as a contractor and we wanted to have him build us a house. But the only land we can afford is in areas outside the Twin Cities [Minneapolis and Saint Paul] – areas that are almost 100% white. That wasn’t an option. 

    When we travel by car, we’ve found that overt racism tends to happen when we’re about 30+ minutes outside any urban area (this holds true in every State, not just Minnesota). Racist incidents go down the closer we are to cities.

    We therefore restrict where we’ll consider living, what schools we want our kids attending and even where we travel.

    Being a hijab-wearing white Muslim in the USA brings an (often) new experience of prejudice.

    You are living with a foot in each of two worlds. It is not easy, yet you see benefits to it. Can you talk about that? How does it enhance your life? Does your faith give you strength in this challenging situation?

    I feel like a person who experienced Plato’s cave theory. Before I became a Muslim, I experienced the United States as a white American woman. I knew there was racism and prejudice, but I hadn’t experienced it myself, directly. 

    Knowing there is hate is not the same as having a woman physically prevent you from reaching your injured son because she hates his colour so much, seeing real hate in her eyes. Wearing hijab, I had a window into how non-white people experience the United States. 

    I saw how white people often treat non-white people. I love my country, but there is a very dark side to how minorities are treated in the US – a reality many white Americans haven’t experienced or don’t understand. 

    Before becoming Muslim, I saw and experienced one segment of America. I still experience that part of my country, but I now better understand how other communities experience the US as well. That’s important. 

    It’s important to how I treat and interact with others. But it’s also important internally to how I understand myself and my role in the world. Marrying a black man, being married to black man for 20+ years, and having black children, this has further expanded my view of, and experience with, all segments of the US. 

    I thought the US, the cave, was one thing, only to see that the world was much more complex, but also more beautiful than I ever could have imagined. I have more access to other languages, other cultures, other worldviews and religious understandings, other viewpoints and ways of seeing reality. My world has expanded.

    It’s hard to say where my faith has given me strength to deal with all of these complex issues, as the truth is that my faith has given me a completely different filter through which to see the world. Islam is not something you practice on a limited basis, it’s a religion that comprehensively covers every action every individual undertakes. 

    It teaches me the importance of being a great neighbour. It teaches how all humans are created equal, and that we are only unequal in our actions to help others, protect the environment and be good caretakers of our families and communities. 

    It demands that you give someone 70 excuses for bad behaviour towards yourself in case you’re misunderstanding a situation, the person is having a bad day, he/she is reacting out of hurt, etc. It’s a faith that encourages kindness and justice and action when you see you something wrong.

    It helps me be better person, and that, itself, makes me stronger and more willing to interact with those different from me, or in situations unfamiliar to me. And to do so in a humane and intentional way. It also, literally, has opened the world to me. 

    The Muslim community in the United States is incredibly diverse – it’s a community dominated by immigrants. I therefore have constant interactions with Hispanic Muslims, African Muslims, Asian Muslims and European Muslims.

    This constant mixing of cultures and languages means you literally have the whole world at your fingertips. That is a blessing and it’s a constant opportunity for education and knowledge.

    Given the current situation, many people are trying to take a hard look at themselves, reassessing their strengths and weaknesses, particularly in regards to race. And while I personally find political articles educational and helpful, many people only respond, or listen to, stories of a personal nature.

    So I’m going to be brutally honest about myself here. Specifically as it relates to my own personal path of understanding race in America.

    Most of my friends and colleagues know that I once wore hijab, the Islamic head covering, for many years after I converted to Islam. It was a personal choice, and one I believed in deeply.

    When I made the decision, I made it in a state of innocence and naivety. I did not know it yet, but I would be completely unprepared for what I was about to experience. I saw hijab as a form of modesty, and a commitment to my faith.

    What I did not see, not truly, was how the world would see me wearing it.

    After three years of wearing hijab, I made the decision to take it off. It was a very difficult decision, and I had many conflicting feelings about it. At the time, my reasons for no longer wearing the hijab were all largely practical. 

    People who meet me now often ask me why I took it off. And I’m able to dodge the question by giving a simple one: it was the time of 9/11 and wearing it was a safety risk.

    But the real question, if you want an honest answer, is why do I choose to continue to not wear hijab? Because that entails a radically different answer. And that answer is tied up in race and, yes, privilege.

    When I started wearing hijab, I instantly lost my “whiteness” and all of the benefits it afforded. Okay, not benefits but privileges. A word I know that makes many white people uncomfortable. 

    I lost the kindness that white women tend to naturally give other women. I lost the kindness of clerks and workers and most people just generally living their lives out in public. I lost the ability to be judged based on my actions, my character and my intelligence when interviewing for jobs. 

    In fact, I lost my English language, because somehow when people see a woman in hijab, they so deeply believe it must be a foreigner that they no longer hear perfect fluent English. I lost all of the benefits that my hard-earned Georgetown education afforded me.

    I could spend all day listing everything that I lost when I lost my whiteness, but the most important thing I lost was the safety that comes with it. I had previously always been left alone, when in public, to go about my day.  People left me in peace.

    No longer. I was accosted verbally. Physically. In my car, in stores, on the street. Life became a series of threats and efforts by me to diffuse them. It was physically and mentally exhausting. 

    It, day by day, chipped down my confidence, my belief in myself and my appreciation for my own value as a human being. I lost my belief in America and the American people. I lost my belief that people could be kind and good.

    My primary concern became, always: where would I be safe?

    By learning about other cultures and peoples, we can help fight racism.

    So why I didn’t I put my hijab back on? Why don’t I today?

    Not giving myself any quarter, the brutal truth is I do not want to lose my whiteness again.

    I don’t want to lose the privileges that come with it. I now KNOW the costs of not being white. Deeply, in my marrow.  It’s one thing to take on a new identity without understanding the consequences. But I know them now.

    I am not proud of the fact that I still believe in hijab and yet choose not to wear it. I am ashamed that I give more weight to my fear of people, specifically of American men and women, than I’m giving to my deeply held religious beliefs.

    Now, twenty years later, I am the mother of three black boys. Two of them over 18 and over 6 feet tall. I thought wearing hijab taught me a lot about racism in America. And it did. 

    It was necessary for me to experience racism in person, in my face, to truly understand the cost it imposes on the human psyche.

    It’s necessary to look into someone’s face and see pure, adulterated hate to really understand how it feels it to have it directed at you. 

    Having black children, though, has opened up a new avenue for me to better understand racism in America. It’s now a constant reminder that, despite being white, I can no longer avoid the costs of blackness.

    This includes racial taunts against my children on playgrounds. Actual physical assaults on my children by people who fill up, somehow, with rage, just seeing them. We’ve had incidents at school, and on the bus, innumerable chats of n****r.  Each damaging to my children. 

    I’m not even going to touch on my experiences having been married to a black man for more than 20 years. That’s another story for another day.

    I am always aware that, as a white woman, I have the option to temporarily step away from it all. I can walk through small towns without the snickering, the whispers and the hostile stares. 

    I can drive my car over the speed limit, or change lanes without signally, without being scared for my life. I can, yes, enjoy smiles and kindness from complete strangers in the grocery store and in restaurants and other public places.

    I can, in other words, take a break from the reality of racism when I so choose.  I can breathe deeply, regaining the strength necessary for when I’m with my kids, or my husband, and, again, another racist incident takes place.

    This is not something afforded to people of colour. There is no taking their colour off as I did a piece of clothing. Or stepping away from my children.

    Addressing racism, and racist incidents, often occurs daily, weekly, monthly. The exhaustion mounts and the stress results in physical consequences. 

    The walls slowly, over time, come up. Because the truth is: when you look at a white person, you don’t know what you’re dealing with. Will it be kindness, neutrality, or, on occasion, actual acts of violence?

    If you went into a space and knew you’d be accosted one time in ten, would you then continue to go to that same place? 

    Yes, it means that nine times in ten you’ll be okay. The majority of the time. But that one time in ten is still high, and dangerous.

    Black Muslims account for 1 in 5 Muslims in the USA (Pew Research Centre, 2019).

    So, do you instead make an effort to protect yourself by making other decisions when possible? Would it be natural to build up mental walls as a shield? 

    Because the truth is: you can’t avoid that place. Because that place is your city, your workplace, your country. Now imagine this is also your children’s reality too.

    Can you imagine the strength it takes to send your children out into the world every day knowing that that one in ten situation still applies? And you have absolutely no ability to protect your child.

    That this is the reality of their world, and they simply have to learn to adjust mentally and physically in a manner that allows them to stay sane. And still believe in their self-worth. That they need to continue to focus on school and homework. And then later on, as an adult, to go out into the world, to work every day, drive down streets, function successfully, always knowing danger lurks just on the edges.

    This is my personal experience with race. With my children all still at home, I use my white privilege, unapologetically, to protect them for as long as I can.

    They can enter stores without being followed as long as they’re with me. They can ride in my car, safer with a white driver than driving on their own. My youngest can have school conferences where any hints of racism will be immediately called out, in a way that might be perceived as “threatening” if done by a black parent. 

    I’m quite aware that I can’t keep them by my side forever however. That this small amount of privilege afforded to them by their proximity to me, and my whiteness, will end. And it is terrifying. It’s a reality that black mothers and fathers deal with from the moment their children are born.

    I wish that everyone could share in the experience I had while wearing hijab. It was, truly, the ability to walk in another’s shoes. In the shoes of someone who appeared, at least visually, to be radically different than me.

    Although, of course, me without hijab is still me, an American Muslim. But without that one piece of cloth I am, somehow, given the benefit of the doubt that I am “just like everyone else.” Whatever that means. I’m still me.

    I found my time wearing hijab traumatic. Not because wearing a piece of cloth on my head is difficult, or oppressive. But because of how others’ misperceptions and prejudice altered their view of me. 

    It has left me with deep scars. But it also gave me a perspective and a learning experience that no amount of money could buy. It has also given me a new lens, if you will, through which to view the world. A more accurate lens. One that sees everyone’s humanity much more clearly. 

    This is something that each person in our country needs. Because we’d all be acting radically different with one another. We’d be practicing a lot more kindness to strangers.

    Thank you for your heartfelt, candid insights. I wish more people could walk in others’ shoes. Perhaps there would be more understanding in the world. I also wish we were neighbours. 

    Disclaimer

    The views expressed in this blog are solely the author’s/interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of Voice of Salam. 

    This post was originally published on Voice of Salam.

  • A woman holds up a placard with the slogan “Black Lives Matter” as people march in Brixton, south London to protest against police brutality in the US after two recent incidents where black men have been shot and killed by police officers. Daniel Leal-Olivas, AFP

    AFP reported on 30 January that the international civil rights movement Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation on Friday won Sweden’s Olof Palme human rights prize for 2020.

    The foundation was honored for its work promoting “peaceful civil disobedience against police brutality and racial violence all over the world,” prize organizers said in a statement.

    The Black Lives Matter movement, founded in 2013 in the United States, has “in a unique way exposed the hardship, pain, and wrath of the African-American minority at not being valued equal to people of a different color,” the statement said.

    The movement had its major international breakthrough in the summer of 2020 following several cases of extreme brutality in the US, including the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Prize organizers noted that an estimated 20 million people have taken part in Black Lives Matter protests in the US alone, and millions more around the world. 

    This illustrates that racism and racist violence is not just a problem in American society, but a global problem.”

    For more on the Olof Palme Prize see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/awards/60DE9060-BC07-450D-B6B8-5A64C0F6D612

    https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/01/30/21/black-lives-matter-wins-swedish-rights-prize

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders.

  • In the wake of the far-right invasion of Washington’s Capitol Hill on 6 January, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a bulletin warning that more violence is possible. The news comes ahead of the release of a new documentary on the neo-Nazi movement in Germany.

    While no specific threat was named, the DHS bulletin appears to confirm fears that the Capitol riot, in which five people died, could embolden the US far-right.

    In the bulletin, DHS said it believed unrest:

    will persist in the weeks following the successful Presidential Inauguration. Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence.

    An Associated Press article on the announcement quoted former George W. Bush-era homeland security director Michael Chertoff. Chertoff told reporters that deaths from far-right terrorism now exceeded those from jihadist groups in the US, warning that:

    We have to be candid and face what the real risk is

    New film maps German neo-Nazi movement

    But it’s not just the US facing a threat from the far-right. Europe has also seen a rise in incidences of fascist violence, a topic explored in a new documentary film about resurgent neo-Nazi aggression in Germany.

    The Enemy Within: Neo Nazis and The German State, produced by Redfish Media, maps the resurgence of fascist violence in Germany and, critically, allegations of collusion by the authorities.

    It focuses partly on the alleged killing of nine people – mostly from migrant backgrounds – at a shisha bar in Hanau, near Frankfurt, in February 2020 by a far-right extremist Tobias Rathjen. The suspect and his mother were later found dead due to gunshot wounds.

    The film claims that the number of people involved in the far-right has spiked from around 22,000 in 2014 to over 33,000 in 2019 and that while hate crime peaked in 2016 at 27 per day, it continues at a high rate.

    It features extensive interviews with leading fascist figures, researchers, and victims of far-right violence as well as analysing the growing influence of Germany’s far-right party Alternative for Germany and the presence of far-right cells in the Germany military.

    The film is due to be released in February.

    It seems that even with the defeat of one reactionary Donald Trump, the far-right remains a threat to people all over the world.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons – Becker19999

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • By RNZ Pacific

    The chair of the Pacific Islands Forum has welcomed the re-entry of the United States to the Paris agreement over climate change.

    Within hours of his taking the oath as the 46th US President, Joe Biden issued an executive order for the US to return to the Paris Agreement.

    Forum Chair Kausea Natano, who is Tuvalu’s prime minister, said the US order as a priority was warmly appreciated in the Pacific.

    Natano said he looked forward to continued and strengthened relationships between the people of the Pacific and the US, especially on the climate crisis facing the “Blue Pacific”.

    He said the international community must use the positive development to inject greater urgency to climate action on the Paris goal of limiting global warming increase to within 1.5-degrees celsius

    “The announcement comes at a time when the world is faced with a multitude of hazards including covid-19,” Natano said.

    “Our Blue Pacific faces a climate change crisis that threatens our future prosperity and the move by President Biden and his administration to bring the US back to the Paris Agreement is warmly welcomed and appreciated.

    “We look forward to working closely with President Biden and his administration, with urgency and shared values for a safe and secure future for our great Blue Planet.”

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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • By RNZ Pacific

    The chair of the Pacific Islands Forum has welcomed the re-entry of the United States to the Paris agreement over climate change.

    Within hours of his taking the oath as the 46th US President, Joe Biden issued an executive order for the US to return to the Paris Agreement.

    Forum Chair Kausea Natano, who is Tuvalu’s prime minister, said the US order as a priority was warmly appreciated in the Pacific.

    Natano said he looked forward to continued and strengthened relationships between the people of the Pacific and the US, especially on the climate crisis facing the “Blue Pacific”.

    He said the international community must use the positive development to inject greater urgency to climate action on the Paris goal of limiting global warming increase to within 1.5-degrees celsius

    “The announcement comes at a time when the world is faced with a multitude of hazards including covid-19,” Natano said.

    “Our Blue Pacific faces a climate change crisis that threatens our future prosperity and the move by President Biden and his administration to bring the US back to the Paris Agreement is warmly welcomed and appreciated.

    “We look forward to working closely with President Biden and his administration, with urgency and shared values for a safe and secure future for our great Blue Planet.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Bryan Bruce

    On Wednesday, from behind a wall of bulletproof glass, outgoing US President Donald Trump told a crowd of his supporters to be brave and incited them to march on the Capitol Buildings where the electoral college votes were being counted.

    They stormed it and in the chaos many were injured and five people – including a police officer – died.

    The mayhem Trump encouraged and the grandstanding of some Republican senators on the floor of the Senate, however, only delayed the inevitable.

    The votes were finally counted. Joe Biden will be the next President of the United States come January 20 and charged with the responsibility of governing a nation politically divided and ravaged by a deadly pandemic.

    Why should we, here in New Zealand, concern ourselves with what happened this week in America?

    Three answers
    The answers to that deceptively simple question could fill a book, but this is a Facebook post so I’ll offer you just three.

    1. What happens to the US economy has a direct impact on the world economy and therefore on our own immediate economic future.
    2. The longer covid-19 remains uncontrolled in the USA the longer international travel will be disrupted and that does not bode well for us as an island nation geographically isolated as we are from Northern Hemisphere markets.
    3. The huge issue of climate change requires immediate action to be taken on the dire warnings of science about global warming and not the conspiracy ramblings of social media.

    So where is the hope?

    It lies in what also happened earlier that day in the USA.

    When the votes were counted in the Georgia run-offs, Raphael Warnock became the first Black American in that state to be elected as a senator for that state and, along with Jon Ossoff, it gives the Democrats the control of the Senate as well as Congress.

    Mandate for progressive policies
    So the Biden administration now has a mandate to introduce progressive policies that will improve the lives of a great many of his fellow Americans.

    Here in New Zealand Jacinda Ardern leads a government that has a mandate to introduce progressive policies in our own country and narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and thereby improve the lives of the majority of New Zealanders.

    We can’t do anything about what happens in America but we can do everything about what happens in our own country.

    We need to accelerate our thinking about how to be more self-sustaining as a country and foster the idea of sharing the nation’s wealth instead of the selfishness promoted over the last 30 years of neoliberal economic policies.

    And we need to keep the Ardern government on task by giving praise when praise is due and speaking up when we see fault and injustice.

    Bryan Bruce is an independent filmmaker and journalist. Asia Pacific Report is publishing a series of occasional commentaries by him with permission.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • By Ella Stewart, RNZ News reporter

    American expats are feeling grateful to be living in Aotearoa after watching the chaos and violence unfold at the Capitol building in Washington.

    Madeline Nash, her husband, and her two children looked at moving to New Zealand after the 2016 presidential election.

    Her eldest child was just about to start school and during the hour-long school tours they went on, 20 minutes were spent explaining the school’s shooter protocol.

    They finally made the big move to Auckland from Austin, Texas, in 2018.

    Although she is not surprised, she said what was happening in Washington, DC, was far worse than they had ever imagined.

    “To actually see that people have taken it so far that they are willing basically, I would say to hop over the line to sedition and treason, they’re really just trying to tear down the country.”

    Nash said partisan politics had become extremely polarising in the US but living in New Zealand was like being in an alternate reality.

    “I’m glad that we have this ability to be here and our children are a bit sheltered from what’s going on, but as an adult it is very hard to be straddling both worlds right now.”

    Supporters of President Donald Trump occupy the US Capitol building. Image: RNZ/AFP

    US ‘in shambles’
    Jade De La Paz is an American citizen who moved to Dunedin to complete her PhD at Otago University.

    She has been feeling stressed and can’t take her eyes off the news.

    “We just had this huge victory and now the whole country is falling apart, but there’s nothing I can do from here except for vote.

    “You’re sitting here thinking my country is in shambles,” De La Paz said.

    Katie Smith moved from Southern California to Auckland in 2017 with her New Zealand partner and is flabbergasted.

    “I want to know what alternate reality these people live in.”

    While Smith is a Democrat, much of her family are Republicans, but even they don’t agree with what is happening.

    “It’s not about and it hasn’t been about politics for a very long time. it’s about being a decent human being.”

    Smith said that everything that has been happening in the US has been affecting her mental health.

    “I can’t see things getting better for the States any time soon.”

    She said she is grateful to be living in Auckland here at the moment and wishes she could move her friends and family living in the US to New Zealand.

    In the 2018 census more than 16,000 people living in New Zealand identified as American.

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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Ever since November third the American political/media class have been keeping Democrats fixated on Trump’s post-election shenanigans with garment-rending urgency, now going so far as to call for yet another oxygen-sucking impeachment as he’s on his way out the door while millions of Americans are struggling just to meet their basic needs.

    You wouldn’t know it from the dominant chatter, but Trump’s impotent attempts to reverse the election results don’t rank anywhere remotely near the top ten worst things this president has done while in office, which include vetoing attempts to end the world’s worst mass atrocity in Yemen, escalating world-threatening cold wars with both Russia and China, murdering untold tens of thousands of Venezuelans with starvation sanctions, pushing Iran to the brink of war by assassinating its top military commander, expanding the “war on terror” and rolling back airstrike regulations designed to protect civilians.

    US political discourse hasn’t reflected the fact that Trump’s foreign policy has been far more atrocious than anything he’s done domestically–and certainly anything he’s done since November–because news media coverage does not reflect this fact. News media coverage does not reflect this fact because western news media regard imperialism and mass military slaughter as normal US presidential stuff, and do not regard brown-skinned foreigners as human.

    I point this out because it’s good to note, as Trump leaves office, that he spent his entire administration advancing murderous imperialist agendas which spilled very real blood from very real human beings while mainstream America barely even noticed. Their attention was drawn instead to endless narrative theater which had no impact whatsoever on the concrete actions taken by the US government’s executive branch. Their gaze was kept fixated on meaningless political drama while the war machine marched on unseen.

    Americans are famously uninterested in the rest of the world, to such an extent that you can only get them to watch a British sitcom if it’s remade with American actors and they don’t know that having your nation’s flag flying all over your neighborhood isn’t normal. The story of Kanye and Kim’s divorce is going to generate more news media views than the entirety of the Yemen war since it began. This lack of interest in war and foreign policy is mighty peculiar, seeing how the people who run their country make it their primary focus.

    Americans only care about America while their rulers only care about the rest of the world. This is entirely by design.

    Americans fixate on America while ignoring the rest of the world not because they are genetically prone to self-obsessed navel gazing, but because their attention is being constantly and deliberately manipulated away from the stage upon which their government is perpetrating monstrous acts.

    The nationless alliance of plutocrats and government agencies who drive the US government’s foreign policy cannot have the common riff raff interfering in their affairs. Immense amounts of energy have gone into preventing the rise of an antiwar movement in the hub of the empire like the one which began shaking the earth in the sixties and seventies, with propaganda playing a leading role in this suppression. The US is far too important in the operation of the empire-like power alliance which sprawls across the earth to permit its inhabitants to interfere in its operations by using the power of their numbers to force their nation’s wealth and resources to be used at home. So propaganda is used to hold their attention inside America’s borders.

    In an excellent Palladium essay published last month titled “China’s Real Threat Is to America’s Ruling Ideology“, Richard Hanania argues that the example China sets as a nation rising to superpower status by relatively peaceful and lawful means is deeply threatening to the orthodoxy promoted by western imperialists. If the world in general and Americans in particular were to become more conscious of how a civilization can succeed and thrive without waging endless wars in the name of “freedom” and “democracy”, they might begin calling for such an order themselves.

    “While most Americans will never experience a ride on a Chinese bullet train and remain oblivious in differences in areas like infrastructure quality, major accomplishments in highly visible frontiers like space travel or cancer treatment could drive home the extent to which the U.S. has fallen behind,” Hanania concludes. “Under such conditions, the best case scenario for most Americans would be a nightmare for many national security and bureaucratic elites: for the U.S. to give up on policing the world and instead turn inward and focus on finding out where exactly our institutions have gone wrong.”

    In other words, China’s rise threatens to reverse the carefully-engineered dynamic which has Americans looking inward while their government points its attention outward. If Americans begin turning their gaze internationally and use the power of their numbers to force their government to heal and nurture their crumbling nation, it would spell the end for the imperialists. But it could also be the beginning of a peaceful and harmonious world.

    _____________________

    Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on , following my antics on throwing some money into my tip jar on  or , purchasing some of my , buying my new book Poems For Rebels or my old book . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • In 2020, U.S. federal farm subsidies reached $46 billion, at least a three-fold increase in annual agricultural supports since President Donald Trump took office. This truly staggering level of taxpayer spending constituted nearly 40% of U.S. farm income, making agriculture a de facto public-private partnership. Some might call it socialism. Others might see it as a blatant attempt to buy votes in flyover country during an election year.

    The billions we spend on crop insurance for marginally productive acreage could be put to better use with permanent carbon sequestering plantings of grasses, trees and other native species.

    The fact is, the billions spent on the farm sector today are neither protecting the future of U.S. agriculture nor preserving the traditional family farm. But that investment could actually provide a social compact that might steer us away from climate catastrophe.

    U.S. agriculture certainly needs help. The perpetually tempestuous farm economy suffered tremendous blows this year — from the administration’s failed trade war with China, to restaurant sectors and meat packing plants ravaged by COVID-19 shutdowns. A super windstorm called a derecho impacted up to half of the Iowa corn crop this summer. And despite all these aid programs, U.S. farm bankruptcies were up 8% from 2019.

    Meanwhile, the climate is overheating with record-breaking temperatures and mega-droughts and mega-fires scorching the American West. Our capital- and machinery-intensive system of industrial agriculture remains a key driver of this existential threat, through continual land cultivation, fertilizer use and livestock emissions.

    But with some leadership and vision, the heavily subsidized farm sector could provide on-the-ground solutions to slow the impacts of climate change.

    We are living in Dust Bowl-like times that require bold action. This is why the Farm Bill, which funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s $100 billion annual budgets, was formed in the first place. The nation’s most precious nonrenewable resource — topsoil — was blowing away in the 1930s. Conservation practices were introduced during that time, along with government support for farmers.

    This included the Plains Shelterbelt Project, an effort to plant a 100-mile wide swath of trees from North Dakota to Texas to provide a line of defense against wind erosion and the Dust Bowl. Many of those conservation practices, sadly, have since been abandoned.

    We need the equivalent of a modern-day agricultural moon shot — a plan to transition the Corn Belt to a carbon belt. Hundreds of millions of acres now planted in corn and soybeans could provide year-round ground cover with permanent plantings that can pull carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in deep-rooted plants in the soil.

    The billions we spend on crop insurance for marginally productive acreage could be put to better use with permanent carbon sequestering plantings of grasses, trees and other native species. Cover crops can protect hundreds of millions of acres during the winter and between rotations to help build resilience in the soil and reduce the need for energy-intensive fertilizers.

    Research into perennial grain crops (which don’t require annual tilling of the soil) must also be dramatically increased. Livestock raised on the land, rather than in methane-spewing factories, should receive far more support. And we could trade a majority of our surplus corn and soybeans to other countries to keep rainforests from being cleared for feed grain monocultures.

    Establishing a carbon belt across the U.S. heartland is as essential as the moon landing was 60 years ago. We still have just one planet. Ensuring its long-term habitability is arguably the greatest challenge before us.

    This column was produced for the Progressive Media Project, which is run by The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service. 

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • By Roni Roseberg

    Dear Jessica,

    By now, most of us have read your news on social media. That as a (what some would consider ‘white-passing’) Jewish woman in the US, you masqueraded for some years as an Afro-Latina in order to further you career. Yes, now we all know the name Jessica Krug.

    You’re the second woman in recent years to be in the news for such a charade, the other being Rachel Dolezal – although Dolezal didn’t out herself like you did.

    We’ve asked ourselves the same questions over and over again: why did you do it? What advantages did you think you’d get? And most importantly: who did you hurt? 

    You seem to have been able to convince people of this false identity quite convincingly. From photographs, you appeared to fit the picture and no one questioned you otherwise.

    You also seemed to able to incorporate enough cultural cues to play the part, though according to some, your statements about your family’s place of origin changed a few times. Nonetheless, your students at the prestigious George Washington University gave positive reports on your teaching.

    It’s quite telling that at the time you started your career, jobs for non-white employees in academia were opening up. Academic institutions were attempting to balance staffing to look more progressive instead of ‘all-white’.

    Better yet, some schools also realised that diverse viewpoints make for better education. After all, a university should have a connection with ‘universe’, no? A well-educated graduate should come out of university with a broader perspective on life than when they first arrived. At least that’s what I’ve always believed. 

    Perhaps you felt you could offer this perspective? Even though it may not have been gained through direct experience… Likewise, this ‘new identity’ most likely meant more job opportunities opened up. Receiving a high-dollar fellowship in 2009 must have been a dream come true.

    Maybe I’ve got it wrong. Perhaps you instead enjoyed the ruse which involved playing a part—a bit of drama, and a bit of fooling the masses? Since it seems to have been years-long, maybe you became so comfortable with it, that it seemed natural?

    But, surely it must have gnawed at you? Given your recent confession, it’s a logical conclusion. The reasons behind your transformation must be interesting; after all you’re removing a mask. In one interview you said you’d actually been found out before…

    Whatever the reason, you admitted your ruse. You knew the score. You knew you were taking jobs, betraying trust, living a lie, and, then by admitting your fakery, committing professional suicide.

    As a fellow Jewish American woman, it pains me to ask: was there an element of self-disgust with yourself – who and how you were born? Or was this false identity merely about convenience and entertainment?

    Only you know. Maybe one day you’ll share that with us. The topic of assimilation by people who can ‘pass’ for practical reasons (like escaping Nazis or other discrimination) or psychological reasons (not liking who they are) is a vast topic after all…

    Whatever your ‘reasons’, the outcome is the same: deep, deep hurt. The several rightfully offended parties here are plentiful: your students, whose learning was linked to your credibility, your employers who likely feel duped and of course, fellow academics with authentic experiences who might have gotten jobs that you unfairly took.

    And there’s another group — your Jewish family…

    We’ve read how some of your family are outraged, alongside the broader community.

    Given your sudden ‘self-outing’, I wonder if you suddenly realised just how long, complex and valid culture Jews have? A culture to which you will always belong?

    Now the cat’s out of the bag, perhaps you’ll finally be able to breathe a sigh of relief. You can be who you are now. Yes, Jessica, we need you for who you really are.

    All cultures are valid. We all, no matter our colour, culture, or history, need to accept ourselves for who we are. This is key to an authentic life.

    In peace,

    Roni

    This post was originally published on Voice of Salam.

  • By Elizabeth Arif-Fear, Trustee (Muslims Against Antisemitism)

    Just when we think things couldn’t get any more shocking when it comes to antisemitism, a recent survey came out, with once again disheartening results.

    Commissioned by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (Claims Conference), the research looked into the views of millennial and Generation X adults (aged 18 and 35) in the USA surrounding the Holocaust.

    The results revealed some disturbing realities and the need for great change when it comes to antisemitism and young people’s understanding of the Holocaust.

    What realities specifically you may ask? Well, a staggering level of Holocaust denial and lack of awareness around the genocide itself.

    Through the survey, researchers discovered that:

    – Almost half (48%) of those asked believed that the Holocaust was a “myth”, “had been exaggerated” or “weren’t sure”

    – 1 out of 8 respondents (12%) didn’t know (or thought they didn’t know) about the Holocaust

    It quite frankly beggars belief that such a large percentage of the young people interviewed knew nothing about or actively denied the biggest genocide in history.

    And again, what such results show is just how important education on antisemitism and Jewish history is, as well as the need to actively campaign against hate. For whilst this may be over the pond, here in the UK; we’re in exactly the same boat.

    Holocaust denial in the UK: A sad reality

    The Vernichtungslager (extermination camp) at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland.

    Just last year, a poll carried out for Holocaust Memorial Day Trust revealed that 5% of adults in the UK believe that the Holocaust did not take place.

    If that wasn’t enough, it was also revealed that 1 in 12 believe that the scale of the Shoah has been exaggerated.

    Not so different from the USA then it seems….

    Even more shocking is that just one year after the UK-based poll, we marked the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau and commemorated, as we do annually, the horrors of the Holocaust.

    Such stark reminders should stand was a warning and clear message to non-Jews of just how serious antisemitism was and is – and how far hatred can lead.

    However, we’re sadly seeing that for some people the Holocaust is seemingly nothing more than an ‘exaggerated myth’ (referred to as the “Holohaux”) – supposedly ‘used by Jews’ to ‘harbour sympathy for Israel’.

    This, of course, is not only antisemitic and false in itself, but builds on age-old antisemitic tropes of power, money, lies and influence that have plagued Jewish communities for millennia.

    Not only is this deeply hurtful and disrespectful to those who sadly died and those who thankfully survived the Holocaust and the subsequent generations, but it’s also incredibly dangerous.

    Such behaviour demonises a group of people as ‘liars’, as ‘dishonest’ and ‘disingenuous’. As ‘people who can’t be trusted’ who are ‘malicious’ and essentially ‘not one of us’ (a.k.a. ‘an unwanted other’).

    Yes, it’s these racist tropes that have not only hurt Jews psychologically, socially, culturally, financially and politically in day-to-day life for centuries, but also have incited hatred and violence, eventually leading to the Holocaust itself.

    75 years on from the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, what we crucially must remember is that when we forget the horrors of the Holocaust, we forget the suffering of an entire people.

    We forget how far demonising, negative stereotyping and racist tropes can go. And we forget the need to acknowledge, understand, remember and commit to #NeverAgain truly meaning never again.

    In truth: when we let antisemitism fester, we lose sight of the past, the present and the future. And in particular, with so much tension around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we also forget the role of Israel as a safe home for the Jewish people.

    For Jewish families and communities here in the UK and worldwide, what this is all translates to is: life for Jewish people becoming harder, social cohesion diminishing and the risk of the horrors of persecution and genocide happening all over again sadly increasing too.

    Let’s not be complacent. Such atrocities have taken place since the Holocaust – again and again, in Bosnia, Cambodia and Rwanda in the same very century. Already, members of the British Jewish community have fled the UK to escape the increasing tide of antisemitism.  

    Antisemitism in the Muslim community: Acknowledging a problem

    Antisemitic tweets by a Muslim Twitter user (September 2020).

    Given the results of such surveys, we must see the wider picture. It’s crucial that we do not underestimate the significance of Holocaust denial in any context.

    For whilst the results of both surveys focus on Holocaust denial itself, they’re not an anomaly. Holocaust denial itself feeds of antisemitic tropes of power and control. And likewise, we’ve seen how these attitudes are part of a wider worrying trend.

    Here in the UK – and further afield – we’re not only seeing such shocking levels of Holocaust denial but also increasing levels of antisemitism across the board.

    We’re witnessing antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories related to Covid-19 spreading across platforms such as TwitterTikTokFacebook and Instagram blaming Jews for the pandemic, slavery and all sorts of ills.

    We’re witnessing attacks on our streets and the desecration of Jewish property. And most tragically of all, we’ve also all mourned the tragic loss of lives in Halle (Germany)Pittsburgh (USA) and at the kosher supermarket shooting in Paris in recent years as synagogues and Jewish businesses have been attacked by violent extremists.  

    Enough is enough. We must tackle antisemitism head-on. And this starts with identifying the source(s).

    From both ends of the political spectrum (the Far-Left and the Far-Right), we sadly all know that this has not and does not exclude the Muslim community.

    Findings by the Community Security Trust and The Institute for Jewish Policy Research back in 2017 revealed that the prevalence of antisemitism was most worrying among Christians, Muslims, the Far Left and the Far Right – with the behaviour of Muslims particularly prominent in this area:

    “…the most concern exists about Muslims and the far-left; it is considerably less pronounced about Christians and the far-right.”

    (2017 report)

    Within the Muslim community itself, the prominent anti-Zionist journalist Mendi Hassan himself acknowledged the scale of the issue:

     “At home British Muslim attitudes are defined not just by denial but by indifference.

    Few Muslims or mosques take part in the memorial day. In 2006 a Channel 4 poll found that a quarter of British Muslims didn’t know what the Holocaust was and only one in three believed it had occurred. This is scandalous.”

    To be clear, this isn’t just at a grassroots level either…

    In previous years, British Muslim leaders boycotted Holocaust Memorial Day believing the title of the day to be “non-inclusive” (of other atrocities) and additionally adding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the mix. With such worrying attitudes, it’s no wonder that there is so much misinformation and dis-engagement with Holocaust education and remembrance.

    Now several years on, with the boycott lifted, things have improved. However, not nearly enough.

    Just this week, since the recent research poll in the USA come out, I myself witnessed a series of antisemitic tweets from a Muslim man, with no sense of shame or wrongdoing. 

    Combining Holocaust Denialblood libel, and anti-Zionism in direct response to both the poll and the joyous news that a Holocaust survivor had won an Olympic gold medal (see images above), the tweeter was not even moved by the accusations of antisemitism that stood against him. No, instead his response was that of a loud and proud antisemite. 

    The very fact that someone would scream such abuse towards a Holocaust survivor, in the context of raising awareness of the Holocaust and involving what is a very complex geo-political conflict in Israel-Palestine, shows just how bad the problem is and how much work we’ve got to do.

    Racist tropes, conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial and misinformation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not uncommon and as Muslims: we need to change this.

    Moving forward: Our commitment to fighting antisemitism

    A delegation of imams – led by Sheikh Muhammad al-Issa – with Jewish colleagues on a visit to Auschwitz concentration camp (January 2020).

    It’s not easy, but here at MAAS, we’ve taken on the challenge and we’re ready to see it through.

    There is a problem of antisemitism in the Muslim community and that’s exactly why MAAS was created. We’re here to call it out, to dispel myths, to educate and to build greater links between the Jewish and Muslim communities – as well as engage with policy and decision-makers. 

    As Muslims, we can, we must and will fight this vile form of hatred which continues to plague our communities and wider society. From Holocaust denial, to blood libel, to racist tropes – wherever, whenever and in whatever form antisemitism takes, we’re here to fight it.

    So, as the Jewish New Year has just started, to our Jewish brothers and sisters, we’d like to wish you a wonderful sweet year ahead.

    We’re here loudly and proudly re-affirming our commitment to stand with you in the fight against antisemitism. We will never give up.

    And to the antisemites in our community, we have one message: we’ll keep fighting against antisemitism. There is no place to hide. Change is slowly building, dialogue is growing and we aim to see this through.

    We urge all Muslims to join us. After all: you’re either part of the problem or part of the solution…

    Shanah Tovah! Happy Rosh Hashanah!

    Credits:

    This blog was first published by Muslims Against Antisemitism (MAAS) (22/09/2020).

    This post was originally published on Voice of Salam.

  • The recent killing of George Floyd, an African American, at the hands of a white police officer in Minneapolis has sparked mass protests across the globe. Floyd was asphyxiated to death as the officer, without shame or reluctance, knelt on his neck for nine long minutes. His crime? Counterfeiting a $20 note. While this incident unveiled the systemically-rooted remnants of racism that continue to exist in the 21st century, it also highlighted the dehumanisation faced by Black people at the hands of law enforcement personnel in the United States (US), ironically the world’s most vehement proponent of freedom and democracy. Indeed, mass incarceration statistics in the US indicate an over-representation of marginalised communities, and the startling fact that 1 out of 35 African Americans is behind bars (Social Justice, 2000) is no coincidence. People of colour are brutalised within both justice and prison systems, and the state capitalises on their incarceration. It is no exaggeration to call the US prison system an ‘ethnoracial ghetto’ since, today, there are more African Americans in prison than in college (Mallory, 2015). The present incarceration policies strongly reflect legacies of slavery that have long plagued the social and moral fabric of the country. Marginalised communities continue to suffer at the hands of a justice system that paradoxically metes out injustice. Transformative change, through movements such as Black Lives Matter, is therefore sorely needed.

    The Prison-Industrial Complex

    The last few decades have witnessed a steep rise in incarceration in the United States. State and federal incarceration rose by over 200% between 1980 and 1996 (Blumstein and Beck, 1999). Today, the US comprises 5% of the world’s population but nearly 25% of its incarcerated population (Cullen, 2017), and the highest per capita imprisonment rate in the world, of nearly 1 out of 100 people (Wagner and Bertram, 2020). A closer look indicates a symbiotic relationship between private corporations, political parties, and the government, which has been termed a Prison-Industrial Complex (PIC). The term was first coined by Angela Davis and Eric Schlosser in 1998, to define the underlying interest of the government and private corporations in putting people behind bars. Private companies involved with prison facilities extensively profit from a spike in inmate population and mobilise gains from ‘tough on crime’ legislative policies (Aviram, 2015), by extracting labour from prisoners at wages considerably lower than the federal minimum wage set by the Fair Labour Standards. Wages are often set as low as 16-93 cents an hour and in some states, not paid at all (Bozelko, 2017; McGrew and Hanks, 2017). Private prisons are run by companies such as CoreCivic and GEO Group, both of which each donated $250,000 to President Trump’s inaugural committee in 2016 (Ahmed, 2019). Tellingly, political affiliations keep these organisations thriving despite blatant human rights violations within their facilities.

    Where prisons are run by the government, private organisations provide services at extremely high rates, thereby capitalising on the high number of inmates. For instance, telecom companies such as Securus charge as much as $25 for a 15-minute phone call, profiting $1.3bn annually (Worth Rises, 2019). Likewise, food service giant Aramark provides low-quality meals at sky-high prices in a number of correctional facilities. In this sense, the prison system has translated itself into a money minting business that serves the interest of private organisations and the government alike. The PIC clearly allows those in power to further oppress and maintain firm control over the oppressed.

    Race, incarceration and  the war on drugs

    African Americans, the first victims of mass incarceration programmes, are continually subjugated by way of racist policies and stereotypes that brand them as ‘problematic’ citizens. Although the Civil War marked the end of slavery in the US, ‘through the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (which permits forced labour in prison) and various other legal practices, the current prison system has manifested itself into an institution of forced labour, comprising of people of colour’ (Raza, 2011, p.159). Immediately after the passing of the Amendment, post-abolition laws emerged as a means to further discriminate against the Black population, for example through the introduction of segregation laws that heavily criminalized previously benign actions such as ‘loitering’. President Nixon’s War on Drugs in 1971 similarly led to the enactment of draconian legislation that mandated harsh prison sentences for drug abuse and peddling. Under President Reagan, Congress passed the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act that laid down mandatory minimum prison sentences for different kinds of drug offences. Within this Act, longer sentences for ‘crack’ possession – a drug mostly consumed in Black communities – were implemented, while ‘coke’ consumption – another form of cocaine usually circulating in white circles – received little attention (Palamar, 2015).  Thus, one could possess 100 times more ‘coke’ than ‘crack’ to merit the same minimum prison sentence. These laws have been direct perpetrators of masked discrimination, resulting in the disproportionately high incarceration of Black people to this day.

    Human Rights Watch reported in 2000 that ‘Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of those convicted, and 74 percent of those sent to prison’(Deborah Small, 2001). While this disparity was somewhat alleviated by the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, much remains to be done to undo the harm suffered by Black communities across centuries. (Carlsen, 2010). In fact, racial profiling fuelled by stereotypes that Black people are more prone to drug use has also played against the African American population, who have been relentlessly stopped and searched by police and, too often, wounded or killed in the process. Black male adults are about five times more likely to be unfairly stopped and three times more likely to be searched by the police as compared to their white counterparts (Desilver, Lipka and Fahmy, 2020). While the abolition of slavery more than 150 years ago elevated people of colour to equal footing under the law on paper, law enforcement agencies, working hand in hand with the justice system, continue to subjugate them to date.

    Dehumanising treatment and wrongful convictions

    Within the US prison system, various forms of cruel and degrading treatment have been justified through arguments of self-defence and the premise that there is no harm in meting out such treatment to ‘criminals’. The phrase ‘you do the crime, you do the time’ illustrates the prevailing sentiment within the prison system that all prisoners have broken the law and have presumably gotten what they deserve, despite only 5% of total arrests being for serious offences (Breen, 2008; Sawyer, 2020). Race, again, has a strong bearing on convictions, wherein a large number of African Americans and Latinos are wrongfully convicted for crimes, even when prima facie evidence suggests otherwise. In a case that later came to be known as the ‘Central Park Five’, five young Black men were wrongfully convicted in 1989 for a rape they never committed through forced confessions. Only in 2002, when the lives of the men had been ruined and defamed by national outrage, did another murderer confess to having committed the rape (Duru, 2004). This injustice is also quantifiable: an innocent Black person is seven times more likely to be convicted for murder as compared to an innocent white person (Gross, Possley and Stephens, 2017).

    Such dehumanising treatment and violence contribute to higher rates of recidivism. Even after being released from jail, 1 out of 4 people are arrested again within the same year (Jones and Sawyer, 2019). These are usually people whose problems such as substance abuse and mental illness have been exacerbated during and after incarceration. The system stunts and sabotages the growth of prisoners instead of rehabilitating them; and because Blacks are so highly incarcerated, this affects the entirety of the African American community. The prison abolition movement argues for a different approach to crime, one that frees itself ‘from the assumption that punishment must be a necessary response to all violations of the law’ (Davis and Rodriguez, 2000) and instead envisions reformative justice achieved through other methods of rehabilitation. When the ‘police continue to serve their historical political function that includes disproportionate killing of black males’, it is time to rethink and abolish these institutions of oppression (Grabiner, 2016). Police abolition movements, such as #DefundThePolice have recently gained considerable traction, seeking to dismantle the false perception that a society without police forces means a society of horror and crime. Cutting down on police personnel and reducing the budget for police departments would go a long way in reducing their excesses (Kaba, 2020). Where such remaining money is used for steering positive development in sectors of education and healthcare, this may serve as a long-term solution to transform conditions of marginalisation and trauma into trust, safety and peace.

    Conclusion

    The Black Lives Matter movement today stands as a loud and unstoppable roar against the silencing, policing and imprisonment of African Americans and Black people around the globe. George Floyd’s last words – ‘I can’t breathe’ – bear an uncanny resemblance to those of Eric Garner in 2014. Garner repeated these words 11 times, as bystanders continued to film his cold-blooded murder at the hands of police officers, who pinned him down and continued to choke him, while his cries for mercy fell on deaf ears. These words seem to illustrate the lived experiences of African Americans, whose voices have continuously been muffled and identities stifled through centuries of oppression and stigmatisation. Racial profiling and racist justice have resulted in the brutal deaths of hundreds of people of colour for petty offences and led to the mass incarceration of Black men, whose futures are ruined from the moment they are put into prison by a justice system built on their discrimination.

    Since a society’s criminal justice system is no more than a product of its beliefs, American and Western values must be reformed to address past discrimination and future reparation for Black people. This can only happen through mass movements like this one, which recognise the past and present harm done to the Black community and seek transformative change. In the words of Fred Hampton, one may succeed in jailing the revolutionaries, but one cannot jail the revolution itself.

     

    References

    (2000) ‘Overview: Critical Resistance to the Prison-Industrial Complex.’ Social Justice. 27(3) (81), pp. 1-5.

    Ahmed, H., 2019. How Private Prisons Are Profiting Under The Trump Administration – Center For American Progress. [online] Center for American Progress. Available at: <https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2019/08/30/473966/private-prisons-profiting-trump-administration/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Bozelko, C., 2017. Prison Labor: Laws & Wages Make It Close to Slavery, Give Working Prisoners Dignity and Decent Wages. [online] Nationalreview.com. Available at: <https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/prison-labor-laws-wages/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Breen, Jessica. (2008) ‘Prisoners’ Families and the Ripple Effects of Imprisonment.’ Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 97(385), pp. 59–71.

    Davis, Angela Y., and Dylan Rodriguez. (2000) ‘The Challenge of Prison Abolition: A Conversation.’ Social Justice, 27 (3) (81), pp. 212–218.

    Desilver, D., Lipka, M. and Fahmy, D. (2020.) 10 Things We Know About Race and Policing In The U.S. [online] Pew Research Center. Available at: <https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/03/10-things-we-know-about-race-and-policing-in-the-u-s/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Duru, N. Jeremi, (2004) ‘The Central Park Five, the Scottsboro Boys, and the Myth of the Bestial Black Man’. Cardozo Law Review 25, p. 1315.

    Eisenhour, A., 2019. Missing The (Ara)Mark on Divestment. [online] The Princetonian. Available at: <https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2019/04/missing-the-aramark-on-divestment> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Equal Justice Initiative. 2020. Criminal Justice Reform, Equal Justice Initiative. [online] Available at: <https://eji.org/criminal-justice-reform/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Grabiner, Gene. (2016) ‘Who Polices the Police?’ Social Justice, 43(2) (144), pp. 58–79.

    Gross, S., Possley, M. and Stephens, K., 2017. Race and Wrongful Convictions in The United States, National Registry of Exonerations, [online] Law.umich.edu. Available at: <http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Hadar Aviram. (2015) ‘Are Private Prisons to Blame for Mass Incarceration and Its Evils? Prison Conditions, Neoliberalism, and Public Choice’, Fordham Urban Law Journal 39, p.6.

    Flexon, J., D’Alessio S., Stolzenberg L. and Greenleaf R. (2019).  ‘Interracial encounters with the police: findings from the NCVS police-public contact survey’, Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 17(4), pp. 299-320.

    Kaba, Mariame. (2020). Yes, We Literally Mean Abolish The Police. [online] The New York Times. Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html>. [Accessed 5 July 2020].

    Mallory, Jason L. (2015) ‘Denying Pell Grants to Prisoners: Race, Class, and the Philosophy of Mass Incarceration.’ International Social Science Review, 90(1), pp. 1–27.

    Mason, C., 2012. Too Good to Be True- Private Prisons In America. [online] Sentencingproject.org. Available at: <https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Too-Good-to-be-True-Private-Prisons-in-America.pdf> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    McCarthy, Niall. 2018. The World’s Most Overcrowded Prison Systems. [online] Forbes. Available at: <https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/01/26/the-worlds-most-overcrowded-prison-systems-infographic/#15b42a6b1372> [Accessed 5 July 2020].

    McGrew, A. and Hanks, A., 2017. It’s Time to Stop Using Inmates for Free Labor. [online] Talk Poverty. Available at: <https://talkpoverty.org/2017/10/20/want-prison-feel-less-like-slavery-pay-inmates-work/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Michelle S. Jacobs, (2017). ‘The Violent State: Black Women’s Invisible Struggle Against Police Violence’, & Mary J. Women & L. 24(1), pp.39-100.

    Palamar, Joseph J et al. (2015). ‘Powder Cocaine and Crack Use in the United States: An Examination of Risk for Arrest and Socio-Economic Disparities in Use.’ Drug and Alcohol Dependence 149, pp.108-116.

    Peyton, N. and Moloney, A., 2020. George Floyd: America’s Racial Inequality in Numbers, Thomson Reuters Foundation [online] news.trust.org. Available at: <https://news.trust.org/item/20200601213023-p1dkx/?source=gep> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Raza, A. E. (2011). ‘Legacies of the Racialization of Incarceration: From Convict-Lease to the Prison Industrial Complex.’ Journal of the Institute of Justice & International Studies 11, pp. 159-170.

    Ryan Carlsen. (2010). ‘The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010: How Fair Is It?’ Pub. Interest L. Rptr. 16 (1), pp.17-26.

    Sainato, M., 2020. Why Are So Many People Dying in US Prisons And Jails. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/26/us-prisons-jails-inmate-deaths> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Sawyer, W. and Wagner, P., 2020. Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2020. [online] Prisonpolicy.org. Available at: <https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Sawyer, W., 2020. Ten Key Facts About Policing: Highlights from Our Work. [online] Prisonpolicy.org. Available at: <https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policingfacts/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Small, Deborah. (2001). ‘The War on Drugs Is a War on Racial Justice.’ Social Research, 68(3), pp. 896–903.

    Wagner, P. and Bertram, W., 2020. “What Percent of The U.S. Is Incarcerated?” (And Other Ways to Measure Mass Incarceration). [online] Prisonpolicy.org. Available at: <https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/01/16/percent-incarcerated/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Weitzer R., Brunson R. (2015). ‘Policing Different Racial Groups in the United States’, CPS, 2(35) pp. 129-145.

    West, C. and Johnson, K., 2013. Sexual Violence in The Lives of African American Women. [online] Vawnet.org. Available at: <https://vawnet.org/sites/default/files/materials/files/2016-09/AR_SVAAWomenRevised.pdf> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Worth Rises, (2019).  Report on the Prisoner’s Industrial Complex: Mapping the Private Sector Players, Available at: <https://worthrises.org/picreport2019> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • Donald Trump is the worst American President in my 86 years on Planet Earth. In all likelihood, he is the worst since George Washington kicked out the British. But, let me stop beating around the bush and admit that I utterly and thoroughly despise him. Having said this, I must confess that there are times when …

    Continue reading TRUMPED BY TRUMP

    This post was originally published on My Articles – Everald Compton.

  • A mere two days after millions of people marched around the word with and in solidarity with the Women’s March on Washington, President Donald J. Trump announced the “Global Gag Rule,” a major blow to women’s rights and human rights worldwide.

    Trump’s Global Gag Rule prohibits U.S. international aid to groups that so much as educate their communities on safe abortion. Even if an organization is using non-U.S. funding for such activities, they will lose their U.S. funding if they offer counseling, advocate for legal reform, provide abortions, or even provide referrals at any time.

    Foreign NGOs and clinics, many of whom depend on U.S. funding to deliver life-saving healthcare, must choose between two impossible choices: 1) take the funding they depend on but deny the services their communities need and deserve, or 2) refuse U.S. funding and struggle to keep clinics open, offer services, and advocate for laws that reduce unsafe abortions.

    This is not the first time the U.S. has imposed such restrictions on foreign aid. Under George Bush, implementation of such policies did not decrease the number of abortions, but increased abortion rates. It also resulted in a sharp decline in availability of contraceptives, and increased rate of maternal death, and increased rate of closed health clinics.

    The policy allows for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment, but not for health endangerment or severe or fatal fetal impairment, both mandated by international law as the baseline standards for when abortion must be accessible. What’s more, it’s unclear if services are ever provided under these three exceptions for fear of losing U.S. foreign aid. Trump’s Global Gag means that women and girls who depend on U.S.-funded health facilities may not even hear about the options that may save their lives.

    We’ve seen what a lack of access to safe and legal abortion means: in Latin America and the Caribbean, for example, where multiple countries have severe abortion restrictions, including total bans, unsafe abortions and maternal death have spiked, and women could face up to 50-years in jails for miscarriages.

    Trump’s Global Gag Rule, in essence and in practice, negates human rights standards for women — mostly poor and rural women — who depend on international aid-funded clinics, healthcare facilities, and organizations. The consequences of Trump’s Global Gag rule are not theoretical: this curtailing of women’s rights will have devastating impacts on women and girls worldwide — from a lack of contraception to an increase of unsafe abortions and maternal death.

    It’s a telling sign that only 48 hours after a global outcry for human rights, especially women’s rights, one of the first moves of the Trump administration is to undermine women’s rights worldwide. Now more than ever we must stand up for human rights and against human rights abuses.

    Join us, and demand President Trump to choose human rights.

    This post was originally published on Human Rights Now.

  • By Ann Burroughs, Chair of AIUSA’s Board of Directors

    Donald Trump has made it clear he wants bring back torture. “We should go much stronger than waterboarding,” he said last year, calling it “your minor form” of torture.

    Now he’s picked Rep. Mike Pompeo to head the CIA – an individual who called the CIA’s program of torture and disappearing under the Bush administration “within the law” and “within the Constitution.”

    We can’t let Trump bring back the CIA torture program. Trump’s pick for CIA chief must reject torture – and commit to upholding the law.

    That’s why this week, Amnesty International USA’s Board of Directors wrote the Senate Intelligence Committee urging senators to seek Pompeo’s explicit commitment to upholding U.S. and international law on torture and other ill-treatment.

    The fight against torture under the Trump administration starts with you – Take action.

    Our letter points out that four of the individuals most recently confirmed to direct the CIA—Porter Goss, Leon Panetta, General David Petraeus and John Brennan—used their confirmation hearings to condemn torture as morally reprehensible and inconsistent with U.S. values and legal commitments. “These are values we have fought for, that Americans have died for over the course of decades and centuries,” General Petraeus testified.

    But this isn’t about whether Trump or Pompeo agree with us that torture is wrong. Regardless of their personal views, torture is a crime. It violates unequivocal U.S. and international law, including laws long supported by members of both parties. Here are just a few examples:

    • The U.S. led in the negotiation of the UN Convention Against Torture, and President Ronald Reagan, who signed it in April 1988, wrote that its ratification “will clearly express [U.S.] opposition to torture.”
    • Federal law makes torture and ill-treatment illegal without exception—no matter where a person is held (at Guantánamo, in secret prisons—wherever).
    • Federal law also bans the CIA, the military and other agents from specific abusive “techniques” like waterboarding, forced nudity and other sexual abuse, hooding, mock executions and beatings. That’s thanks to a law championed by torture survivor John McCain and Dianne Feinstein.

    Bottom line: Torture is not a policy options to debate on the merits, but an illegal practice.

    Tell your senators you expect them to speak up – and demand Pompeo commit to upholding the law. Take action.

    Human rights are non-negotiable under every president, including President-elect Trump. More than ever, it is important that all of us in this country seek to stand between the torturer and the tortured.

    This post was originally published on Human Rights Now.