data_id
int64 1
1.12M
| id
stringlengths 32
138
| date
timestamp[s] | source
stringlengths 2
24
| title
stringlengths 12
203
| content
stringlengths 32
65.4k
⌀ | author
stringlengths 2
242
⌀ | url
stringlengths 27
244
| published
stringlengths 14
32
| published_utc
int64 1.55B
1.58B
| collection_utc
int64 1.57B
1.58B
| category_level_1
stringclasses 17
values | category_level_2
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
101,552 | cnn--2019-01-16--Karen Pence teaching art at school that bans gay students parents | 2019-01-16T00:00:00 | cnn | Karen Pence teaching art at school that bans gay students, parents | Pence will teach elementary art two days a week at Immanuel Christian School in northern Virginia, her office announced. She'll be known as "Mrs. Pence" to her students, not as the second lady of the United States, per her office. "I am excited to be back in the classroom and doing what I love to do, which is to teach art to elementary students," Pence said in a statement. "I have missed teaching art, and it's great to return to the school where I taught art for 12 years," she added. The second lady previously taught at the same school while her husband was serving in Congress, and has spent 25 years as an elementary school teacher overall. The school where Pence has taken her part-time job has a "parent agreement" posted online that says their policy bans gay students and parents from the school. The agreement was first reported by HuffPost. "I understand that the school reserves the right, within its sole discretion, to refuse admission to an applicant or to discontinue enrollment of a student if the atmosphere or conduct within a particular home, the activities of a parent or guardian, or the activities of the student are counter to, or are in opposition to, the biblical lifestyle the school teaches," the agreement states. 'This includes, but is not limited to contumacious behavior, divisive conduct, and participating in, supporting, or condoning sexual immorality, homosexual activity or bi-sexual activity, promoting such practices, or being unable to support the moral principles of the school. (Lev. 20:13 and Romans 1:27.) I acknowledge the importance of a family culture based on biblical principles and embrace biblical family values such as a healthy marriage between one man and one woman. My role as spiritual mentor to my children will be taken seriously." Kara Brooks, Pence's communications director, said the attention paid to the school's agreement is "absurd." "Mrs. Pence has returned to the school where she previously taught for 12 years. It's absurd that her decision to teach art to children at a Christian school, and the school's religious beliefs, are under attack," Brooks said in a statement to CNN. She did not answer when asked by CNN if Pence agreed with the policy. In 1991, however, Pence, then an elementary school teacher, wrote a letter to an Indiana newspaper in which she objected to an article that embraced gays and lesbians, The Washington Post noted in 2017. It's unclear whether her attitudes have shifted as public opinion has changed dramatically on the issue. Pence is also an artist herself, specializing in watercolors of homes and historical buildings. Her work most recently appeared in her daughter Charlotte's book, "Marlon Bundo's Day in the Life of the Vice President." Two sequels are expected to be published this year. Pence has also embraced art as her policy platform as second lady; she unveiled her "Art Therapy: Healing with the HeART" platform in 2017, seeking to shine a light on art therapy as a mental health profession through appearances across the US and abroad. This story was updated with new information. | Betsy Klein | http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/uBhSTUXRKVc/index.html | 2019-01-16 18:45:51+00:00 | 1,547,682,351 | 1,567,552,256 | education | school |
118,966 | conservativehome--2019-08-21--Free schools must be set free | 2019-08-21T00:00:00 | conservativehome | Free schools must be set free | Gavin Williamson, the Education Secretary, has pledged that free schools will be at the heart of education policy. In terms of the numbers, the growth of free schools has been strong. There are now 444 of them. There are hundreds more in the pipeline. But the mission to provide innovation and wider choice is not just about numbers. Do free schools have enough freedom? A recent report from the New Schools Network suggests they could and should have more: “The free schools programme must now return to its original purpose and mission. Recent narrow restrictions on the types of schools that can be approved and the bureaucracy of the application process have hampered the growth of the programme. Innovation and community led schools, which were the driver behind the free schools concept, are completely absent in recent waves. Where highly successful free schools already exist, they are struggling to expand and spread excellence. There is a risk the system is becoming dominated by a few big regional players, creating barriers to unleashing the next wave of innovation in education. In recent years, the policy has continued to see success in niche areas, such as the approval of four new university sponsored 16-19 maths schools and the growth in the number of special school places. Yet the original vision of the mainstream programme, which brought so many benefits to the thousands of children, has disappeared.” It offers the following recommendations: It is undeniable that community-led academy trusts have provided some of the most successful free schools. One of them is Michaela, the secondary school in Brent. The founder and headmistress is Katharine Birbalsingh who is an inspirational figure. Boris Johnson is among the visitors who were impressed. So it is very welcome that the latest batch of approvals, which was for 22 new free schools, included the following: “Michaela Community School Stevenage- a mixed, non-faith secondary providing 1260 school places for 11-18 year old pupils and will be part of a newly formed multi-academy trust, including Michaela Community School in Brent, judged Outstanding by Ofsted in 2017.” Other new schools that were announced included Edgar Wood Academy in Rochdale, one of the most deprived areas of the country. The school will be part of the Altus Education Partnership. Its founding school, Rochdale Sixth Form College, has been named as the highest ranked college for value added performance in the country for the past five years. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne will have the Callerton Academy. This will be led by Gosforth Federated Academies trust, which since 2010 has run the popular and over-subscribed Gosforth Academy, rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. BOA Stage and Screen Production will be a new 16-19 specialist college in central Birmingham. An offshoot of the successful Birmingham Ormiston Academy, it will offer a highly specialised education in the technical and production side of the performing arts for pupils in the West Midlands. Looking down the full list we can see that other ones will be opening in Barnsley, Doncaster, Oldham, Liverpool, Salford and St Helens. This is where the greater opportunity is needed the most. These are the areas where all too often parents are not happy with the choices currently available. For many children, these new schools will be transformational for their life chances. Will the local MPs welcome their arrival? Or demand they be closed down? Boosting free schools is not the only answer. Just as important is to speed along with the forced takeovers of failing schools which are then reborn under new management as “sponsored academies.” The challenges are great in turning round a school. Reputations takes time to recover even if the name is changed and a new head and governing body brought in. On the other hand, at least the building is already there. Finding premises for new schools is the hardest part, which is why the recommendation noted above to force councils to release sites is very sensible. I would also like to see independent schools give a bigger role. The Assisted Places Scheme should be revived. It should also be made easier for new independent schools to start up, which would result in downward pressure on school fees. The moral and political imperative is to be bold with school reform. Labour, the “enemies of promise”, threatens church schools, free schools, academies, grammar schools and independent schools. The Conservative reply should be to back all these schools. They should be given more freedom and more chance to expand. Then Jeremy Corbyn will find there are plenty of parents, teachers and pupils willing to defend their schools from his attack. | Harry Phibbs | https://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2019/08/free-schools-must-be-set-free.html | 2019-08-21 05:10:16+00:00 | 1,566,378,616 | 1,567,533,838 | education | school |
123,831 | crooksandliars--2019-09-04--SURRENDER Schools Are Now Being Designed To Deter Mass Shooters | 2019-09-04T00:00:00 | crooksandliars | SURRENDER: Schools Are Now Being Designed To Deter Mass Shooters | NBC News featured a segment with Kate Snow last night about a new high school in Fruitport, Michigan that's being designed to deter active shooters. "Megan helped raise money for the bond issue. Her kids are still in elementary school," Snow said. "These kids have never grown up without shootings. It's the world they live in. And it's what they know and hopefully we can just make it so it's not something that they have to focus on," the mother said. And of course, this will only happen in the school districts wealthy enough to do it. The rest of our kids are on their own. I mean, it's reality, but it's still obscene. It is the shame of America that, bowing to the political reality of a nation held at gunpoint, it's actually easier to build new schools than to get the GOP off the NRA's teat and make our kids safe. We all know how to change this. Make it so. | Susie Madrak | https://crooksandliars.com/2019/09/surrender-schools-are-now-being-designed | 2019-09-04 13:35:25+00:00 | 1,567,618,525 | 1,569,331,380 | education | school |
174,382 | eveningstandard--2019-05-08--Colorado school attack Student Devon Erickson 18 named as suspect after one pupil shot dead and e | 2019-05-08T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Colorado school attack: Student Devon Erickson, 18, named as suspect after one pupil shot dead and eight injured amid gunfire | An 18-year-old student has been identified as one of the two suspects in a horror school shooting that left one dead and eight wounded in Colorado. Devon Erickson was named by Douglas County Sheriff’s office in the wake of the gun attack in the suburb of Highlands Ranch. Officials believe Erickson and a younger student walked into the STEM School Highlands Ranch on Tuesday afternoon and opened fire on students in two classrooms. This prompted terrified students to run screaming and others to hide out of sight as gunfire echoed through school. As shots rang out students ran through the halls shouting "School shooter!" Pupil Sophia Marks said: "At the moment no one really knew what was going on so I didn't know they were bullets. "I just kind of saw like flashes and we heard bangs." Chris Elledge, 15, said his teacher told the class to hide behind weight equipment in the room, where they stayed until police arrived. He said: “They busted in the room, and they were asking if there was any suspects in the room, if we were OK, and they escorted us out to go out to the front of the building.” Deputies from a nearby sheriff's department substation rushed to the scene, entered the school and arrested the two suspects after a struggle. "As officers were arriving at the school, they could still hear gunshots," Douglas County Undersheriff Holly Nicholson-Kluth said. In the aftermath a large police presence was visible at the scene and multiple ambulances also lined nearby streets. Three hospitals reported treating eight people in connection with the attack, including two who were listed in serious condition. It has been confirmed that the victim shot dead was 18, though his identity has not been detailed. The shooting comes nearly three weeks after neighbouring Littleton marked the 20th anniversary of the Columbine school massacre, a horrific shooting which killed 13 people. The two schools are separated by about seven miles and are based in adjacent communities south of Denver. In a statement, White House spokesman Judd Deere said: "Tragically, this community and those surrounding it know all too well these hateful and horrible acts of violence.” US president Donald Trump said he had been briefed on the shooting and was in touch with state and local officials. | Jacob Jarvis | https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/colorado-school-attack-student-18-identified-as-suspect-after-one-pupil-shot-dead-and-eight-injured-a4136601.html | 2019-05-08 05:25:00+00:00 | 1,557,307,500 | 1,567,540,867 | education | school |
182,922 | eveningstandard--2019-08-23--US school rebuilt with bulletproof barriers and curved corridors to protect against mass shootings | 2019-08-23T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | US school rebuilt with bulletproof barriers and curved corridors to protect against mass shootings | A US high school has undergone a $49,000 (£40,000) revamp to make it safer for students during mass shootings. Fruitport High School in Michigan was redesigned with curved hallways to prevent a shooter from having a clear line of sight during an attack. The Washington Post reports the rebuild was WW1 inspired, when engineers dug through earth to build "serpentine trenches" which had a zigzag pattern, preventing the enemy from shooting in a straight line down the length of the trench. Classrooms have also been redesigned, now locking on demand, so children can hide easily from gunmen. Other features allow all doors to be locked from the front office and film applied to glass to keep it from shattering. “If I go to FPH and I want to be an active shooter, I’m going in knowing I have reduced sightlines,” Fruitport Superintendent Bob Szymoniak told The Washington Post about the curved hallways. “It has reduced his ability to do harm.” The major overhaul of an existing building was driven by the ubiquity of mass shootings in the United States, Mr Szymoniak said. He referred to the the El Paso killings at a Walmart this month, along with notorious school shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. In 2018, there were 24 school shootings in which there were injuries or deaths. More than 228,000 students have been exposed to gun violence during school hours since the 1999 Columbine High School slayings, an analysis by The Post concluded. Classrooms will be built with a “shadow zone” where a gunman peeking in could not see students cowering along a side wall, said Matt Slagle, an architect for the project and director of K-12 projects at the TowerPinkster design firm. The BBC reports 2018 was the worst ever year for school shootings in America. Gun violence on US campuses left 113 people dead or injured. | Charlotte Carter | https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/us-school-is-rebuilt-with-bulletproof-barriers-and-curved-corridors-to-protect-against-mass-a4220231.html | 2019-08-23 11:57:55+00:00 | 1,566,575,875 | 1,567,533,581 | education | school |
183,605 | eveningstandard--2019-09-04--How to prepare your child for their first day of school | 2019-09-04T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | How to prepare your child for their first day of school | Today, Princess Charlotte will attend her first day of school at Thomas’s Battersea. The four-year-old middle child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Charlotte is attending the same school as her older brother, Prince George, who started at Thomas’s in 2017. A child’s first day of school is a milestone, it’s where they will spend most weekdays for the next 14 or so years and so it can be a nerve-wracking process for both parents and their kids. However, there are some things that parents can do to help their kids be as prepared for school as possible. “Encourage them to be as independent as possible,” Sarah West, Marketing and Communications Manager at Parentkind, tells the Standard. “[This can mean] getting them to practise getting dressed and undressed, into and out of their school uniform, coat and PE kit, look for Velcro shoe straps, elasticated waistbands and clip-on ties to make it as easy as possible for them. “Also encouraging them to use the toilet independently and remind them of basic hygiene rules. Little fun prompts like making a ‘hedgehog’ shape with their hands when washing them, will help them do it properly.” West also recommends getting your child into a sleep routine by setting a clear bedtime and getting them to relax by reading them a story. The first day can be scary, but West recommends talking positively about school in the lead up to their first day. She continues: “Be enthusiastic, even if you feel nervous or didn’t enjoy your school experience, try talking about all the exciting things they are about to encounter, encourage them to ask questions and reassure them as much as possible. “Reading books about starting school is a simple way to start conversations with your child and help them familiarise themselves with school routines through the stories.” While it can be daunting not knowing anyone else at school, West says not to worry if you’re new to an area or haven’t had a chance to get together with the local children before starting school. West explains: “Kids adapt really quickly and in most cases make friends very easily. Keep an eye out for school PTA welcome events for new parents and children - they are worth attending as they’re a great opportunity for the whole family to meet teachers informally and make some new friends with others at the school.” West says: “You might well have taken your child along to the school’s open morning when you were choosing a primary school or perhaps the summer fair. It’s a good idea to do this so that you can become more familiar with the school and get a feel for it. You could also do a ‘dry run’ of your route to school, just as if it was the big day itself, so that your child understands where they’re going and gets used to the journey they’ll soon be taking every day. “For parents, we would recommend taking part in the settling in or welcome events for new starters if you can. They’re a great way for you to get to know other parents and the staff beforehand, so that you are familiar with the people who will be looking after your child; and often your child’s reception teacher will make a home visit, so that they can get to know each other before term starts. If you’re not always at the school gates (or even if you are) signing up to your school and PTA’s social media sites is a great way of staying in the loop with everything that’s happening at school.” A child’s first day of school is just as daunting and exciting for the parent as it is for their little one, but West advises that parents should familiarise themselves with the school website and note down important dates on the calendar to help get a ‘feel of this new adventure’. West continues: “Our top tip for their first day is to make sure you don’t stick around at drop off; it’s generally best to leave them to it and have a box of tissues ready at home – just in case of tears… yours, not theirs! “If there were a few tears in the morning and you’re worried, don’t be afraid to call the school and check up on your child – most kids settle in quickly, and the tears will be forgotten, but sometimes it’s worth a call for your own piece of mind.” West says: “In reception, there is usually a phased approach with pupils starting at different times and only coming in for certain periods of the day. The first day is all about getting used to their new surroundings, meeting their new classmates and getting used to their class teacher and teaching assistants. There’s a lot of games and play at the beginning of reception, so they should have lots of fun. “Even if your child went to nursery or pre-school, nothing will prepare them for the tiredness they’ll feel, so be aware there might be a few sleepy meltdowns along the way. “They’ll also be really hungry, so we recommend picking them up with a snack, to keep them going until tea time.” Parentkind champions all the ways that parents can participate in education and is the leading Parent Teacher Association (PTA) membership organisation and registered charity in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Parentkind also provides training and support to teachers, governors and parents to build successful home-school relationships. For further information, visit: parentkind.org.uk | Laura Hampson | https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/how-to-prepare-child-for-first-day-of-school-a4229061.html | 2019-09-04 14:13:54+00:00 | 1,567,620,834 | 1,569,331,403 | education | school |
214,768 | france24--2019-03-13--Deadly shooting at Brazil elementary school | 2019-03-13T00:00:00 | france24 | Deadly shooting at Brazil elementary school | Nelson Almeida, AFP | A forensic police vehicle leaves Raul Brasil public school in Suzano, Sao Paulo metropolitan region, Brazil, after a shooting took place at the education centre leaving ten people dead on March 13, 2009. At least nine people were killed at a Brazilian elementary school where two young men were seen entering the building and firing weapons early on Wednesday, according to Sao Paulo police. Among the dead were five school children, one adult who worked at the building, one person who was standing just outside the school and the two adolescent shooters, police said. At least 17 other people, mostly children, were also shot at the Raul Brasil elementary school and taken to hospitals, police said in a written statement. The state of their health was not immediately known. School shootings are rare in Brazil, even though the country is one of the world's most violent, with more annual homicides than any other. The last major school shooting was in 2011, when 12 children were shot dead by a former pupil in Rio de Janeiro. While gun laws are extremely strict in Brazil, it is not difficult to illegally purchase a weapon. Police said that two adolescents wearing face masks entered the building and started shooting at about 9:30 a.m. local time. The pair eventually shot and killed themselves. Another shooting took place about 500 meters from the Raul Brasil school shortly before the killings at the school, but it was not yet clear if the two incidents were related. About 1,000 children attend the school, police said. | NEWS WIRES | https://www.france24.com/en/20190313-brazil-school-shooting-victims-students | 2019-03-13 15:30:20+00:00 | 1,552,505,420 | 1,567,546,491 | education | school |
218,608 | freebeacon--2019-12-06--Warren to Parents: You Fix the Public Schools | 2019-12-06T00:00:00 | freebeacon | Warren to Parents: You Fix the Public Schools | Presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) says the burden should be on parents to fix public education, urging parents who want options beyond failing schools to pay for improvements and services themselves. "If you think your public school is not working, then go help your public school. Go get more resources for it," Warren said in an interview with labor giant National Education Association (NEA). "Volunteer at your public schools. Help get the teachers and school bus drivers and cafeteria workers and the custodial staff and the support staff, help get them some support so they can do the work that needs to be done. You don't like the building? You think it's old and decaying? Then get out there and push to get a new one." Warren's comments are at odds with her past support for school vouchers for children in failing schools, a position she advanced before she became an elected official. She has received more than $2.5 million in campaign donations from the education industry throughout her political career, including nearly $70,000 from the teachers' unions. Warren's comments to the NEA follow a recent revelation that the senator sent her son to a private school rather than public. Though Warren's daughter attended public school for the entirety of her K-12 education, her son attended multiple elite private schools beginning in fifth grade. Warren has received backlash from some minority voters over her opposition to charter schools. Pro-school choice activists interrupted her recent campaign event in Atlanta, telling the Massachusetts senator, "We want the same choice for our kids that you had for your kids." Warren sent her son to the Haverford School, an all-boys college preparatory school in suburban Philadelphia, for six years. Her son graduated from the school, which now costs $39,500 a year, in 1994. Warren's son also attended the Kirby Hall School, a private college preparatory school in Austin, Texas, as a fifth grader in 1986. The Warren campaign did not respond to a request for comment. During the NEA interview, Warren touted her opposition to a 2016 ballot initiative that would have expanded charter schools in Massachusetts. While Warren sides with the nation's most powerful teachers' unions on the issue of school choice, charter schools in urban Massachusetts have proved extremely successful, benefitting the same disadvantaged groups Warren claims to fight for. A 2015 study by Stanford University's CREDO institute found that urban charter schools "provide significantly higher levels of annual growth in both math and reading" that are "larger by significant amounts for black, Hispanic, low-income, and special education students." A Brookings Institution study of charter schools in Massachusetts mirrored these findings. Researchers found that urban charter schools in the state produce educational outcomes "far better than those of the traditional public schools that charter students would otherwise attend." Despite the positive impact of charter schools on Warren's urban constituents, the Massachusetts senator was proud to detail her opposition to charter school expansion in the state, saying she "fought on the side of the educators" to "beat back a well-funded effort." Though Warren claimed the ballot initiative aimed to "lift the cap on charter schools and expand the number of charters across the state," the initiative only impacted low-performing districts that hit their caps for charter school attendees. Warren previously supported a voucher system that would allow parents to choose the school their children could attend. The then-Harvard professor wrote in her book, The Two-Income Trap, that "with fully funded vouchers, parents of all income levels could send their children—and the accompanying financial support—to the schools of their choice." Warren references the book in her NEA interview, claiming she "argued in that book that what we need to do is find another school assignment process where every dollar stays in the public schools." This assessment fails to recognize tuition-free charter schools as a public option, a common union characterization. Warren reversed her support for a voucher system when she launched her presidential campaign, releasing an education plan that calls for the "aggressive oversight" of charter schools and vows to eliminate federal funding for charter school expansion. Warren's plan aligns her with the nation's most powerful teachers' unions, an alliance she reaffirmed in the NEA interview. "For me, having a union, a strong union, making sure that it is easy to join a union, that unions have more power when they negotiate, is a central part in both making sure that we have strong public schools, and frankly, making sure that we have a strong economy overall," Warren said. | Collin Anderson | https://freebeacon.com/issues/warren-blames-parents-for-state-of-public-schools/ | Fri, 06 Dec 2019 22:00:43 +0000 | 1,575,687,643 | 1,575,680,141 | education | school |
219,783 | freedombunker--2019-02-16--How Some Schools are Finally Freeing Students from the Bonds of Conformity and Mediocrity | 2019-02-16T00:00:00 | freedombunker | How Some Schools are Finally Freeing Students from the Bonds of Conformity and Mediocrity | By now, many parents know there is something seriously wrong with the average American school. Time and again, children go into the school system as bright bundles of energy, curious about the surrounding world, and time and again, they stagger through the system frustrated and losing their interest in learning. Unfortunately, parents have firsthand knowledge of what former New York teacher John Taylor Gatto explained in his book, Weapons of Mass Instruction: That’s easy enough to say, but is it actually possible to do? A new video from Reason suggests that it is possible, and in fact, is actually being done quite effectively. Host John Stossel travels to the Academy of Thought and Industry (ATI) to explore a school filled with kids who would likely be considered dysfunctional and troublemakers in the normal education system. Instead, Stossel finds a group of thriving young adults, thinking intelligently and actively entering the real world as enterprising individuals. “I want my students to think with their minds and understand the world. I want them to get stuff done.” He goes on to say, “Teens need responsibility. Ben Franklin, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison started their careers at the age of 12 or 13. I worked as a teen. I loved it!” Strong developed the idea of a challenging, hands-on learning experience partly through his own negative encounter with the education system. He notes, “School is 13 years of how to be passive and how to be dependent.” The Academy of Thought and Industry turns this concept on its head: At first blush, the Academy of Thought and Industry seems like one of those trendy educational ideas that allow students to learn for themselves without any real structure or direction. But digging into the school’s website, one discovers this is not the case. Of particular interest is the school’s approach to reading, thinking, and discussion. Every morning begins with a Socratic dialogue in which students presumably debate and discuss the ideas they have read in assigned texts. These texts apparently aren’t a walk in the park, either, as one photo from the site pictures students reading Dante. According to an article on the ATI website, the school believes in challenging its students with high-level texts in order to prepare them interaction with the deep ideas of the world. The reason is simple: If students read, think about, and learn how to understand very sophisticated and complex texts, in addition to the obvious benefits of simply building these skills for the sake of being a more discerning reader and writer, they will do well on … [the critical reading and writing] portion of the SAT exam. Unfortunately, most students rarely encounter adequately sophisticated prose. The average high school senior tends to choose material at the 7th grade level when they choose to read. At the same time, high school textbooks have continued to simplify the reading level such that high school seniors will often be studying history written at a 9th or 10th grade reading level. Finally, even those students who do work with a few challenging texts for an AP Literature class, for example, are often rushing to get through the prose (or even using Cliff's Notes). Slow, careful, analytical reading of demanding texts over the course of years, with a focus on understanding the precise meaning of texts, is one of the most powerful ways to develop the sophisticated reading skills that are reflected by high SAT scores. Very few students even encounter a course that requires this over their four years of high school. Is such a philosophy working? The evidence suggests yes, for students at ATI schools who have experienced this schooling have almost a 30-point lead over their peers in other schools on the SAT Evidence-Based Reading and Writing exam. Perhaps it’s time for more of American schools to rise to the challenge and stop trying to place students in the soul-crushing box of conformity and mediocrity? This article is reprinted from Intellectual Takeout. | Sean McBride | http://freedombunker.com/2019/02/16/how-some-schools-are-finally-freeing-students-from-the-bonds-of-conformity-and-mediocrity/ | 2019-02-16 16:00:56+00:00 | 1,550,350,856 | 1,567,548,284 | education | school |
223,086 | freedombunker--2019-10-12--Teachers Who Quit to Create Schooling Alternatives | 2019-10-12T00:00:00 | freedombunker | Teachers Who Quit to Create Schooling Alternatives | It’s not uncommon for public school teachers to experience burnout or feel demoralized by the weight of their work. Many leave the classroom and the education profession behind to pursue other careers. In fact, U.S. Labor Department data reveal that public school educators are quitting their jobs at record-breaking rates. But some public school teachers wonder if conventional schooling may be the root of their discontent, not education itself. They are frustrated by standardized curriculum expectations, more testing, an emphasis on classroom compliance and the antagonistic relationships between teachers and students that a rigid schooling environment can cultivate. Rather than abandoning their passion for education, some of these teachers are building alternatives to school outside of the dominant system that nurture authentic teaching and learning relationships. One of the pioneers of schooling alternatives is Kenneth Danford, a former public middle school social studies teacher who left the classroom in 1996 to launch a completely new learning model. Along with a teacher colleague, Danford opened North Star, a self-directed learning center in western Massachusetts. They sought to create a space for young people, ages 11 and up, that prioritized learner freedom and autonomy, while rejecting the coercion and control they witnessed in the conventional classroom. This involved building the learning center as a resource for peer interaction, optional classes, workshops, and adult mentoring while providing teenagers with the opportunity to come and go whenever they chose. Using homeschooling as the legal mechanism to provide this educational freedom and flexibility, North Star members attend when they want, frequently using the center to supplement community college classes, extracurricular activities and apprenticeships. Full-time, annual membership up to four days per week is $8,200, but no family has ever been turned away for an inability to pay these fees. Some families choose part-time enrollment options that start at $3,250 per year for one day a week at North Star. In his new book, Learning Is Natural, School Is Optional, Danford reflects on his more than 20 years of running North Star and the hundreds of young people who have gone through his program, often gaining admission to selective colleges or pursuing work in fulfilling careers. He told me in a recent interview: Sharing this model with others was the next step for Danford. After receiving many calls and emails from educators across the country and around the world who wanted to launch centers similar to North Star, in 2013 Danford helped to establish Liberated Learners, an organization that supports entrepreneurial educators in opening their own alternatives to school. One of the centers that sprouted from Liberated Learners is BigFish Learning Community in Dover, New Hampshire. Founded by Diane Murphy, a public school teacher for 30 years, BigFish allows young people to be in charge of their own learning. Murphy opened the center in January 2018 with five students; today, she has over 30. Full-time tuition at the center (up to four days a week) is $9,000 per year, with part-time options also available. An English teacher, she never expected to be the founder of a schooling alternative. “I loved my job,” she says, but she quit to create something better. “The main reason I left is because the kids began showing up more and more miserable,” Murphy continues. Granted more freedom and less coercion, young people at BigFish thrive—and so do the teachers. “Real teachers understand that our role is to support and lead young people to discover and uncover their talents, most especially to find their passions and their voice,” says Murphy. Working outside of the conventional school system may be a way forward for more teachers who want to help young people to drive their own education, in pursuit of their own passions and potential. According to Kevin Currie-Knight, an education professor at East Carolina University, it’s rare for teachers to recognize that their dissatisfaction as an educator may be a schooling problem, not a personal one. Currie-Knight, who studies self-directed education and alternative learning models, says that the tendency is for teachers to internalize the problems they encounter in the classroom. If children aren’t engaged or are acting out, teachers typically assume that it must be their poor teaching and that they must not be cut out for the job, rather than seeing it as a problem with coercive schooling more broadly. “School isn’t challengeable,” says Currie-Knight of its entrenched position in our culture. Currie-Knight explains that most teachers go into education either because they really like a certain subject area or they really like kids, or both. “In the conventional environment,” he says, Many of these teachers conclude that it’s their teaching that is the problem, rather than the underlying dynamics of conventional schooling that compel young people to learn certain content, in certain ways and at certain times. Teachers who leave the classroom to create schooling alternatives can be an inspiration to other teachers who may feel frustrated or powerless. Rather than blaming themselves, entrepreneurial teachers are the ones who imagine, design, and implement new models of education. As BigFish’s Murphy proposes: This article is republished with permission from Forbes. | Sean McBride | http://freedombunker.com/2019/10/12/teachers-who-quit-to-create-schooling-alternatives/ | Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:00:15 +0000 | 1,570,899,615 | 1,570,921,703 | education | school |
283,918 | latimes--2019-10-02--Will UC schools drop their SAT scores requirement? | 2019-10-02T00:00:00 | latimes | Will UC schools drop their SAT scores requirement? | Half a century ago, the University of California helped catapult the SAT to a place of national prominence in the college admissions process when it began requiring all applicants to take the test and report their score. Now the UC system, by its sheer size and influence as the nation’s premier public research university, is again poised to play an outsize role in the future of standardized testing in America as its leaders consider whether to drop both the SAT and ACT as an admissions requirement. Although the standardized tests are predictive of college performance, particularly at selective universities, they are increasingly seen as an unfair admission barrier to students who don’t test well or don’t have the means to access or pay for pricey test preparation. Decades of research has shown that scores are strongly influenced by family income, parents’ education and race. The looming question is how UC officials will move to address the clearly documented flaws of the test. If they choose to throw out the SAT and the ACT, another popular test, will they find a better replacement? “Whatever we do will be a national precedent,” UC President Janet Napolitano said at a recent Board of Regents meeting. “And so … we want to get it right.” The decision will be a “monster deal” because UC’s status is likely to heavily influence other universities and the testing industry itself, said Jay Rosner, an admissions test expert with the Princeton Review Foundation. Rosner said four-fifths of UC applicants take the SAT, the largest single university source of customers for the College Board, which owns the test. The six universities that receive the most applications in the nation are UC campuses in Los Angeles, San Diego, Irvine, Berkeley, Santa Barbara and Davis. UC regents are not expected to make a decision until next year. But an extraordinary and unscripted exchange about 2 hours and 25 minutes into a recent meeting revealed the enormous stakes, deep passions and growing impatience surrounding the issue. UC Academic Senate members, to whom the regents long ago delegated authority to set admissions criteria, launched a study this year on whether to continue requiring standardized testing. Applicants could still take the test and choose to self-report scores, but the UC system would join about 1,000 other universities nationwide as test-optional. Board of Regents Chairman John A. Pérez startled meeting participants when he asked the UC general counsel whether regents were required to wait for the senate to finish its review before deciding the issue. Vice Chairwoman Cecilia Estolano followed his question by declaring that tests use a “clearly flawed methodology that has a discriminatory impact” and suggested a possible time limit on the faculty study. “We don’t need any more studies,” she said. Regent Eloy Ortiz Oakley said the issue was urgent, as “millions” of students would take the test and spend substantial sums on test preparation while regents delayed action. Pérez noted that even though nonprofits such as Khan Academy offer free online test preparation, only 3% of students at some underserved schools have regular access to the internet. On the other side, Regent George Kieffer said he was concerned that if UC eliminated the SAT, the university system could be pressed in a few years to use another test to gauge student performance. Napolitano cautioned the board to let the faculty finish its work without an “arbitrary timeline.” And Academic Senate Chairwoman Kum-Kum Bhavnani said any decision needed to be well-grounded in research to stand up to the reaction it will unleash. Bhavnani said an 18-member faculty task force is expected to produce preliminary results by February. One possible alternative: using Smarter Balanced, a test used in California and more than a dozen other states to assess how well K-12 students have mastered English and math skills required by standards known as Common Core. Smarter Balanced tests predicted first-year college grades as well as SAT exams for UC and California State University students with less bias against disadvantaged students, said Michal Kurlaender, a UC Davis education professor who co-authored a March study on the question and made a presentation to a UC faculty group. Another advantage, she said, is that all students already take the Smarter Balanced test during school hours at state expense. It is unclear, however, whether student performance on Smarter Balanced would change if it turned into a high-stakes college admission test, and such a sea change in UC testing policy would require much advance planning. Other options include keeping standardized tests but controlling for the socioeconomic effects on scores. Zachary Bleemer, a research associate at UC Berkeley’s Center for Studies in Higher Education, said UC already effectively does that by admitting some less advantaged students with lower test scores than more advantaged peers. UC San Diego, for instance, admitted African Americans, Mexican Americans and low-income students with average SAT scores about 300 points lower than Asian Americans, whites and high-income students for fall 2016. First-generation students were admitted with scores about 200 points lower than those whose parents attended college. Although California’s Proposition 209 banned the use of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions, schools may evaluate test scores in the context of other factors, including an applicant’s family income and high school quality. UC considers 14 factors in its admissions decisions. Kurlaender’s study and several others have found that high school GPA is the single strongest predictor of college success with the lowest negative effect on students who are low-income, underrepresented minorities or the first in their families to attend college. But some educators are wary that going test-optional would spark even more grade inflation as high school teachers could be pressured to award more As. For its part, the College Board said in a statement to The Times that its 2019 study of 223,000 students across 171 four-year colleges “confirms that SAT scores are strongly predictive of college performance” and that grades and test scores together provide more insight into a student’s potential than either measure alone. ACT spokesman Ed Colby said its scores not only predict college success but also provide a common, standardized metric that allows colleges to compare students with widely different sources of information across a range of states and high schools. “No common metric increases the subjectivity of admissions decisions,” Colby said in a statement. But the test-optional movement is accelerating, with 47 more schools joining in the last 12 months, double the number over last year, said Bob Schaeffer, public education director for FairTest, the National Center for Fair and Open Testing. A major study last year found students who did not submit test scores were often admitted at lower rates and had modestly lower high school and cumulative college GPAs than those who submitted. But the graduation rates were comparable. The study also found that test-optional policies attracted more applicants of greater diversity, although Colby said other studies have shown otherwise. At Pitzer College, a private liberal arts school in Claremont that became the first West Coast test-optional campus in 2003, about half of the applicants did not submit test scores. Their average first-year GPA of 3.4 is virtually the same as peers who submit scores, said Yvonne Berumen, vice president for admission and financial aid. The University of Chicago, an elite private institution, decided to drop testing requirements to open access. Applications for fall 2019 increased 20% over last year, rising by 24% for first-generation students and 60% for rural students, said Peter Wilson, director of undergraduate admissions. He said the university considers high school transcripts, letters of recommendation, essays, extracurricular activities and such achievements as research projects, business proposals and creative arts performances. More than 85% of applicants still submit test scores, but those who don’t are evaluated on equal footing and the admission rate is identical. Students, whether they scored high or low, tend to support test-optional college applications. At George Washington Preparatory High School in South Los Angeles, several students interviewed this year said they wanted to take a test prep course but could not afford it and prepared using the Khan Academy website a few days before the SAT exam. They reported scores in the bottom 20th to 40th percentile. Chelsea Salgado said she didn’t even know about practice tests, which high-scoring students say are an essential training tool. Ashlee Beard said she froze over math problems she knew she had learned to solve because “when I hear the word ‘test’ it freaks me out.” “It’s a test that determines your future and it’s not fair,” said Abigail Laureano. “My mom cleans houses and can’t afford a tutor.” In affluent South Pasadena, the test prep pressure is intense. As a South Pasadena High School student, Elaine Yang took two different prep courses in 2017 and 2018, each of them eight weeks long, at a combined cost of about $2,000. They helped her raise her initial score by about 200 points to 1360, the 91st percentile, but she said she mostly just learned to build speed, stamina and testing strategies. She was admitted to Scripps College. Lauren Kafkaloff, a South Pasadena High School graduate, spent about $100 on SAT and ACT guidebooks and took “a ton” of self-timed practice tests. She submitted the highest possible ACT test score of 36 and was admitted to the University of Pennsylvania this fall. But she’s all for going test-optional and eventually getting rid of standardized tests entirely. “It’s a waste of time for so many students who could be using their time more wisely doing something to change the world,” she said. | Teresa Watanabe | https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-02/uc-sat-test-optional | Wed, 2 Oct 2019 08:00:18 -0400 | 1,570,017,618 | 1,570,479,841 | education | school |
150,813 | drudgereport--2019-08-12--Clashes at Temple Mount between Muslim protesters Israel Police | 2019-08-12T00:00:00 | drudgereport | Clashes at Temple Mount between Muslim protesters, Israel Police... | Israeli police clashes with Palestinian worshippers at al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem, Sunday, Aug 11, 2019. Clashes have erupted between Muslim worshippers and Israeli police at a major Jerusalem holy site during prayers marking the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha. (AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean) Israeli police clashes with Palestinian worshippers at al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem, Sunday, Aug 11, 2019. Clashes have erupted between Muslim worshippers and Israeli police at a major Jerusalem holy site during prayers marking the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha. (AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean) JERUSALEM (AP) — Muslim worshippers and Israeli police clashed Sunday at a major Jerusalem holy site during prayers marking the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha. Palestinian medics said at least 14 people were wounded, one seriously, in the skirmishes with police at the site, which Muslims refer to as the Al-Aqsa mosque compound and Jews refer to as the Temple Mount. Police said at least four officers were wounded. Witnesses said at least two people were arrested. Clouds of tear gas swirled and stun grenades thundered across the stone-paved esplanade as masses of worshippers skirmished with police in the worst bout of fighting at the contested holy site in months. The clashes came amid heightened tensions between Israel and the Palestinians, just days after an Israeli soldier was killed south of Jerusalem. On Saturday, Israeli troops killed four Palestinian militants who attempted to cross the Gaza border fence. Tens of thousands of Muslims had flocked to the site in Jerusalem’s Old City early Sunday for holiday prayers, police said. Jews are also observing on Sunday the Ninth of Av, a day of fasting and mourning for the destruction of the two Biblical temples which stood at the site in antiquity. The site is the holiest for Jews and the third holiest for Muslims, after Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia, and has long been a flashpoint at the epicenter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jordan, which serves as the custodian of the holy site, said in a statement that it had sent a formal complaint to Israel and condemned what it called Israel’s “irresponsible provocations.” Sufian al-Qudah, a spokesman for the Jordanian Foreign Ministry, said Amman holds Israel completely responsible for the violence. Large numbers of Palestinians had gathered at the gates of the compound early Sunday after rumors circulated that police would allow Jewish visitors to enter the site. The protesters chanted “Allahu Akbar” (God is greatest) and threw stones at police, who then charged into the compound while firing stun grenades and rubber-coated bullets. Israeli police had initially barred entry to Jewish visitors, but reversed their decision after the clashes broke out and allowed them to enter. Several dozen entered the site under close police escort and Muslim worshippers began throwing chairs and other objects at the group. The Jewish visitors left the compound shortly thereafter. Jerusalem District police commander Doron Yedid told Israeli media that the decision to allow Jewish visitors to enter the site was made “with the backing of the top political officials.” Police spokesmen could not be reached for comment. The reversal came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s religious nationalist allies called for the site to be opened to Jewish visitors. Israelis are headed to unprecedented repeat elections next month after Netanyahu failed to form a government following April’s elections. Jews are barred from praying at the compound under a longstanding arrangement between Israel and Muslim authorities. Jewish tradition also maintains that Jews should avoid entering the holy site. But in recent years Israeli religious nationalists have stepped up visits to the site to challenge the arrangement. Jewish extremists have called for destroying the mosque and rebuilding the Biblical temple. The Palestinians view such visits as provocations, and have long feared that Israel intends to take over the site or partition it. The Israeli government has repeatedly said it has no intention of changing the status quo. Hanan Ashrawi, a senior leader in the Palestine Liberation Organization, said Israel was “fueling religious tensions in Jerusalem,” adding that Israeli officials are “fully responsible for its grave consequences.” The compound is in east Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the 1967 war along with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, territories the Palestinians seek as part of a future state. Israel views all of Jerusalem as its unified capital, while the Palestinians want east Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. Israeli-Palestinian tensions have spiked following President Donald Trump’s decision in 2017 to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the U.S. Embassy there. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has been moribund for at least a decade, and the Palestinians have cut ties with the Trump administration over what they see as its unfair bias toward Israel. In a separate incident on Sunday, Israeli troops killed a Palestinian gunman after he opened fire on them from across the perimeter fence around the Gaza Strip. The Israeli military said an “armed terrorist” approached the frontier early Sunday and opened fire toward troops on the other side, who responded by shooting at the attacker. The army said a tank also targeted a nearby military post operated by the Islamic militant group Hamas. The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza identified the deceased as 26-year-old Marwan Nasser. It was not clear if he was a member of an armed group, and no one immediately claimed responsibility for the attack. On Saturday, Israeli troops killed four Palestinian militants who the army said had tried to carry out a cross-border attack. Hamas, which has ruled Gaza since 2007, said the attack was an “individual act” carried out by youths frustrated at the Israeli-Egyptian blockade on Gaza and was not planned by the group. | null | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DrudgeReportFeed/~3/bDpFOhRAuMo/ed7127e96f18434599bb0b58b04dc84f | 2019-08-12 09:58:37+00:00 | 1,565,618,317 | 1,567,534,380 | religion and belief | religious conflict |
203 | 21stcenturywire--2019-03-23--Henningsen Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column working against the people | 2019-03-23T00:00:00 | 21stcenturywire | Henningsen: ‘Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column – working against the people’ | On February 9, 2019, an open forum of ideas was held in Oslo, Norway to discuss and shine a light on a number of high-profile issues including Syria. The general outcome of this event was to educate and inspire delegates, and to elevate the level of political discussion in Norway which is a key component of Western geopolitics and hugely influential in international affairs through its multilateral institutions like the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and presently as a leading member of NATO, according to the American writer and global affairs analyst Patrick Henningsen who gave a presentation to the forum. Henningsen told the Syria Times e-newspaper that the name of the conference was ‘Mot Dag’, which roughly translated in English means, ‘out of darkness, towards light’. The event was co-hosted by Pål Steigan, who is a major left-wing political figure in Norway, and Norwegian activist and media personality, Kari Angelique Jaquesson, who has been advocating on a number of high-profile social and political issues including Syria. “The two day event covered a number of controversial issues including mainstream media propaganda, the West’s war on Syria, the White Helmets scandal, NGO fraud, the Venezuelan coup, the Gilet Jaunes aka Yellow Vests, feminism within the current western political discourse, and the debate on gender identity, including a political critique of transgender identity politics,” the writer clarified. He underscored that the audience was extremely well-versed in cutting edge political issues which is not surprising considering that one of Pål Steigan’s core missions with his media and advocacy organization, Steigan.no, is about educating people on a broad range of political and social issues, and certainly this crowd exhibited a very high degree of political awareness on a range of topics. The Speakers included Henningsen, journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett, women activist and campaigner Posie Parker from the UK, and also leading Norwegian writer and cultural commentator, Terje Tvedt, Norwegian journalist Eva Thomassen, and many more. While attendees consisted of activists, writers, artists, philosophers, journalists, and politicians mainly from Norway, guests also came from UK, Europe, Canada and the US. “Although the organizers are perhaps more well known for their political activities on the left side of the political paradigm, the range of both speakers and guests included those on the left, the right and center. So in that sense, this event was very much an open forum for ideas and political dialogue which meant the discussion were very dynamic, with everyone definitely challenging the prevailing establishment from their respective areas of expertise,” stated Henningsen, who is the founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire and host of the Sunday Wire weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR). SEE ALSO: Explained: Why Julian Assange & Chelsea Manning hold key to Free Press In a response to a question about the main points he mentioned in his presentation, the US writer said: “The main thrust of my presentation was the recent revelations of a multi-million dollar UK and US government-funded propaganda operation known as the “Integrity Initiative,” a clandestine network of bureaucrats, think tanks, intelligence operatives and mainstream western journalists – which claims to be ‘fighting Russian disinformation’ but in reality is actually spreading disinformation through the placement of propaganda and in some cases – completely fabricated anti-Russian news stories, and even targeted smear campaigns against political dissenters and alternative voices. There activities carry on right through a sophisticated international of network western media outlets and “clusters” of journalists located in the various NATO member states, all in order to demonize Russia and keep anti-Russian policies like sanctions firmly in place.” ‘There is no MSM opposition to illegal wars of aggression’ He went on to say: “Militarized information warfare programs like the Integrity Initiative has actually backfired in the sense that they are damaging public trust in mainstream media. People know the stories are spun, they know they are being hit with fake news by the same governments and media outlets who claim to be ‘battling Russian disinformation’. The problem has reached a critical stage now whereby the credibility of mainstream media outlets is nearly eviscerated, and rather than looking in the mirror at this destructive Kafkaesque hydra they’ve allowed to run amok, the Establishment networks are instead doubling-down on this behemoth of a psychological operation and pursuing ever more aggressive censorship policies on social media monopoly platforms like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. One of the main points I tried to make in my talk is that throughout history and right up to today – the most prolific and primary source of so-called “fake news” is government agencies and the mainstream media. This is a historic fact, and people should always bear this in mind when they see the latest government-media complex crusade against the alleged scourge of fake news online.” As for the cause of the collapse of western media credibility, Henningsen emphasized that Western mainstream media’s credibility has collapsed because rather than playing the proper role of ‘Fourth Estate’ – as an unofficial and independent people’s branch of society which traditionally would act as a watchdog against government corruption and maleficence, this formerly free press has been transformed into a Fifth Column which is now working against the people it was supposed to serve. “So that means effectively there is no mainstream opposition to state corruption and illegal wars of aggression. The only remaining opposition is in alternative media – with its bloggers, independent journalists and social media activists – all of whom are being actively targeted by secret programs like the Integrity Initiative and so-called think tanks like the Atlantic Council and its DFR Labs. So this amounts to an extremely dire state of affairs at the moment in a Western society which is meant to be the beacon of democratic ethics and republican values,” he asserted. The global affairs analyst indicated that this crisis in media is tearing at the very fabric of western society, and instead of addressing the real enemy within this system, the Establishment and political operatives are attempting to blame ‘the Russians’ for the current breakdown, and for all of the Establishment’s own shortcoming and systemic problems, as well as attacking alternative media outlets, bloggers and social media users of being in league with the Kremlin or ‘Assad’. He stressed that what we are seeing today has gone way beyond the days of Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare of the 1950’s, because this project has now been internationalized, “with a pernicious censorship component that is being enforced globally across Silicon Valley social media platforms.” Henningsen believes that social media has been a tremendous tool in terms of allowing a variety of people locally and globally to share information, opinion and analysis and to network laterally and without traditional hierarchies and filters imposed by the corporate media cartels and government agencies trying to keep a lid on what information the public is allowed to see. Henningsen explains, “However, the progress of the last decade is now under direct threat from governments and corporate elites controlling the main Silicon Valley social media monopolies – who fear they have ‘lost control of the narrative’. In other words, traditional mechanisms for the production and dissemination of propaganda are no longer working for the Plutocracy like they had in the past, and so they are attempting to wrestle back control of these new digital platforms and re-compartmentalize them through automated algorithms and A.I. censorship software programs designed to mute or erase any content or view points which threaten the Establishment’s agenda on any number of geopolitical, political, commercial, social and even health issues.” The US writer has visited the Middle East on a number of occasions, including an extended five week fact-finding mission to Syria during the war in 2017. While the war was winding down in some places at that time, but he was able to see some incredible scenes in East Aleppo, Homs and Damascus which confirmed much of what he had suspected since he started reporting on Syria in 2011. “Most of all, I was struck by the determination of the Syrian people to resist the long proxy war which was being waged against them by the US-led ‘Coalition’ of countries and Gulf states. Much of the country has been devastated, but the people have never given up hope that they could eventually overcome the situation. That is incredible in itself and something which is absolutely unique to Syria. The people and the culture are incredibly resilient. We all can learn a lot from Syria,” Henningsen concluded. See highlights from Henningsen’s Norway presentations here | 21wire | https://21stcenturywire.com/2019/03/23/henningsen-fourth-estate-has-become-a-fifth-column-working-against-the-people/ | 2019-03-23 17:58:04+00:00 | 1,553,378,284 | 1,567,545,072 | politics | political dissent |
514 | 21stcenturywire--2019-08-08--Official Secrets Priti Patels Early War on Whistleblowers | 2019-08-08T00:00:00 | 21stcenturywire | Official Secrets: Priti Patel’s Early War on Whistleblowers | As British ambassador to the US Kim Darroch tended his wounds of humiliation last month, following the leak of a cache of diplomatic cables and documents, including emails describing President Trump as ‘inept’ and ‘uniquely dysfunctional,’ an outraged UK government descended into panic over how to handle such an apparently sensitive and damaging betrayal of confidential information. A police investigation was launched to find the leaker. Is this dubious leak now being used to mount an attack on whistleblowers – with the help of Boris Johnson’s new Home Secretary, Priti Patel? The leak, which led to Trump’s refusal to work with Darroch, and consequently Darroch’s resignation, is a useful type of leak for a government set on tightening the Official Secrets Act (OSA). After all, it has not exposed evidence of any government crime, so cannot really be applauded as a courageous stand against abuse of power as in the case for example of the leaks released by Chelsea Manning and published by Wikileaks, exposing US war crimes. The Darroch leak was clearly one of a political nature. In this way, the artificial hype being whipped-up around it actually downplays the essential and heroic role of the whistleblower. Certainly from a purely political perspective, it could be argued that it does not serve public interest to know that a British diplomat might have a very low opinion of the US president (a fairly common view point held by many diplomats globally), which could serve certain political aims, or be motivated by spite. But that’s hardly a matter of national security. It is for this reason that a chance leak such as this could be extremely useful for individuals and institutions with an axe to grind against whistleblowers. It could also be used to mobilise public outrage against a foreign leader, unpopular with many, who thinks he can dictate to Britain what to do with our ambassadors. Spin doctors in Westminster will make the seemingly impassioned argument that this leak somehow damages the hallowed ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the US. With enough arm-twisting, some of us might even be tempted to give our consent to new authoritarian laws that punish and silence those who would dare leak such information. In this case, the Metropolitan Police took things a few dangerous steps further. On July 12th, Assistant Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, Neil Basu, made this statement: “Given the widely reported consequences of that leak, I am satisfied that there has been damage caused to UK international relations, and there would be clear public interest in bringing the person or people responsible to justice.” Now the police are weighing in on something as politically subjective as “international relations.” What’s much worse though is when Basu announced that the Met would also consider it a crime for anyone, including members of the press or media, to publish these leaked cables. He stated: “The publication of leaked communications, knowing the damage they have caused or are likely to cause, may also be a criminal matter.” “I would advise all owners, editors and publishers of social and mainstream media not to publish leaked government documents that may already be in their possession, or which may be offered to them, and to turn them over to the police or give them back to their rightful owner, Her Majesty’s government.” The public backlash was swift however, as many public figures rebuked the Met’s shot across the press bow. The following day Basu was then forced to walk-back the Met’s threat to the press, issuing a type of retraction some 24 hours after. “Freedom of the press is vital, of course. There are rules around that and there are considerable protections for journalists who do reveal things and that, of course, is the right thing to do.” From this exchange we learned that there was much more going on behind the scenes with this story than previously thought. The ground was now set for a disturbing authoritarian legislative drive, quietly unleashed through the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC), which included the soon-to-be-Home Secretary, Priti Patel; it submitted recommendations to the government at the end of July following its own inquiry, described as “An urgent look at tackling a culture of leaks” “The unauthorised disclosure of material sent by Sir Kim Darroch makes one thing very clear: those who leak are reckless and dangerous. In this case they have caused the resignation of a dedicated and skilled public servant, undermined the influence of the United Kingdom around the world and, potentially, caused a damaging rift with our most important ally.” “The leak of Sir Kim’s communications is an egregious act by the leaker and the Committee urges the Government to use all its resources to identify and apprehend the leaker and apply the toughest of sanctions at its disposal. The Committee believes however that the sanctions available under the Official Secrets Act are not necessarily sufficient for penalising breaches of the gravity of this most recent leak. In any event, it is evident that those penalties did not act as a sufficient deterrent.” The wording focuses on the specifics of the Darroch case and forces us to narrow our view of leaks (and those who leak) to that of self-serving individuals undeserving of any public support or legal protections. Meanwhile, as we focus on the mischief-makers who leak, this same report proceeds to attack whistleblowers and truth tellers who make personal sacrifices to stop state-sponsored abuse: ” … integrity must be preserved when dealing with leaks by an unambiguous response that conveys clearly that any leak will not be tolerated.” What the FAC and Patel are attempting to do here is to somehow justify harsher sanctions and extend prison sentences under the Official Secrets Act – all on the basis of a murky Darroch case. It would be very easy to translate this as political opportunism by an increasingly authoritarian government and political class. Should we consent to risk harsher penalties for those who expose state-sponsored crime and corruption, at their own personal risk, based on leaks we might not care for or disapprove of? Throughout the report there is no distinction between leaks or references to whistleblowing for matters of public interest. The term ‘whistleblower’ is used once in the report but is given no time, importance or explanation. It is left hanging like some abstract ideal used only to highlight the ill-intent of the Darroch leak. Yet, while the committee calls on the government to review and ‘strengthen’ the Official Secrets Act to impose harsher sentences, it makes no reference to the fact this has been ongoing for the last few years and the Law Commission is due to publish its final recommendations this year. Its 2017 initial recommendations led to an outcry from politicians and journalists, who condemned its authoritarian suggestions for increasing prison sentences from 2 to 14 years. Using the Darroch case as a platform, the FAC, with Patel now at the helm of the Home Office, has laid the groundwork so that the Law Commission’s full frontal attack on whistle blowers – should its 2017 recommendations remain in place- might be more palatable. The inquiry appears to have been planned prior to Darroch’s resignation given that the first witness session was held within hours of his decision to resign, the day after Trump’s tweet. It was then wrapped up inside of two weeks. Was the hurry through panic or opportunism? The advice given by the expert witnesses in the rushed inquiry actually challenges several of the FAC’s recommendations. These include its recommendations around re-classifying information, disabling the forward button on its systems, and empowering the FAC to screen all ambassadorial candidates prior to their appointment by government. Even the former UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, known for his approval for regime changes, did not see the purpose of lengthy prison sentences for those who leak information. All agreed the ‘culture of loyalty’ to be the best protection against leaks. The FAC seems to have its own agenda whatever. Most clearly, beneath its desperate reflexive maneuvering to stop leaks… is the attack on whistleblowers. Pockets of the leaks inquiry reveal how whistleblowers are really viewed by British diplomats, as shown in this comment offered by Adam Thomson, former UK permanent representative to NATO: “There are other leaks that can be massively more damaging, such as cases where lives are lost because sources and methods have been disclosed, or things on the scale of what Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were responsible for, which, I assume, have had large-scale consequences for how the US system operates.” Thomson does not explain the things Manning and Snowden ‘were responsible for’ but we get the message that their whistleblowing of state-sponsored abuses are never to be mentioned by government officials; state-sponsored murders and human rights violations are airbrushed. As is always the case, any statements about “loss of lives because sources and methods have been disclosed” is kept intentionally vague and unqualified. Surely an inquiry into why leaks should be stopped would be the ideal place to provide evidence of deaths they have caused? During the inquiry whistleblowers were smeared as being ‘useful idiots’ or individuals working for governments intent on malevolent leaking. It is within the description of malevolent and useful idiot that former UK ambassador to the US Peter Westmacott places Wikileaks and whistleblowers: “If you are, say, a Government that is into malevolent leaking of another Government’s communications, you might quite like to use a cut-out, or if you are the Russians you might use Wikileaks, for example. You might use either a useful idiot or somebody who shares that interest in getting that material into the public domain. Here we have the ‘malign Russian influence’ narrative regularly used to attack Wikileaks, and to smear whistleblowers, or any other political dissent for that matter. But as John Pilger points out, the numbers do not add up if we are to believe Wikileaks conspires with the Kremlin: That Wikileaks is seen as the enemy during the inquiry is clear: the fear of having the impunity of its diplomatic and political class challenged is an unacceptable red line for the British elite. That the UK government has spent almost a decade assisting the US in its persecution of Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is the evidence. Bob Seely Tory MP for the Isle of White, who sits on the FAC, has aggressively promulgated the ‘malign influence of the Putin government’ narrative. The political agenda of Seely and the FAC around Russia has led to the formation of the UK’s Magnitsky sanctions. These originated from the politically-driven US Magnitsky Act based on the dubious claims against the Russian government made by Bill Browder, and used to target individuals. Although the sanctions are in theory applicable to any individual, not just Russians, the agenda of the FAC and individuals like Seely appears to be to drive a ‘new cold war’ narrative between Russia and the West. Following Assange’s arrest on 11th April, after being unconstitutionally stripped of his asylum and Ecuadorian citizenship rights inside the Ecuadorian embassy, he was charged by the US government for what amounts to a bogus conspiracy to hack a US government computer charge. It relates to Manning’s 2010 release of documents exposing US war crimes published by Wikileaks, and was accompanied with a request for Assange’s extradition to the US. That day, Seely made the following comment in Parliament: “I understand that the potential extradition to the United States relates to the half a million leaked documents in the Chelsea Manning case. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is potentially a more serious and disturbing case against Julian Assange in relation to his and WikiLeaks’ role in the Kremlin’s 2016 attempts to interfere with and manipulate the United States presidential elections, when WikiLeaks was used by Russian military intelligence—the GRU—as the primary vehicle to disseminate the stolen documents, hacked by the GRU from the Democratic party? While some see him as an information war hero, others see him as a useful stooge of an authoritarian state.” Seely continued pushing the Russia government hacking conspiracy narrative, one that has been shown by numerous intelligence analysts to be false and also rebuked by a recent US court ruling. The same day, in an article in the Telegraph, he called Assange a ‘useful idiot and left-wing dupe‘. The article drives the narrative that Assange is somehow implicated in a Russian intelligence conspiracy designed to undermine American democracy by interfering in the 2016 elections, and describes Assange’s role, crucially, as disseminating documents. Seely then goes on to suggest that only by being forced by a court, could Assange answer questions of what happened. In his article Seely recognises documents were leaked to Wikileaks and Assange by whoever accessed them in order for them to be published: a practice in journalism. This did not stop a member of the FAC and government from effectively suggesting prosecution for exactly that. Isn’t Seely suggesting here that disseminators of information, otherwise known as journalists and publishers, should be forced into court to answer questions on their sources? It seems so. New US Court Ruling Vindicates for Assange, WikiLeaks Seely’s authoritarian stance was exposed last week as a federal judge in New York, Judge John Koeltl, dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) over WikiLeaks’ publication of DNC documents in 2016. The judge ruled that: “Journalists are allowed to request documents that have been stolen and to publish those documents.” “A person is entitled [to] publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.” This ruling by a US judge is significant as it upholds the ability of journalists to report matters of public concern without being criminalised, a protection for free speech: “If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet. But that would impermissibly elevate a purely private privacy interest to override the First Amendment interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern. The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election. This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.” It is also vindication that Assange, now facing trumped-up charges of espionage in the US, is a journalist who has published information on matters of great public interest and importance through Wikileaks. The future of press freedom in the UK is of great concern. In its 2017 recommendations, the Law Commission, in addition to suggesting higher prison sentences for whistleblowers, proposed prosecuting those who receive and disseminate information covered under the Official Secrets Act. Those who receive and disseminate information are journalists. Seely’s article on Assange indicates how within the corridors of power there is desire to place journalists in the dock simply for doing their job. What’s more, the statement released by the Metropolitan police following the publication of the Darroch emails, that media outlets should not publish leaked government documents should perhaps not be swept aside as some random error. Given the mounted attack on press freedom by the UK government through its support of Assange’s extradition to the US, effectively for doing journalism, combined with the potential attack on whistleblowers and journalists under the Official Secrets Act – which the new Home Secretary appears to be cheerleading already – the public should remain more vigilant than ever and treat any comment about prosecuting journalists as suspicious. *** Author Nina Cross is an independent writer and researcher, and contributor to 21WIRE. To see more of her work, visit Nina’s archive. | Nina Cross | https://21stcenturywire.com/2019/08/08/official-secrets-priti-patels-early-war-on-whistleblowers/ | 2019-08-08 18:05:52+00:00 | 1,565,301,952 | 1,567,534,562 | politics | political dissent |
10,518 | aljazeera--2019-02-28--Trumps Middle East strategy is bound to fail | 2019-02-28T00:00:00 | aljazeera | Trump's Middle East strategy is bound to fail | Just a week after attending what was largely seen as "anti-Iran" conference in Warsaw earlier this month, Jared Kushner, senior adviser to US President Donald Trump, embarked on a special diplomatic trip across the Middle East to promote and fundraise for his peace plan to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Unsurprisingly, on his tour of the region, he brought along US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook. The Warsaw meeting and Kushner's Middle East trip reflect what seems to be a key foreign policy pillar of the Trump administration which links the much-awaited "deal of the century" to the formation of an Arab-Israeli anti-Iran alliance. The expectations of the White House are that the Arabs would sign off on Kushner's deal, normalise relations with the Israelis and work with them to deter Iran. That is why, while many observers saw the Warsaw conference as a failure, since it did not convince European allies to fully back US anti-Iranian regime policies, the Trump administration saw it as a success, having brought together Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and representatives of several Arab countries on the same table. However, this rather myopic foreign policy strategy for the Middle East ignores important realities on the ground and is, therefore, doomed to fail. Since he moved into the White House in January 2017, Trump has made it a point to systematically undo the Iran policies that his predecessor had put in place. President Barack Obama believed the US should not confront Iran on behalf of Arab allies and sought to engage Tehran. His administration increased pressure through international sanctions and at the same time pushed for dialogue. Between 2014 and 2016, the US and Iran tacitly worked together to fight the common threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) by backing the governments of Iraq and Lebanon while avoiding confrontation in Syria. The engagement effort with Iran culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which obviously did not please Israel and Saudi Arabia. After Trump took power, he withdrew from the JCPOA and re-imposed tough sanctions on Iran, seeking to pressure Tehran into concessions on its ballistic missiles programme and its regional activities. But so far, the escalation has only made Iran more defiant. The Iranian regime has repeatedly made it clear that it is not willing to negotiate under the present terms. Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei said recently that his regime talking to the US in the current context is like "going on your knees before the enemy". Despite the Trump administration's escalation against Iran, the Obama-era rules of engagement remain in place in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, where the US continues to avoid direct confrontation with Iranian forces and proxies. However, the ongoing psychological war is fuelling paranoia in Tehran, which increases the risk of a miscalculation. If Washington and Tehran continue pushing the envelope, their proxies would be the ones who pay the price. A cornered Iranian regime could easily become a spoiler for US policies in the Middle East. It could motivate its assets in Gaza to act against Israel or force the hands of the Iraqi and Lebanese governments to take action against US interests. Subversive Iranian activity might not only weaken US allies in the region but also sabotage US efforts to advance Palestinian-Israeli talks. Trump has also reversed the long-standing US policy on the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. His administration is now pushing to break a basic Arab policy principle, which ties normalisation with Israel to a fair Israeli-Palestinian deal that recognises a viable Palestinian state, provides for Israel's withdrawal to 1967 borders and settles the status of Jerusalem. US Arab allies want a deal that meets these basic requirements; anything short of that would be difficult to sell at home. Arab leaders remain uncomfortable with official normalisation with Israel given that the Arab public remains sensitive to the idea of them cosying up to Israel. Popular unrest can easily erupt across the Arab world if Arab leaders endorse a Palestinian-Israeli deal perceived as flawed. Recognising this danger, Saudi King Salman recently took back the Palestine portfolio from his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and restored Riyadh's long-standing position on the Palestinian issue. This stance was conveyed in an interview on February 13 by former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal al-Saud with Israeli Channel 13, which hinted that Saudi Arabia is waiting with open arms for Israel if and when it makes a fair deal with the Palestinians. The other risk Arab leaders face in undertaking premature normalisation with Israel is that the Trump administration might not be willing in return to go beyond words and sanctions in deterring Iran in the region. However, the core challenge to Arab-Israeli normalisation and anti-Iran coalition-building remains the Palestinian question. Jared Kushner has put together a peace deal which might be unveiled in April after the Israeli general elections. The so-called "deal of the century" is arguably the first attempt at resolving the conflict in which the Palestinian side was not informed or consulted. What is interesting about this plan is its approach to Palestinian politics. After Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, the Bush administration's policy was to punish the strip by blocking all aid while simultaneously assisting the Palestinian Authority to showcase a model of how the West Bank can prosper when it abides by international norms and accepts negotiations with Israel. Trump is reversing this approach by punishing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank for refusing to accept the "deal of the century" after he moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Simultaneously, the White House is enticing Hamas with funding for major economic projects in Gaza, which like the approach of the Bush administration, encourages Palestinian divisions instead of strengthening Palestinian unity. Trump needs a unified Palestinian front to put a stamp of approval on the peace plan his son-in-law is proposing, but both Fatah and Hamas are invested in the divide between the West Bank and Gaza and see a possible reunification under the deal as detrimental to their interests. Although the full provisions of the deal have not been yet disclosed, the details already known to the public indicate that it will not uphold the best interests of the Palestinians. In an interview for Emirati channel Sky News Arabia broadcast on February 25, Kushner stated: "if you can eliminate the border and have peace and less fear of terror, you could have freer flow of goods, freer flow of people and that would create a lot of opportunities." What his cryptic declaration means is that the weaker Palestinian economy will become further integrated into the Israeli one, making Palestinians even more dependent on the Israeli state, which will retain full control over security and hence its ability to repress Palestinian political dissent. Thus, Trump is linking the Arab-Israeli normalisation and deterrence of Iran to a Palestinian-Israeli deal on terms, which would institutionalise Israeli control over the Palestinian territories and have disastrous consequences for Palestinians. Having the Palestinians pay for the Arab-Israeli alliance will likely spell trouble for Arab leaders down the road. It might undermine the deterrence of Tehran by boosting the popularity of the Iranian regime in the region and further delegitimise already weakened Arab regimes. In this sense, the Trump administration's strategy of linking a flawed Israeli-Palestinian deal to an Arab-Israeli alliance to deter Iran might undermine these two US objectives in the Middle East and might even backfire against US allies and interests in the region. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance. | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/trump-middle-east-strategy-bound-fail-190224090803336.html | 2019-02-28 05:50:47+00:00 | 1,551,351,047 | 1,567,547,024 | politics | political dissent |
14,935 | aljazeera--2019-08-03--Ugandan academic Stella Nyanzi jailed for harassing Museveni | 2019-08-03T00:00:00 | aljazeera | Ugandan academic Stella Nyanzi jailed for 'harassing' Museveni | A prominent Ugandan academic has bared her breasts and screamed obscenities in protest as a magistrate sentenced her to 18 months' prison on controversial charges of "harassing" President Yoweri Museveni. The verdict against Stella Nyanzi on Friday drew the ire of rights activists who accused the government of using laws about electronic communications to stifle political dissent. Nyanzi, a university lecturer and researcher who once called Museveni "a pair of buttocks", is expected to serve nine months in prison after having already spent nine months behind bars. Appearing in a Kampala court via video link, Nyanzi raised her middle fingers and yelled profanities in defiance as she was sentenced, before flashing her breasts as her supporters whooped and cheered. A plastic bottle was hurled at the magistrate as police tried to restore order. "Dr Stella was very upset that she was not allowed to appear in court physically and instead appeared by video link," her lawyer, Isaac Semakadde, told AFP news agency. "There has been lack of transparency in this trial." A second charge of "offensive communication" was dropped against Nyanzi, who has vowed not to relent in her barbed criticism of Uganda's long-serving ruler. "I planned to offend Yoweri Museveni Kaguta, because he has offended us for 30 plus years," she told the courtroom on Thursday before being found guilty. "We are tired of a dictatorship." Her offence stemmed from a Facebook post last year in which she said she wished Museveni, 74, had been burned up by the "acidic pus" in his mother's birth canal. Prosecutors described the post as a "brutish attack on the person of the president and his late mother". In a statement on Friday, Joan Nyanyuki, director for East Africa at human rights group Amnesty International, said: "This verdict is outrageous and flies in the face of Uganda's obligations to uphold the right to freedom of expression ... and demonstrates the depths of the government's intolerance of criticism." The verdict should be quashed and Nyanzi, who has been in jail since November last year, freed immediately, she said. "The Ugandan authorities must scrap the Computer Misuse Act... which has been used systematically to harass, intimidate and stifle government critics." Ugandan pop star turned leading opposition figure Bobi Wine, who has announced his intention to challenge Museveni in 2021 elections, defended Nyanzi's right to challenge "dictatorship, corruption and nepotism". "The same courts which have... defended and shielded the champions of these ills have no moral authority to talk about morals," he posted on his Twitter account on Thursday. A research associate at Kampala's prestigious Makerere University, Nyanzi holds a doctorate on sexuality in Africa and has defended her visceral attacks against Museveni and his family. In 2017, she told AFP that "so-called vulgar words are sometimes the best way to get your message across". In her most recent post, she wrote a poem about her court case: "My presence in your court as a suspect and prisoner highlights multiple facets of dictatorship. I exposed the entrenchment of autocracy." Earlier this year Uganda's Supreme Court upheld a decision to remove an age cap of 75 for presidential contenders, paving the way for Museveni - who has ruled since 1986 - to run again. Critics say Museveni is increasingly becoming intolerant of dissent as resistance to his rule grows. | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/ugandan-academic-stella-nyanzi-jailed-harassing-museveni-190803141817222.html | 2019-08-03 16:05:08+00:00 | 1,564,862,708 | 1,567,534,953 | politics | political dissent |
15,239 | aljazeera--2019-08-21--The political impotence of the Muslim American community | 2019-08-21T00:00:00 | aljazeera | The political impotence of the Muslim American community | There was a time when Islam was a revolutionary force in America. Decades ago, "Muslim" was a political identity grounded in an ethos of dissent, exemplified by Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X. Being Muslim meant standing up against white supremacy and global empire, whether in Alabama or Vietnam; it meant standing in solidarity with the struggles of black and brown people everywhere. Today, many American Muslims eagerly claim the legacy of brothers Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X as their own, but lack the political courage and moral integrity by which they lived. We have become a community without a principled political vision, impotent in the face of state oppression: the continuous FBI surveillance and entrapment and ever-expanding anti-Muslim legislation. Not only are we unable to organise on these issues, but we have also lost the common ethical ground that could unite us around a common political vision and action. Until recently, despite the divisions within the community, the Muslim American community seemed united at least in its opposition to the Trump administration; that appeared to be the lowest common denominator of a shared American Muslim political identity. But then on July 8, Secretary of State and top Islamophobe Mike Pompeo announced the creation of a Commission on Unalienable Rights to advise the Trump administration - a serial human rights violator - on human rights. One of our most prominent leaders, Hamza Yusuf, accepted to become part of the theatrics. This announcement marked the culmination of years of mainstream Muslim organisations and individuals promoting those among its ranks who align themselves with white supremacy, the erosion of civil liberties, and global tyranny. Despite the outrageousness of Yusuf's decision, many in the community still defended him. Imam Zaid Shakir, who in the past has also voiced his support for "blue lives matter" also appeared to shield him from accountability. In 2006, he and Yusuf were profiled in the New York Times as reformed troublemakers, former critics of American policies, who have now been rehabilitated into the mainstream as "good" Muslims. In 2008, the two founded Zaytuna College, a Muslim liberal arts institution aimed at educating "students to become morally, intellectually and spiritually accomplished persons". The college publishes a journal which is funded by the Templeton Foundation whose benefactors are known sympathisers of the ultra-conservative Tea Party. The same foundation also supports the Quilliam Foundation of UK-based self-professed "counter-extremist" Maajid Nawaz. There have been others like Yusuf in the Muslim American community who have engaged in dubious interactions with state power. Another prominent scholar, Sherman Jackson, is a board member of the UAE-based Muslim Council of Elders. In 2015, together with other members, he attended a meeting with Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi at the height of his brutal crackdown on political dissent, which saw tens of thousands thrown in jail, tortured and forcefully disappeared. In 2018, the council also congratulated the Egyptian president for winning uncontested a second term in a sham election. Jackson is also an adviser to the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiative of the right-wing think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, alongside former British PM Tony Blair, who stands accused of war crimes in Iraq. Hamza Yusuf and Sherman Jackson are A-list celebrities of American Muslim subculture. Yet, when they lend credibility to white supremacy and tyranny, American Muslims refuse to hold them accountable. There have also been prominent figures within the community who have backed the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Trump administration's "Muslim ban" and others who have repeatedly crossed the picket line drawn by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and engaged with representatives of the Israeli occupation. Many Muslim Americans also continue to embrace and support the US army, even when it is deployed in Muslim countries to carry out our government's imperial ploys. To appeal to the "white gaze", we have lionised someone like Khizr Khan - a man whose only claim to fame is being the father of a Muslim soldier who was killed during his deployment to support the US occupation of Iraq. This culture of political subservience and collaboration isn't limited to a select few individuals. Prominent organisations like Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Ta'leef Collective, the Inner-City Muslim Action Network (IMAN) and others have engaged (or have tried to) with CVE programmes funded by the US government and law enforcement. The community has yet to register so much as a murmur about these organisations, despite ample studies and analysis available detailing the harm caused by CVE initiatives. Apart from this, mainstream Muslim organisations are involved in a variety of other problematic practices. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which continues to enjoy much support among American Muslims, is known for condemning what it identified as "riots" in Baltimore after the police killing of Freddie Gray and starting a partnership with the Islamophobic American Jewish Committee (AJC). In 2015, months after Israel's invasion of Gaza which killed over 2,000 Palestinians, ISNA's president, Sayyid Syeed, notoriously attended a closed-door meeting with former Israeli President Shimon Peres. Another example is Emgage, an organisation that claims to empower Muslim Americans through its voter registration drives, political lobbying, and campaigning, Yet its national chair, Khurrum Wahid, has gone on a trip to Israel funded by the Shalom Hartman Institute as part of a faith washing initiative known as the "Muslim Leadership Initiative" in direct violation of the Palestinian call for a boycott. Emgage has cosponsored several events with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organisation that even Starbucks was forced to drop from its diversity training programme after activists pointed out its historic cosy relationship with law enforcement and its discrimination against black and Muslim Americans. When a corporate coffee chain holds itself to higher standards on Muslim issues than leading Muslim organisations, we have a problem. There are far more cases of problematic practices by Muslim individuals and organisations than can be addressed here. However, even this cursory overview is enough to raise a question. What moral integrity, what political courage remains in a community whose every pillar - the intellectuals, the spiritual leaders, the political organisers, the schools, the mosques, the civil service organisations, nearly everything - is compromised? We have hundreds of Muslims jailed across the country after facing biased pre-emptive prosecution, some for simply engaging in charity. Many of them can be considered political prisoners. How can we claim the legacy of Malcolm X who rallied thousands to demand the release of Brother Johnson within hours of his arrest, when today, we refuse to even utter the names of our political prisoners in our own mosques? What drives American Muslims to collude with state-sponsored oppression? There are several factors, including a culture of aspirational whiteness among immigrant Muslims and a drive to gain legitimacy and insider status within hegemonic political frameworks. Another factor is money: Institutions often struggle to raise funds and programmes like CVE offer millions of taxpayer dollars in grants. Just as the Islamophobia industry funds the careers of Islamophobic personalities and sustains Islamophobic think tanks and lobbying firms, there is a growing cottage industry that has made it lucrative for Muslim individuals and organisations to collaborate with government programmes that harm the community. Some defend their collaboration using talking points widely discredited by academics and activists, but as American politician Upton Sinclair observed many decades ago, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." In the case of scholars and imams, the answer partly lies in colonised readings of the Islamic tradition that push for political quietism and obedience to state power. As well-versed as many Muslim scholars are in aspects of the Islamic legal tradition, applying theoretical maxims to the context of modern politics without understanding its history and dynamics often leads to positions that are naive at best and in the service of oppression at their worst. Thus, the theological approach of scholars like Hamza Yusuf not only stifles Muslim resistance efforts worldwide, but also preaches against so-called "self-victimisation", which often descends into outlandish defences of Donald Trump and the dismissal of conversations concerning institutional oppression. When political cowardice is the defining feature of our leaders and institutions, when a theology of obedience is the approach of our scholars, and when corporations like Starbucks take more principled stances on our issues than we do, we can be sure that we have lost the common principles that bind a community together. When hundreds of our most vulnerable are imprisoned as part of a wider attack on us all, and, out of fear or apathy, we prefer to erase their existence, to forget their names, surely we have discarded the love that members of a community feel for one another. We have ensured that the decades-long campaign to neutralise our community is now complete. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance. | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/political-impotence-muslim-american-community-190820151839919.html | 2019-08-21 12:52:31+00:00 | 1,566,406,351 | 1,567,533,868 | politics | political dissent |
15,877 | aljazeera--2019-09-11--Syria US-led coalition may have committed war crimes UN report | 2019-09-11T00:00:00 | aljazeera | Syria, US-led coalition may have committed war crimes: UN report | Syrian government forces backed by Russian warplanes may have committed war crimes while targeting medical facilities, schools, markets and farmland in an ongoing deadly campaign in northwestern Syria, UN investigators say. The UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria also said on Wednesday that Hay'et Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a former al-Qaeda affiliate fighting government forces in the northwestern province of Idlib, fired rockets indiscriminately and killed civilians. Syrian forces carried out repeated air raids in Saraqib in Idlib on March 9, damaging Al-Hayat women's and children's hospital despite being aware of its coordinates, the report said. In Idlib on May 14, "pro-government forces air-dropped between two and four missiles on a fish market and primary school for girls in Jisr al-Shughour", killing at least eight civilians, it said. "Such attacks may amount to the war crime of deliberately attacking protected objects and intentionally attacking medical personnel," the UN report said. The Syrian army denies it targets civilians and says its forces only bomb fighters associated with "terrorists". Idlib, which borders Turkey, is the final rebel stronghold in the country. In late April, Syrian forces, backed by Russia since 2015, began an offensive in the region in an attempt to capture the strategic area, which lies on a key highway connecting the capital, Damascus, with the northern city of Aleppo. Last week, UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet said her office tallied more than 1,000 civilian deaths in northern Syria over the last four months - the majority caused by air raids and ground attacks by President Bashar al-Assad's forces and their allies. The report, released Wednesday, also looked into other violations and documented how civilians continue to bear the brunt of the bloody eight-year war. "Civilians continue to be unlawfully detained or kidnapped and often tortured for expressing political dissent," the report said. "In government-controlled areas, civilians, including recent returnees, have been arbitrarily arrested and detained, harassed, mistreated and tortured." The UN also laid blame on the US-led coalition that has been battling Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) in the country. It said coalition air raids in Syria have killed and wounded many civilians, highlighting that precautions were ignored and war crimes may have been committed. Backed by US-led coalition air power in a fight to remove ISIL, the Syrian Democratic Forces, which include Kurdish fighters, retook the group's last major stronghold of Hajin in eastern Syria in late December. The coalition's Al-Jazeera Storm operation resulted in a high number of civilian casualties, including in a series of attacks on January 3 in Sha'fah, south of Hajin, that killed 16 civilians including 12 children, the UN report said. "Launching indiscriminate attacks that result in death or injury to civilians amounts to a war crime in cases in which such attacks are conducted recklessly," it said. Coalition officials could not be reached immediately for comment. Night raids by SDF forces backed by coalition helicopter gunships killed and wounded civilians in Shahil and other parts of Deir Az Zor province, in further apparent violations of international law, the investigators said. The report covered events up until July and is based on nearly 300 interviews and analysis of satellite imagery, photographs and video. The Syrian civil war, now in its ninth year, has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and forced 13 million people from their homes. | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/syria-led-coalition-committed-war-crimes-report-190911120329784.html | 2019-09-11 20:51:33+00:00 | 1,568,249,493 | 1,569,330,439 | politics | political dissent |
16,114 | aljazeera--2019-09-26--Egyptian protesters to press for President el-Sisis ouster | 2019-09-26T00:00:00 | aljazeera | Egyptian protesters to press for President el-Sisi's ouster | Egyptian demonstrators are expected to stage protests on Friday with Twitter hashtags and social media accounts urging people to take to the streets and peacefully demand the resignation of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. More than 2,000 people have been arrested since rare protests broke out in several cities last week calling on el-Sisi to step down. Thousands marched against the president's rule after corruption allegations emerged surrounding his and his family's lavish spending. Security forces on Wednesday detained several prominent Egyptian intellectuals and public figures, including Hassan Nafaa, a political science professor at Cairo University and well-known columnist. "I have no doubt that the continuation of el-Sisi's absolute rule will lead to disaster," Nafaa said in a tweet on Tuesday before being taken away. "Egypt's interest requires his departure today before tomorrow." Nafaa's arrest followed the detention of Hazem Hosny, a spokesman for former army chief Sami Anan who was jailed last year for attempting to run against el-Sisi in a presidential election. Khaled Dawoud, the head of Al-Doustor Party who has been a vocal critic of the president's policies, was also detained. Analysts and politicians say the crackdown on critical voices reflects the government's insecurity and vulnerability at a critical time as Egypt's economic woes intensify for the poor and middle class. "The arrests show the regime's disregard for Egyptians and how terrified it is," said Istanbul-based Ayman Nour, an opposition leader and former presidential candidate. "But there's more to it. Sisi is trying to send a clear message to prominent generals and politicians who might provide an alternative to him because he has run country's economy to the ground and because of his widespread political repression." Nour said he expects more people will take to the streets now that "the fear barrier" has been broken down, with the government's heavy-handed approach only heightening people's anger at worsening socioeconomic conditions. Though small in scale, the rare public displays of anger followed calls for action from a contractor who previously worked with the Egyptian military, Mohamed Ali. The part-time actor was able to forge close ties with members of the political establishment and top brass of the armed forces, eventually becoming an insider. In a series of videos posted online, he admitted to benefitting from government corruption, describing how his company, Amlak, was awarded lucrative state contracts without going through the proper bidding process. Ali said he regretted being part of the rampant corruption among the army corps and el-Sisi's relatives, including his wife Intissar. His description of opulent palaces and luxury hotels that he claimed to have built for el-Sisi - and for which he has yet to be paid - stood in sharp contrast to the deep poverty Egyptians currently live in. On Twitter, hashtags such as "come out you are not alone", "you are done Sisi", "Sisi must go", and "Next Friday" generated tens of thousands of tweets and retweets calling on people to take to the streets peacefully to demand that el-Sisi step aside. Egyptian Hollywood actor Amr Waked posted in Arabic to his almost seven million followers on Thursday: "Sisi is done ... it is over for him and anyone who supports him now will be making a huge mistake." Addressing el-Sisi directly in the tweet, Waked added, "Get smart stupid. Leave and let the people take what belongs to them." The decision to slash food and fuel subsidies as part of a 2016 loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in addition to the floating of the Egyptian currency, has led to a sharp increase in the price of basic commodities, hitting poor people the hardest. By the government's own admission, the poverty rate rose to 32.5 percent in 2018, up from 27.8 percent in 2015. Amy Hawthorn, deputy director for research at the Project on Middle East Democracy, said this is what pushed people to protest. "[Demonstrators] are driven by economic difficulties and alleged corruption by President el-Sisi and his inner circle," she said. Security forces have stepped up their presence in anticipation of more protests with policemen stopping anyone suspected of political activism. Even government supporters have been caught in the crackdown. In one video, an el-Sisi sympathiser is seen broadcasting a live feed from Tahrir Square, the epicentre of the 2011 protests that forced former President Hosni Mubarak to resign. The man was interrupted by the police as he dismissed reports of demonstrators taking place there. In another video posted on Twitter, a police officer fires a pistol in the direction of a balcony where a woman filmed security forces chasing a group of young Egyptians. Since the military's overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi in 2013, el-Sisi has overseen a broad crackdown against any dissent. While members of the Muslim Brotherhood - to which Morsi belonged - were the main target of a heavy-handed approach to political dissent, arrests extended well beyond the group. Civil rights activists, journalists, and actors have also been targeted. The president's supporters have justified the measures as necessary to restore order and combat armed groups operating in the Sinai Peninsula. But in his latest video, Ali, the contractor, said the counterterrorism narrative was a way for el-Sisi to sell himself to the world. "To stabilise the region and impose peace, I have to combat terrorism. And to combat terrorism I need terrorists," Ali said on Wednesday, paraphrasing the el-Sisi government's argument to world leaders. | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/egyptian-protesters-press-president-el-sisi-ouster-190926104532583.html | 2019-09-26 16:07:16+00:00 | 1,569,528,436 | 1,570,222,174 | politics | political dissent |
17,714 | aljazeera--2019-11-23--Tanzania to hold local elections amid opposition boycott | 2019-11-23T00:00:00 | aljazeera | Tanzania to hold local elections amid opposition boycott | Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - Tanzanians will head to the polls on Sunday to vote in local elections which have been boycotted by the country's top opposition parties over allegations of cheating. Although the boycott has complicated matters, observers will be keen to take stock of public sentiment before 2020's presidential, parliamentary and council elections, in a country where reliable and independent political data is scarce and space for critical media is rapidly shrinking. There are 333,555 seats to be contested in Sunday's vote, the vast majority of which were due to have candidates from across Tanzania's political spectrum. On November 7, however, the leading opposition party Chadema said it would not participate over allegations of government interference. Six other parties have since joined the boycott. In announcing his party's withdrawal, Chadema chairman Freeman Mbowe said some 94 percent of its candidates were disqualified, while more than 90 percent of the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi's (CCM) candidates were approved. Many election officers cited minor errors as the cause for rejection, such as mixing "L" and "R" on application forms, despite the fact that these are liberally interchanged in many dialects across the country. The government has denied foul play, while some question why CCM would want to intervene. "CCM has readied itself over the last four years and implemented a large portion of its promises to voters, meaning it really would have had no need to exclude opposition candidates," Said Msonga, a Tanzanian political analyst, said. However, Dan Paget, a University College London expert on Tanzanian politics, suggested that despite the government's clear advantage, it could be uncertain of the competition because it had shrunk the civic space. Last month, rights groups accused the government of President John Magufuli of repressing political dissent, including by stifling independent journalism and severely restricting the activities of NGOs. "The alleged manipulation of the local elections is reason to re-evaluate how popular the opposition is. It smacks of the action of a ruling party apprehensive about the electoral threat posed by the opposition," Paget said. "Perhaps CCM fears that the opposition is strong. Perhaps they simply don't know." After the boycott announcement, the government made a series of U-turns that may support this theory. On November 10, days after the cut-off for appeals, Minister of Regional Administration and Local Government Selemani Jafo invited all rejected candidates to stand in the election, even without their parties - despite independent candidates being officially banned. The next day, Jafo backtracked, saying that the rejected candidates would need to be vetted by returning election officers - the same officials who rejected application forms en masse in the first place. Analysts say the government's flip-flopping indicates hesitation, which supports the view that even CCM might not be sure how seriously to take the opposition. CCM - and its pre-union predecessor TANU - has ruled Tanzania continuously since independence in 1968. Although technically just a political party, critics allege that CCM is undeniably enmeshed with the state machinery thanks to protocols left over from decades of one-party rule, which ended in 1992. For example, all key government positions - from district commissioners to judges - are still directly appointed by the president, and since 2015 Magufuli has been accused of leaning on these protocols to his benefit. Plucked from the relative obscurity of the Ministry of Works, Magufuli made CCM frontrunner in 2015, thanks to his scrupulous reputation and a zealous work ethic that earned him the nickname "The Bulldozer". He has applied this zeal to grand projects such as the Steigler Gorge Dam and in rooting out civil service corruption, as well as clamping down on critics of the party line. While many Tanzanians agree that his flagship infrastructural projects are desperately overdue, there has been an alarming decline in civic freedoms since he took office. "The [government's] regressive policies and actions have stifled the media, sown fear among civil society, and restricted the playing field for political parties in the lead-up to [2020] elections," Oryem Nyeko, Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch, said in a report last month. "With only a year to go, this government needs to reverse these patterns of abuse and demonstrate a genuine commitment to the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly as protected in the constitution and under human rights treaties to which Tanzania is a state party." New laws forcing media companies to periodically reapply for operating licences have quashed critical voices in local media, while legislation restricting political activity has frustrated activists and tied up opposition leaders in court cases facing charges such as sedition. Paget believes this has pushed the opposition back to the grassroots, raising the stakes in Sunday's election. "Authoritarian measures have driven Chadema to organise on the ground, the one place they can still operate," he said. Yet as Msonga points out, opposition parties could endanger this final refuge by refusing to take part in Sunday's vote. "The only thing they will achieve is in sending a message to the public and perhaps to the international community that political competition in Tanzania faces various challenges, especially on the grounds of transparency, freedom and justice," he said. "Decision-makers will become far removed from ordinary people and they will likely lose their support, especially in the rural areas." Indeed, some party members have announced they intend to defy the boycott, while the defection of Arusha's Chadema Mayor to CCM earlier this week exposed division among the party's elite. Although it is impossible to predict exactly how Sunday's election will unfold, there seem to be a few distinct possibilities. CCM candidates have been instructed to proceed as usual, meaning landslide victories are practically guaranteed - in the business capital Dar Es Salaam, only two of 576 voting stations will be open as CCM candidates stand unopposed in all the others. This means that the government, the opposition and the public at large will walk into the triple elections of 2020 blind as to a realistic measure of parties' popularity. Paget argues this will make next year's contests particularly vulnerable to manipulation. "If CCM were to win a landslide this weekend, it might make a similar result in 2020 seem more likely. "This in turn might make it more plausible for CCM to manipulate the 2020 election." Legality is another thorny issue. Multi-partyism is enshrined in Tanzania's constitution, and so a boycott which included all opposition parties could potentially lead to a constitutional crisis. Sarah Benedict, assistant lecturer at Dodoma's Local Government Training Institute, believes this would be difficult for the opposition to argue however, as in the government's view the candidates excluded themselves. "Non-participation doesn't affect the process. [Opposition candidates] still qualify for the election and the law recognises them as candidates." However, Tanzania's opposition parties have used boycotts to win concessions in the past. There is a small chance that CCM may concede, begin the exercise afresh and thus force the opposition to participate. Failing that, Chadema and its allies will embark on a protracted struggle against a formidable opponent as they gear up for next year's polls. | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/tanzania-hold-local-elections-opposition-boycott-191123052345878.html | Sat, 23 Nov 2019 07:40:32 GMT | 1,574,512,832 | 1,574,511,704 | politics | political dissent |
17,840 | aljazeera--2019-11-27--Amnesty: Egypt using 'sinister' secretive agency to crush dissent | 2019-11-27T00:00:00 | aljazeera | Amnesty: Egypt using 'sinister' secretive agency to crush dissent | Egypt's government is using a secretive security agency responsible for investigating national security threats to detain peaceful protesters, journalists and critics on false charges without trial, Amnesty International has said in a new report. The 60-page publication released on Wednesday detailed how Egypt's Supreme State Security Prosecution (SSSP) operates as a "sinister tool of repression", becoming increasingly central to President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's sweeping crackdown on dissent. "In Egypt today, the Supreme State Security Prosecution has stretched the definition of 'terrorism' to encompass peaceful protests, social media posts and legitimate political activities," said Philip Luther, Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa director. "The SSSP has become a central tool of repression whose primary goal appears to be arbitrarily detaining and intimidating critics, all in the name of counterterrorism," Luther said. The group's damning report documents the cases of scores of human rights defenders and critics of the government who have been brought before the SSSP between 2013 - when el-Sisi seized power in a military coup - and 2019. It has based its conclusions on more than 100 interviews and reviews of official court and police documents, medical records and videos as well as reports by NGOs and United Nations agencies. Of the 138 highlighted cases, Amnesty said 56 individuals were arrested for participating in protests or for statements they made on social media, while 76 were arrested based on their political or human rights activities or background, and six were accused of involvement in incidents of violence. The report also highlights the case of Al Jazeera journalist Mahmoud Hussein, who has been imprisoned without any formal charges in Egypt for more than 1,000 days. Hussein, an Egyptian national who works for the Al Jazeera Arabic television channel in Qatar, was arrested on arrival in Egypt on December 20, 2016, while on a personal visit to see his family. Amnesty said the SSSP is abusing its legal powers as a counterterrorism branch to stifle political dissent, with report author Hussein Baoumi saying "ridiculous" prosecutions have proliferated. "There's no judicial oversight. We're talking about a completely closed circuit," Baoumi said. "If these cases were referred to trial, people would be acquitted at once," as the state's accusations are based on confidential police reports, he noted. In September, Egyptian security forces carried out a harsh crackdown to stamp out small but rare anti-government protests. The SSSP played a critical role in sweeping up thousands of people on charges of "terrorism", the report said. The prosecution agency renews people's detentions for months and years without evidence, denying them access to lawyers and a fair chance to appeal, it added. Enforced disappearances were also highlighted in Amnesty's report, which documented 112 such cases for periods of up to 183 days by security forces. Amnesty said SSSP investigations into allegations of torture and enforced disappearance by the police intelligence division, amount to a whitewash. The SSSP routinely buries evidence of police abuse and gives credence to confessions extracted with torture, drawing on court documents and interviews with dozens of witnesses. Under el-Sisi, Egypt has seen a "meteoric rise" in cases of prosecution by SSSP, according to Amnesty. The report drew attention to the expansion of the branch's covert role since a court declared indefinite administrative detention unconstitutional in 2013. There was no immediate comment from the government on Amnesty's report, but authorities have repeatedly denied charges of violations or police brutality. Authorities say they are fighting "terrorism" and have accused rights groups of working with foreign entities to undermine the state. El-Sisi led the 2013 military's removal of Mohamed Morsi, the country's first democratically elected president, after his one-year rule sparked mass protests. Morsi, a member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, died in June after collapsing inside his soundproof glass cage while on trial in a Cairo courtroom. | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/amnesty-egypt-sinister-secretive-agency-crush-dissent-191127084624430.html | Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:19:23 GMT | 1,574,867,963 | 1,574,857,772 | politics | political dissent |
21,837 | bbc--2019-01-27--The enduring appeal of violent jihad | 2019-01-27T00:00:00 | bbc | The enduring appeal of violent jihad | The Islamic State group (IS) has lost its short-lived caliphate in the Middle East, with hundreds - possibly thousands - of would-be international jihadists stuck in limbo, and tempted to return home despite fears of arrest and imprisonment. Yet the scourge of violent jihad - where extremists attack those they perceive to be enemies of Islam - has not gone away. The hotel attack in Nairobi two weeks ago by the al-Qaeda-affiliated militant group al-Shabab was an uncomfortable reminder. Large swathes of north-west Africa are now vulnerable to attack by marauding jihadists. Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan remain ideal refuges for jihadists. So just what is the enduring appeal of violent jihad for certain people around the world? The decision to leave behind a normal, law-abiding life, often abandoning family and loved ones to embark on what is frequently a short, dangerous career is a personal one. Jihadist recruiters will play on the notion of victimhood, sacrifice and rallying to a higher cause in the name of religion. For nearly 20 years now the internet has been awash with gruesome propaganda videos, some portraying the collective suffering of Muslims in various parts of the world, others depicting revenge attacks and punishments inflicted on perceived enemies. These serve two purposes. The first is intended to arouse sympathy and even shame, that the viewer should be watching comfortably at home on his or her laptop while "your brothers and sisters are being murdered" - in say, Syria, Chechnya or the Palestinian Territories. Secondly, the revenge videos appeal particularly to those of a sadistic nature, often attracting those with a violent criminal record. Peer pressure can be the trigger that tips an individual over from being simply angry about events in the world to taking violent action. In Jordan I interviewed a convict in prison who had been persuaded by his best friend from school to come and join him in Syria with IS. He did, then regretted it, escaped back to Jordan and was then sentenced to five years in prison. Those who are especially vulnerable to recruitment are young men and women who have grown apart from their families or their societies. For them, belonging to a secret, illegal organisation that appears to value them can be an attractive alternative. Even if it ends with them being told to strap on a suicide vest and blow themselves up in a market place. There is a reason why the Middle East has long been a primary source of global jihadism. Corrupt, undemocratic and often oppressive regimes tend to drive peaceful political dissent underground. In the early 21st Century Syria has been the most glaring example of this. After nearly eight years of civil war, with Syria's President Bashar al-Assad largely victorious against the rebels, the vast numbers of citizens who have disappeared into his jails provide a source of recruitment for extremist groups. In Iraq, a country turned upside-down by the ill-fated US-led invasion of 2003, sectarian discrimination has played a major part in the rise of al-Qaida and then IS. For eight years the oppression of the Sunni minority by the Shia-led government was so profound that IS (a Sunni militancy) was able to present itself as "the protector of Iraq's Sunnis" and easily take over much of the country. It is widely predicted that IS will look to exploit any future grievances. Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia and the Sahel (Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mauritania) all contain large areas of ungoverned or conflict-riven space where jihadists have been able to recruit, train and plan attacks. In Afghanistan billions of dollars in international aid have failed to deliver the level of governance needed to stem the Taliban-led insurgency. Corruption is endemic and the police are seen by many as untrustworthy. The International Crisis Group (ICG) says state institutions there are so fragile, they are unable to "deliver basic services to the majority of the population". In remote, rural areas many Afghans prefer the draconian justice and rule meted out by the Taliban to that of the government. Desperate poverty, lack of employment opportunities and poor or absent governance have all combined to make the Sahel countries bordering the Sahara fertile ground for jihadist groups. Many recruits join up, not out of ideology, but simply because they see it as the only alternative to destitution. Recruiters for al-Qaida, IS, the Taliban and others have long been able to exploit religious obedience to draw young men and women into their ranks. Extremism expert Dr Erin Saltman says extremist groups often promote "a narrative of struggle, heroic sacrifice and spiritual obligation in order to establish legitimacy and connect with potential recruits". It is notable that after al-Shabab carried out its attack on the Nairobi hotel it gave as its justification the decision by President Trump to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the third most sacred site in Islam after Mecca and Medina. Jerusalem has been an emotional touchstone for many people in the Middle East and al-Shabab may be trying to broaden its appeal beyond Somalia. The ideology behind violent jihad is likely to endure for some time yet, even though it is not shared by the vast majority of peaceful Muslims around the world. Al-Qaeda has survived the death of Osama Bin Laden and still has its regional franchises in Asia and Africa. IS still has its followers, including in the UK, although since it is now deprived of a physical space to call its caliphate it may well struggle to attract recruits in such numbers. On a global scale, containing and reducing violent jihad will require more than just good intelligence and police work. It will require far better and fairer governance, removing the drivers that spur people towards the violence that ruins so many lives. | null | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-47000188 | 2019-01-27 00:01:59+00:00 | 1,548,565,319 | 1,567,550,652 | politics | political dissent |
22,762 | bbc--2019-02-12--Catalan rebellion trial puts Spains courts to the test | 2019-02-12T00:00:00 | bbc | Catalan 'rebellion' trial puts Spain's courts to the test | Writing from his prison cell, the former vice-president of Catalonia knows he is facing a potential 25 years in prison for rebellion. Oriol Junqueras is one of a dozen former political leaders facing trial over his region's independence bid in October 2017. Some stand accused of a violent uprising – one they say never happened. There are no apologies – Mr Junqueras insists on his innocence, telling the BBC that the "trial is an action against an ideology and against political dissent". "It's a judgement on democracy," he said, and one "which creates a dangerous precedent for all of Europe". Another defendant fears they will face a court stacked against them, with a "pre-determined outcome". But the Spanish government has defended the process, insisting the accused will get a fair trial - while the rest of the world watches. The 12 accused face charges including rebellion, sedition and the misuse of public funds for their part in the 2017 push for independence from Spain. A disputed referendum - in which a majority of those who took part backed independence - was held in the territory on 1 October 2017. A little more than three weeks later, the parliament in Barcelona voted to declare Catalonia an independent republic. Yet the referendum saw a low turnout, and had been declared illegal by Spain's Constitutional Court. Madrid stepped in to impose its rule on the region, and several Catalan leaders fled or were arrested. A year and a half later, the vote is still controversial. On Sunday, thousands took to the streets of Madrid to demonstrate their support for a united country ahead of the trial. And Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has come under pressure for his attempts at dialogue with the leadership in Catalonia. Prosecutors allege the accused - who include ex-ministers, the former speaker of the regional parliament and the leaders of pro-independence organisations - acted against Spain's constitution, which guarantees "the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation". All deny the charges against them. Mr Junqueras - the most senior member of the then Catalan government not to flee the country - said the trial was politically motivated. The former vice-president refutes the charge of rebellion, which Spanish law defines as a "violent, public uprising" to achieve goals such as "the independence of a part of the national territory". "Ours has been an extremely peaceful process and so these crimes are totally non-existent in our case. The only violence has been that applied by the National Police and Civil Guard on 1 October against voters who were trying to put a paper in a ballot box," he said. The Catalan government said more than 900 people were injured as police tried to seize ballot boxes and close polling stations. In November, more than 100 legal experts from across Spain signed an open letter (in Spanish) condemning the use of the charge of rebellion in the Catalan case. In an exclusive interview, Mr Sánchez, the former president of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC), said: "Even those who accuse us of rebellion don't believe it. Where was the uprising? It's a total farce." Mr Sánchez also accuses politicians in Madrid of trying to influence the trial. "The judges were chosen by the political parties to control it and impose a pre-determined outcome," he said. "Despite everything, they haven't accepted our objections. There is nothing more to say. It will be a trial with political objectives." The prime minister disagrees. Speaking on a visit to Strasbourg ahead of the start of the trial, he said that in Spain "individual rights, public freedoms and the rights of minorities are guaranteed and protected". The trial is expected to last around three months. A long witness list includes the Spanish prime minister at the time of the referendum, Mariano Rajoy. There are 12 defendants, nine of whom have already spent more than 10 months in prison awaiting the start of the trial. Among the most senior figures are: In December, Ms Forcadell appealed against her imprisonment to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. Amnesty International has called for the release of Jordi Sánchez and Jordi Cuixart, who have been in jail since 16 October 2017. Also facing trial are Joaquim Forn, former interior minister; Jordi Turull, former Catalan government spokesman; Raül Romeva, former external relations minister; Dolors Bassa, former labour minister; Josep Rull, former territorial minister; Carles Mundó, former justice minister; Meritxell Borràs, former governance minister; and Santi Vila, former business minister. | null | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47199288 | 2019-02-12 01:20:44+00:00 | 1,549,952,444 | 1,567,548,787 | politics | political dissent |
23,599 | bbc--2019-02-26--Saudi Arabia Crown Prince MBS takes charm offensive East | 2019-02-26T00:00:00 | bbc | Saudi Arabia: Crown Prince MBS takes charm offensive East | In the last few days it has appointed its first-ever female ambassador to its top diplomatic post - Washington DC - while its de facto leader, the controversial Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has just concluded a high-profile tour of Asia, discussing billions of dollars' worth of trade and investment deals in China, Pakistan and India. Less than five months have elapsed since the West recoiled in horror over the grisly, planned murder of Saudi journalist and critic Jamal Khashoggi inside Saudi Arabia's consulate in Istanbul. The CIA and most western intelligence agencies concluded that the crown prince, known by his initials MBS, was most likely behind the murder, something Saudi officials strongly deny. Previously feted in Western cities, MBS was largely shunned by the West at the recent G20 summit in Buenos Aires. He faces ongoing condemnation in the Western media, not just for the Khashoggi affair, but for locking up peaceful protesters, including women, and for pursuing a catastrophic war in Yemen. So what does he do? He turns eastwards, just as other Gulf Arab leaders did in 2011 following European criticism of autocratic practices in their region. He got a red-carpet welcome. In Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country now in dire financial difficulties, MBS dispensed Saudi largesse and was honoured with a 21-gun salute, an escort of fighter jets, and a gift of a gold-plated submachine gun. In India he was warmly greeted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and went on to discuss huge investment deals, primarily in the energy sector. And in China, Asia's emerging superpower, the crown prince held talks with President Xi Jinping and signed a $10bn (£7.6bn) refinery deal. Saudi royals do not travel alone. If you are the crown prince and de facto ruler, you take with you a vast entourage of 1,100 in several planes, occupying hundreds of hotel rooms, as well as a personal, portable gym. The entourage includes journalists from the state-controlled media who can then report back to the population how well their leader is being received. MBS's position inside Saudi Arabia was already considered secure even before this trip - there are no other serious contenders for the throne. But being warmly embraced in important Asian countries plays well to a Saudi audience and helps dispel the notion of him being a pariah in the wake of the Khashoggi murder. America though, will be a tougher nut to crack. It is no coincidence that the newly appointed Saudi ambassador to Washington is a woman. Princess Reema bint Bandar Al Saud is a successful businesswoman in her own right. She has also championed a greater role for Saudi women in society. But she will have to contend with a highly critical Congress, and US media that have reported extensively on the shortcomings in Saudi Arabia's human rights record. Her predecessor in the post, Prince Khalid bin Salman Al Saud, departed Washington in a hurry after the Khashoggi affair. He has been accused of complicity in the journalist's murder, which he denies, and was told not to return without a clear explanation of what happened. So where does all this leave Europe? In short, in a quandary. Saudi Arabia is Britain's biggest Middle East trading partner with up to 50,000 British jobs dependant on it. With its enormous oil wealth, the desert kingdom is a massive market for exporters and - controversially - a major buyer of British weaponry, something the opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn has promised to end. Relations with Britain and France are cooler, but neither has taken significant measures against Riyadh. Germany, however, has reacted to the Khashoggi killing with a freeze on arms exports, something that now threatens to disrupt the UK-Saudi defence relationship since parts of the Typhoon fighter jet are produced in Germany. Saudi Arabia's message to the West appears to be twofold. By drawing closer to big, important nations in Asia, it says: "We do have other friends around the world and they're happy to do business with us." By sending a young female ambassador to Washington, it says: "We know we have ground to make up so we are happy to listen to what you have to say." What matters to Saudi Arabia's critics though, is whether any of this will make any difference to the way in which all political dissent has been suppressed at home, something that continues to embarrass those Western governments doing business with Riyadh. | null | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-47361745 | 2019-02-26 00:57:48+00:00 | 1,551,160,668 | 1,567,547,261 | politics | political dissent |
74,836 | breitbart--2019-10-18--Venezuela Returns to Human Rights Council Month After U.N. Condemned Maduro | 2019-10-18T00:00:00 | breitbart | Venezuela Returns to Human Rights Council Month After U.N. Condemned Maduro | The rogue socialist regime of Venezuela won a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday, a month after the same council published a scathing report accusing dictator Nicolás Maduro of gross human rights abuses. Maduro is not the legitimate president of Venezuela; as per the Hugo Chávez-ratified constitution, the National Assembly removed Maduro as legitimate head of state in January, replacing him with current interim President Juan Guaidó. The United Nations has refused to recognize the laws of Venezuela and accept Guaidó’s representatives, opting to legitimize the Maduro regime, instead. Venezuela previously served on the Human Rights Council from 2013-2018. It will replace its colonizing authority, the Castro regime in Cuba, on the Council in 2020. Joining Venezuela at the Human Rights Council table will be Indonesia, where the government has failed to curb radical Islamic mobs; Libya and Mauritania, home to booming slave trades; and serial human rights violator Sudan.” The African countries won their seats uncontested. Venezuela was about to win its seat uncontested until Costa Rica, in an attempt to keep Venezuela off the council, threw its hat in the ring at the last minute. It was not enough, however, to block the council from voting Venezuela back into the fold, giving the Maduro regime a platform to defend its grievous human rights crimes. The new states will be replacing, among others, some of the most prolific human rights violators in the world, including China, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. They will be joining fellow crisis-stricken states Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Cameroon. Maduro loudly celebrated the return of Venezuela to the Council on Twitter. “Victory at the U.N.! With 105 votes in favor, Venezuela enters as a free and sovereign country that Human Rights Council of the United Nations,” Maduro wrote. “Above all the threats, our Bolivarian Peace Diplomacy and the free determination of peoples has triumphed. Long live the motherland!” The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which operates in tandem with the Human Rights Council, published an extensive report in September accusing Maduro of human rights atrocities, a report that appears not to have convinced the Council members who voted for Venezuela to have a stake in global human rights. “OHCHR’s findings detailed in this report point to an increasingly critical human rights situation since the protests began, with mounting levels of repression of political dissent by national security forces, and increasing stigmatization and persecution of people perceived as opposing the Government of President Maduro,” the report read. “Patterns of ill-treatment, in some cases amounting to torture, and serious violations of due process rights of persons detained in connection with the protests by Venezuelan authorities were also documented.” Former political prisoners in Venezuela have offered harrowing testimonies of their time in Maduro’s torture centers. Lorent Saleh, a former student democracy leader released in 2018, said in media interviews that he saw Maduro henchmen “crucifying” prisoners and often abused the prisoners psychologically by first urging them to assault each other, then torturing the ones who obeyed. Wuilly Arteaga, a violinist arrested for playing the Venezuelan national anthem at anti-socialist protests, said soldiers detained him in an armored vehicle and forced him to watch them rape a female protester. A recent NGO study revealed that the Venezuelan regime violently killed 1,500 children in 2018, most for attending protests, but some for being in the vicinity of protests and being mistaken for dissidents. The United States, which withdrew from the Human Rights Council in disgust last year, soundly condemned Venezuela’s return to the human rights body. “That one of the world’s worst human-rights abusers would be granted a seat on a body that is supposed to defend human rights is utterly appalling,” Kelly Craft, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said. “The people of Venezuela should rest assured that Maduro cannot hide behind the cloak of an illegitimate body like the Human Rights Council.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo similarly noted the U.N. OHCHR itself made the case for keeping Venezuela off of the council. “It is sadly no surprise that Maduro shamelessly sought a seat on the UN Human Rights Council in an effort to block any limit to his repressive control of the Venezuelan people,” Pompeo said in a statement. “What is truly tragic, however, is that other nations voted to give Maduro’s representative for Venezuela a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This is a harsh blow not just against the victims of the Venezuelan regime, but also against the cause of human rights around the world.” Pompeo accused the council of “shameless hypocrisy” in accepting Venezuela among its members, which “includes authoritarian governments with unambiguous and abhorrent human rights records, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela.” U.N. Watch, an organization that documents the United Nations’ corruption and defense of human rights abuses, launched a petition Thursday to expel Venezuela from the council, noting that new member Libya was expelled in 2011, amid the coup against dictator Muammar Qaddafi. “Venezuela’s Maduro regime has committed extrajudicial killings, torture, the jailing of political prisoners, acts to restrict freedom of expression and freedom of the press and political participation, violent suppression of peaceful demonstrations, and that it grants impunity for human rights abuses by state agents,” U.N. Watch noted. | Frances Martel | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/Ei-UfMts_DE/ | Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:27:17 +0000 | 1,571,419,637 | 1,571,438,465 | politics | political dissent |
75,316 | breitbart--2019-11-07--Report: Shutterstock Employees Fight Company's Decision to Censor Images for Chinese Government | 2019-11-07T00:00:00 | breitbart | Report: Shutterstock Employees Fight Company's Decision to Censor Images for Chinese Government | The stock image hosting website Shutterstock is reportedly coming under fire from employees who are angered by the company’s decision to willingly support communist China’s censorship by blocking searches that could offend the country’s government, such as blocking people from mainland China searching for “Taiwan flag.” The Intercept reports that the stock image hosting website Shutterstock is facing backlash from employees angered by the company’s decision to willingly support China’s censorship practices and block searches that could offend the country’s communist government. Shutterstock hosts a vast catalog of images, the rights to which can be purchased for public use and has turned itself into a firm generating $639 million-per-year and operating in more than 150 countries. But, in September, Shutterstock engineers were told to begin developing a search blacklist to wipe images associated with keywords forbidden by the Chinese government from query results. The new system reportedly went into effect last month and automatically blacklists the following terms from being displayed to anyone with a mainland Chinese IP address: “President Xi,” “Chairman Mao,” “Taiwan flag,” “dictator,” “yellow umbrella,” or “Chinese flag.” Any use of these words or variations of these terms will return no results. Shutterstock’s relationship with China dates back to 2014 when the firm struck a distribution deal with ZCool, a Chinese social network and portfolio website for artists. Shutterstock announced a $15 million investment in Zcool last year and noted that due to the partnerthsip: “Shutterstock’s content now powers large technology platforms in China such as Tencent Social Ads.” Shutterstock employee discussed the situation with The Intercept stating: “Yes, we’re a creative photo and video marketplace, but we are also an editorial news hub. Want to write a story about the protests in Hong Kong? They never existed. Want to write about Taiwan? It never existed. Xi Jinping is NOT a dictator because he specifically said so. This is dark shit.” Shutterstock employees have drafted a petition to end the censorship which can be seen below: We, the undersigned employees of Shutterstock, are calling upon the company to reject the demands of the Chinese government to suppress search results for politically sensitive topics for site users in China. While complying would allow the company to benefit from continued operation in China, we believe that any censorship would set a harmful precedent and have deleterious effects on our company, China and the world. By complying, we are enabling injustices, including the discrimination of the people of Hong Kong, the suppression of Chinese political dissent, and undermining the sovereignty of Taiwanese people. This first step of building search filters lays open the door to more types of discrimination in the future. We are proud of Shutterstock’s history of taking a stand on important topics like net neutrality, immigration policies, and antisemitism, among others. We recognize that the issue before us today has the potential to impact our revenue and growth in a way these other issues may not, and therefore by meeting the Chinese government’s demands, we would send the message that our commitment to our values is secondary to our commitment to our bottom line. That’s not who we are. Our opposition to content filtering is not just about China: we object to technologies that aid the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable, wherever they may be. Shutterstock’s own employees come from all over the world – many having experienced government oppression firsthand – and in taking on this project, we are letting them down. As such, we demand Shutterstock call an end to this project. Shutterstock is capable of being a leader for change. As employees and shareholders, we deserve to know what we’re building and we deserve a say in these significant decisions.” Shutter CEO Jon Oringer responded to the situation in a letter stating: On behalf of the Leadership Team, I want to provide an update to all employees about an important discussion going on in our Company regarding Shutterstock doing business in China. Some employees have expressed concern with the Company’s position, and we want to take this opportunity to clearly communicate that position to everyone. For context, since 2014, Shutterstock has been working with ZCool, a creative social network and artist platform in China, to distribute Shutterstock content to millions of people in the country. We also license directly to customers in China through our e-commerce site. The Chinese government has effectively mandated that — if we want to maintain a level of business in China — we must abide by local laws governing the distribution of certain content in mainland China. Based on available information, we have determined that certain search terms will not return image or footage results to customers in that region. We understand that some of our employees feel strongly about filtering content, particularly content that could be considered politically sensitive. A petition has been circulated asking the Company to refuse to comply with local requirements in China in order to do business there. First we want to say — we hear you. We respect your position and your passion, and want to thank you for sharing your views in a thoughtful and constructive way. We are pleased to see open discussion and debate on this topic. There can be no question that we support the ability of our employees to freely express their views on issues important to them. And we truly understand the concern. We want to assure you that we do not make business decisions lightly. Our decision to make our website available in China, like elsewhere in the world, is based on careful evaluation of all factors in order to provide maximum value across our networks — from employees to shareholders, customers to contributors, vendors to partners. At the end of the day, what does our brand stand for? We want to provide access to our content to everyone, everywhere. It is our mission to empower creativity and storytellers around the globe. We are also bound to local laws and therefore face a choice. Do we make the majority of our content available to China’s 1.3 billion citizens or do we take away their ability to access it entirely? We ultimately believe, consistent with our brand promise, it is more valuable for storytellers to have access to our collection to creatively and impactfully tell their stories. That is much more empowering and will better serve the people of China than the alternative. Additionally, we believe you are also asking for something more from our Company, which is to use our voice to make the world a better place, and we are doing that regularly. We are contributing to our global community through our involvement in a number of public policy and community initiatives that will not only make Shutterstock a stronger company, but will strengthen our communities, protect our employees, and deliver on our fundamental values. To drive more attention to these initiatives, we have created a page on The Lens where you can learn more about how to get involved in these initiatives, and also provide your feedback on other policy matters that are important for our business and our networks. We hope this message clarifies our position. We understand this is a difficult topic and perhaps we are not always going to agree on some issues — and that’s okay. As long as we continue to communicate openly and honestly with each other, we will advance our common goal of empowering creativity and helping professionals from all backgrounds and businesses of all sizes produce their best work with incredible content and innovative tools. Read more at the Intercept here. Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at [email protected] | Lucas Nolan | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/oDRd0vYbvpg/ | Thu, 07 Nov 2019 19:10:54 +0000 | 1,573,171,854 | 1,573,183,233 | politics | political dissent |
77,346 | breitbart--2019-12-12--Thailand Launches ‘Anti Fake News Center' to Crack Down on Critics | 2019-12-12T00:00:00 | breitbart | Thailand Launches ‘Anti Fake News Center' to Crack Down on Critics | Thailand’s new “Anti Fake News Center” concluded its first month of operations this week, to catcalls from critics who found its work product shoddy and primarily focused on suppressing criticism of the government. Human Rights Watch researcher Sunai Phasuk bluntly compared it to the “Ministry of Truth” in George Orwell’s dystopian classic 1984. Phasuk described operations like the Anti Fake News Center as “a hallmark of authoritarian regimes” and an effort to intimidate the Thai people by reminding them the state can “look into everything and everyone online and monitor their comments.” Phasuk, a persistent critic of both the Thai military junta – whose idea of “transitioning to civilian rule” involved installing the leader of the junta as the “civilian ruler” with elections in May – and the rise of “fake news” laws across Asia, was quoted by Coconuts Bangkok in a review that trounced the Thai Anti Fake News Center as a ramshackle operation with a crude website, loads of cut-and-paste articles about non-political health and consumer products issues, and a few bits of original reporting on political issues that tend to strongly favor the government. Amusingly, calls to the Center’s posted hotline numbers occasionally connect to anonymous bureaucrats who did not realize they were listed as contacts on the website. According to the representatives who did know they were working for the Anti Fake News Center, the center gets over 9,000 tips about fake news each day, discards over 90 percent of them as unworthy of investigation, and then ostensibly coordinates with other agencies of the Thai government to verify the accuracy of online posts. “The website is rudimentary and built on WordPress. It uses a ‘theme’ that only displays the nine most-recent entries in each category, meaning all the posts meant to inform the public are quickly lost in time, like tears in rain,” Coconuts Bangkok remarked, satirically quoting from Blade Runner to maintain the dystopian flavor of the article. When the Anti Fake News Center was launched in November, it was presented as a high-tech “war room” with dozens of technicians hunting down dubious websites and monitoring social media. Everyone involved claimed it would not be used to suppress political dissent, although they acknowledged it would carefully review news about government policies that affected “peace and order, good morals, and national security.” The Thai operation does seem to have debunked a few urban legends and online rumors during its month of operation, but much of its energy is devoted to signaling that “fake news” about the government will not be tolerated. No one has been prosecuted as a result of the center’s operations yet, although the minister in charge of the operation keeps making ominous statements that the situation could change. “Fake News” laws are often criticized for subjective enforcement and vague standards of what constitutes actionable falsehood. Phasuk warned before the Thai operation was launched that it was “likely to be a tool for censorship” because the junta “has focused exclusively on clamping down and punishing critics and dissidents even for comments made in good faith,” while largely ignoring “misinformation and online hate campaigns targeting pro-democracy activists and human rights defenders.” Voice of America News in October quoted analysts who noted Southeast Asia has some legitimate reasons to worry about false news reports and online propaganda touching off deadly violence between ethnic and religious groups, but also noted its governments are keenly interested in controlling political dissent and keeping their societies sealed away from “foreign influence.” | John Hayward | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/GsKYE3s-hWk/ | Thu, 12 Dec 2019 21:22:46 +0000 | 1,576,203,766 | 1,576,238,961 | politics | political dissent |
84,764 | cbsnews--2019-07-24--Push to grant protected status to Venezuelans fails in House | 2019-07-24T00:00:00 | cbsnews | Push to grant protected status to Venezuelans fails in House | A last-ditch bipartisan effort to grant undocumented Venezuelans temporary legal status died in the House on Tuesday after it failed to garner enough votes from Republicans, who were wary of creating a new version of an immigration initiative President Trump and hardliners in the administration have sought to wind down. The legislation — introduced by Florida Reps. Darren Soto, a Democrat, and Mario Díaz-Balart, a Republican — would allow Venezuelans living in the U.S. who have fled the country's repressive government and collapsing economy to qualify for a new Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. The bill's supporters pushed to suspend the rules of House and pass the bill before lawmakers left for their August recess. The maneuver, usually reserved for non-controversial bills, required the support of two-thirds of the House, meaning at least 55 Republicans would have needed to break ranks and vote for the measure. The move failed after only 37 Republican lawmakers joined the 230 Democrats voting in favor. "House Republican leadership voted no and brought a lot of their votes with them," Soto told CBS News. The Florida Democrat suggested that many of the House Republicans who have joined the president in harshly criticizing the leftist government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and its management of the crisis-stricken country are not matching their tough rhetoric with actions to help people who have fled the situation in Venezuela. "It's definitely inconsistent and the voters will determine whether it's hypocritical," Soto said. Soto called on House leadership to bring the measure to the floor for an up-or-down vote before Congress leaves town. He noted that regardless of whether another vote takes place this week or in September, the amount of Republican support in the House will be key to put pressure on the GOP-led Senate and ultimately, the White House. Although the administration has touted its tough stance against Maduro's government — and used the country's economic collapse as a way to denounce the pitfalls of socialist governance — it has not supported efforts to grant temporary protected status to Venezuelans living in the U.S. This week, the State Department's special representative to Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, told U.S. government-funded Voice of America that there were no current plans for a TPS designation for Venezuela. Citing court decisions blocking the administration from ending TPS programs for several countries in Latin America and Africa, the envoy suggested the administration is wary of making a new designation that it will not be able to end in the future. For months, the Trump administration has staged a concerted campaign to support the bid of National Assembly President Juan Guaidó to oust Maduro. In addition to being the first government to recognize Guaidó as Venezuela's legitimate interim president in late January, the administration has issued sanctions against top officials in the Maduro government and the largest state-owned oil company in the country. Despite these efforts — and the backing of dozens of governments, particularly in Latin America — Guaidó has failed to convince the Venezuelan military to join him in mounting a significant challenge to Maduro's government, which still enjoys some support in Venezuela, especially in poorer neighborhoods. In late April, Guaidó and his allies tried to organize an uprising, but failed to prompt any major defections among the country's sprawling military structure. The prolonged political and economic crisis in Venezuela — once considered one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America — has driven more than 4 million people to flee to neighboring South American nations like Colombia and Peru. Some have also arrived in the U.S. Most have fled because of the country's skyrocketing inflation and its widespread food and medicine shortages. Others have accused Maduro's government of persecuting them for engaging in political dissent. Earlier this month, the United Nations released a withering report in which it detailed thousands of extrajudicial killings as part of an effort by Maduro's administration aimed at "neutralizing, repressing and criminalizing political opponents and people critical of the government." | null | http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bipartisan-push-to-grant-temporary-protected-status-to-venezuelans-fails-in-house/ | 2019-07-24 01:25:02+00:00 | 1,563,945,902 | 1,567,535,951 | politics | political dissent |
105,619 | cnn--2019-07-01--Analysis Trumps North Korean gambit is already a political win | 2019-07-01T00:00:00 | cnn | Analysis: Trump's North Korean gambit is already a political win | Washington (CNN) Donald Trump's walk into North Korea can best be explained through the lens of the 2020 election. If history is to remember one of the most audacious photo ops in American diplomacy as anything more than a stunt, the President must now produce breakthroughs from his friendship with the brutal dictator Kim Jong Un. Yet even if that progress is slow to emerge, Trump can still chalk up a valuable political win that will underscore how his foreign policy is often directed by his electoral priorities. He can use his singular televised moment to bolster his claims to be a statesman and a peacemaker. And it's not just about winning the Nobel Prize that the President believes he deserves for forging an opening with one of the most despotic regimes in modern history. Trump also has a vital political interest in keeping alive the idea that he personally headed off war with North Korea and that historic progress is possible as he runs for reelection A spokesman for Democratic front-runner Joe Biden accused Trump of "coddling" dictators at the "expense of American national security." Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted that Trump should take North Korea's nuclear threat and its "crimes against humanity seriously." But politics is often shaped more by perception than reality. And the North Korean summit is an example of how Trump can use the office of the presidency to his own benefit ahead of 2020. He has every incentive to keep on engaging Kim perhaps even with an election year visit to the White House, even if the North Koreans refuse to give up their nuclear program. And Trump, by becoming the first sitting President to step into North Korea, also outdid his predecessors, some of whom simply climbed atop the border wall and peered over the other side into the isolated state. The stunning imagery that unfolded at the demilitarized zone between the rival Koreas -- the world's last Cold War border -- will shortly be making its way into Trump campaign ads. On that score alone, it's mission accomplished. But even the President acknowledges that without a significant follow up, his encounter with Kim will not realize its promise. "This was a very legendary, very historic day," Trump told reporters after meeting Kim. But he added: "It'll be even more historic if something comes out of it." For all his effusive praise of his own initiative and his odd friendship with Kim, Trump cannot point to fundamental changes in North Korean behavior that are at the root of the standoff. Though it has suspended nuclear and long-range missile tests, US intelligence and analysts believe that the North is still manufacturing the materials needed to add to its already considerable nuclear arsenal. "It is positive, certainly that after four months of little to no contact between North Korea and the Americans that they are in touch again," said Jean Lee, director of the Center for Korean History and Public Policy at the Wilson Center. "I don't know — this is a risky move," Lee said on CNN. Critics of Trump's approach argue that he has already ceded huge propaganda concessions to Kim by agreeing to repeated meetings without securing even an inventory of North Korean weapons that will be the first step to a genuine diplomatic process. They believe that Kim is merely exploiting the President's vanity and desperation for personal political successes to win international acceptance. Trump has certainly legitimized a man who presides over a horrific regime that maintains concentration camps, crushes individual freedoms, exists in a cult of personality and sometimes executes his opponents. But no other President in recent years has managed to make irreversible progress toward eliminating North Korea's nuclear program. It would also expose the Trump White House to accusations of hypocrisy, since the President pulled out of a similar deal with Iran negotiated by the Obama administration. In a cycle of escalation that followed the President's withdrawal, Iran's state-run IRNA news outlet said Monday that Tehran's stockpiles of low enriched uranium now exceeded the 300 kilogram limit set by the deal. There is an argument that Trump's radically different approach is worth a try even if there is no indication yet that Kim is sincere about handing over weapons which are the ultimate guarantee of his regime's capacity to stay in power. Foreign policy traditionalists argue that meetings with Kim should be the last step on the diplomatic process — to formally endorse an agreement, not the first step. As it stands, Kim and Trump agreed to task lower level officials to reopen talks that have yet to progress despite the previous summits. North Koreans are notoriously formidable negotiating partners who typically push for US concessions to get an agreement while balking at or cheating on their own commitments. The President argues that his decision to meet a leader from a state that has been technically in a state of war with the US for nearly 70 years is in itself a breakthrough. "This is, I think, really ... this is a historic moment, the fact that we're meeting," Trump told Kim on Sunday. There was a danger that after the failed Hanoi summit, Washington and Pyongyang could return to open confrontation and that the risk of war would again increase. So there are benefits to a personal connection between Trump and Kim, however distasteful it may appear. How the 2020 election could offer an opening in talks But symbolism does not mask the lack of real progress. In fact, the American side still does not have a good fix on whether Kim really is serious in giving up his nuclear weapons — or is simply trawling for concessions from the US. The North Koreans had similar steps in earlier diplomatic dances with US Presidents and not ultimately gone on to verifiably halt their nuclear programs. But this time, the political calendar and Trump's approach could give grounds for optimism. Kim, who has presided over a limited form of economic development inside North Korea, is under pressure to deliver improvements in the lives of his people — even if he has no intention of loosening his iron grip on political dissent. So he has an incentive to try to seek economic benefits or aid from the United States and wants punishing economic sanctions lifted — a potential opening for US negotiators. The North Koreans have also proven themselves to be shrewd students of US politics. Kim must realize that his chances of basking in this kind of legitimacy with a US President other than Trump are slim. So if he fears Trump could lose in 2020, he may reason the time may be ripe for a deal. And Trump wants nothing more than a big diplomatic breakthrough months before the election. | Stephen Collinson | http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/ndcXzcGtjyU/index.html | 2019-07-01 13:34:27+00:00 | 1,562,002,467 | 1,567,537,395 | politics | political dissent |
110,272 | cnsnews--2019-02-14--Rep Engel Venezuela is Not a Socialist Country Rep McCaul Crisis Highlights the Horrifying I | 2019-02-14T00:00:00 | cnsnews | Rep. Engel: ‘Venezuela is Not a Socialist Country’; Rep. McCaul: Crisis ‘Highlights the Horrifying Impact of Socialism’ | (CNSNews.com) – House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday dismissed as “a good soundbite” the notion that the crisis in Venezuela is evidence of the failure of socialism, arguing that Venezuela under Nicolas Maduro is not a socialist state but a “kleptocracy.” Ranking member Rep Michael McCaul (R-Texas) appeared to differ. While the crisis went beyond ideology alone, he said, it “highlights the horrifying impact of socialism.” “Those who continue to preach [socialism] or show sympathy do not understand its history and the abject suffering it has caused,” McCaul said. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), like his chairman, rejected the argument that socialism is to blame, pointing to policies pursued by liberal democracies in northern Europe. Chairing a hearing entitled “Venezuela at the crossroads,” Engel began by describing the crisis as “entirely man-made,” saying Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez had turned what was once one of the most prosperous countries in the Western hemisphere “off the edge of a cliff.” “The blame lies squarely with the crooked officials who have repressed the Venezuelan people for years – doing everything from throwing political opponents in jail to rigging elections to gunning down protestors in the street,” he said. “Now some consider it a good soundbite to say that Venezuela represents the failure of socialism,” Engel said. “But we should be honest that Venezuela is not a socialist country; it’s a kleptocracy – a kleptocracy. It’s a cruel and oppressive regime, pocketing every dollar it can even if it means that the country’s people are literally starving to death.” Minutes later, McCaul made clear his views, describing the regime in Caracas several times as a “socialist dictatorship.” “When Nicolas Maduro was handpicked by Hugo Chavez in 2013 it was clear that he would follow in his socialist dictatorship footsteps,” McCaul said. “Since that time Maduro’s policies, rampant corruption and violent crackdowns on peaceful, political dissent have turned Venezuela into a failed state.” McCaul cited soaring hyperinflation, food and medicine shortages, and U.N. estimates that up to three million Venezuelans have fled the country since 2014. “The current crisis highlights the horrifying impact of socialism,” he said. “Those who continue to preach or show sympathy do not understand its history and the abject suffering it has caused.” McCaul conceded that “the suffering of the Venezuelan people at the hands of the Maduro regime was not caused only by its ideology,” characterizing the regime as a narco-trafficking-linked “mafia state backed by U.S. adversaries like Cuba, Russia, China and Iran.” Later in the hearing, Sherman returned to the socialism theme. “There’s talk here of Venezuela being a socialist country,” he said. “I would say that various governments in Scandinavia have adopted policies of democratic socialism, and I don’t think that there’s anyone in this room who would call the Maduro regime democratic socialist.” In his State of the Union address last week, President Trump said Maduro’s “socialist policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair.” “Here in the United States, we are alarmed by the new calls to adopt socialism in our country,” he said. “Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.” The Democratic Socialists of America last November secured its first two members of the U.S. Congress – Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) Fellow freshmen Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) – a member of Engel’s committee who used her time in Wednesday’s hearing to launch a combative exchange with U.S. special representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams – claims not to be a socialist. Asked by a left-wing news program last week whether she considers herself to be a democratic socialist, she replied, “I consider myself a Democrat.” Last month, Omar characterized the Trump administration’s recognition of Venezuela’s National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó as interim president as “a U.S.-backed coup,” and then called U.S. sanctions on Venezuela’s oil sector “nothing more than economic sabotage designed to force regime change.” | Patrick Goodenough | https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/rep-engel-venezuela-not-socialist-country-rep-mccaul-crisis | 2019-02-14 09:20:34+00:00 | 1,550,154,034 | 1,567,548,505 | politics | political dissent |
114,634 | cnsnews--2019-08-23--Brent Bozell Jay-Z Sells Out for the NFL | 2019-08-23T00:00:00 | cnsnews | Brent Bozell: Jay-Z Sells Out for the NFL? | On the verge of a new season, the NFL is trying a new corporate self-defense crouch. Its goal is to counteract criticism from the left that the NFL is insensitive to the Black Lives Matter crowd that urged NFL stars to kneel in disrespect of the national anthem. Those protests, which dramatically drove down NFL ratings and game attendance, came to a stop only when President Donald Trump called out the millionaire ingrates. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell held a press event with gangsta rapper/mogul Jay-Z and announced Jay-Z's company Roc Nation will take the lead in selecting the NFL's live entertainment programming and advise on its "social justice" initiatives. Jay-Z, also known by his birth name, Shawn Carter, once backed Colin Kaepernick's crusade but now proclaims it's yesterday's news. "I think we're past kneeling," Jay-Z said. It wasn't hard to predict that the nation's enlightened — or, to use that obnoxious word, "woke" — sports writers were going to erupt volcanically over this deal. Jemele Hill, the sidelined ESPN lecturer, summed it up for The Atlantic: "Jay-Z has given the NFL exactly what it wanted: guilt-free access to black audiences, culture, entertainers, and influencers." Guilt is crucial for racial ambulance chasers. The man whose net worth tops the $1 billion mark by virtue of bad-boy anthems like "Big Pimpin'" is now the NFL's Uncle Tom, selling his soul at the company store, working for the Man. This is fun to watch. Our favorite leftist tantrum came from Hemal Jhaveri of USA Today under the headline "Jay-Z's partnership with the NFL is just another reminder that capitalism always wins." Wait a minute ... Jhaveri wrote this for USA Today, which is about as entrenched as a capitalist company and media power could be. Does that make her a toady? Jhaveri didn't protest that evil capitalists subverted social consciousness when Nike signed Kaepernick to a deal worth tens of millions of dollars to hush talk of its Asian labor practices. But this was unpardonable. "While Jay-Z's intentions may be good, this is about acknowledging the limits of how much progressive movements can achieve when they align themselves with entrenched systems of power." Memo to Jhaveri: There's a reason Woodstock 2 was canceled. The '60s are over. The lecture continued: "Free market capitalism works in many ways to control political dissent, but one of its most insidious forms is by making protest, the kind that requires real, significant sacrifice, into something that is not only unnecessary but feels beside the point." Capitalism is "controlling" dissent in the NFL's case by bending over backward to pander to the "social justice" crowd ... off the field. Football fans hate having the game ruined with political sideshows. And ESPN discovered fans don't want socialist sermonizing as a badgering interruption of their sports highlights. But the left never wants to leave the game of football alone. Athletes lecturing in press conferences or on cable TV isn't enough. They want to get in America's face and spur outrage on Sunday afternoon. They want to divide — and conquer. But they didn't. The Kaepernick side has been trounced, and they can't (and won't) acknowledge that the war is over, just like some leftists will never acknowledge that the fight over the Redskins' name is over. This all makes sense. The left demands we have a never-ending "conversation" about how everything that's ever caused America to succeed in the world is based on racist power structures. They can't stand the idea of listening to a rebuttal from the other side. L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. | L. Brent Bozell III, Tim Graham | https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/l-brent-bozell-iii/jay-z-sells-out-nfl | 2019-08-23 08:58:21+00:00 | 1,566,565,101 | 1,567,533,579 | politics | political dissent |
122,569 | crooksandliars--2019-03-21--Free Speech Champion Hannity Promotes Devin Nunes Speech-Squelching Lawsuit | 2019-03-21T00:00:00 | crooksandliars | 'Free Speech Champion' Hannity Promotes Devin Nunes' Speech-Squelching Lawsuit | Sean Hannity had another attack of amnesia Monday night as he “forgot” how much he hates the squelching of free speech and provided Trumper Devin Nunes with a friendly venue to promote his multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Twitter and some tweeters who have said mean things about him. It’s easy to laugh about Nunes’ suit – and, indeed, it should be a joke that Nunes has such thin skin he is suing an account called Devin Nunes’ Cow because it tweeted comments such as, “Devin’s boots are full of manure. He’s udder-ly worthless and its pasture time to move him to prison.” But what Nunes is up to is not at all funny. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake noted that the suit may very well be “just about exacting financial pain on outspoken opponents and making Twitter and others who would dare to run afoul of Nunes think twice.” If a parody account can be sued for $250 million, “then what about someone using their own voice and identity to attack Nunes or other Republicans?” In other words, a chilling effect to go with the actual squelching. “The legal merits of the case appear highly questionable at best,” Blake pointed out, but its “potential impact, not so much legally as from personal behavioral standpoint, shouldn’t be so casually dismissed.” But there could be legal consequences, too. The Post’s Deanna Paul wrote that Nunes may well be teeing up a legal change to U.S. libel laws, something that Donald Trump has longed for. Yet Nunes had the unmitigated gall to go on Hannity and pretend that his suit is designed to protect the First Amendment - even as he threatened more such suits to come: “This is the first of many,” Nunes said. “We’re actually going after Twitter first,” he added, suggesting that anyone who disses him anywhere is a potential target. “We have to hold all of these people accountable, because if we don't, our First Amendment rights are at stake here,” Nunes said with a straight face. Meaning, apparently, his widdle feewings might be too sensitive to speak if people are allowed to continue to criticize him. He also pretended to be acting in service to Americans of all political persuasions: “This is more than just conservatives. Every American should care about this if they care about the First Amendment.” Nunes was right about that, but not at all in the way he meant. Nunes’ suit also claims that Twitter has “shadow banned” him. “The fact of the matter is people could not see my tweets. … If you get emails from Twitter, it's constantly left-wing stuff, it's constantly fake news stuff.” Apparently, Nunes has never seen the right-wing attacks I get regularly. But before the discussion was over, Nunes made it clear that his real goal is to stifle criticism of his attempts to sabotage the Russia investigation. Hannity, the guy who likes to posture as some big defender of free speech, didn’t seem to have a problem with anything Nunes said. Sure, Hannity expressed a wee bit of skepticism early on, saying to Nunes, “You do have a high bar. We all need that, because if you are a public figure, you need actual malice and what's known as a reckless disregard for the truth, or else I would sue people every hour of every day.” But Hannity would probably rather die than fail to support another Trump foot soldier. He closed the discussion by giving Nunes a stamp of approval: “Wow! We're going to follow this very closely. I think there is a - there's a lot to this story. A lot more than maybe meet the eye on its surface.” Watch Nunes threaten the right to political dissent below, from the March 19, 2019 Hannity. Sadly, the Twitter account for Devin Nunes’ Mom seems to have been suspended. But Devin Nunes’ Cow is still going strong and has surpassed the number of followers Nunes has. (Transcript excerpts via Fox News) Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/hannity_helps_nunes_promote_speech_quelching_la... | News Hound Ellen | https://crooksandliars.com/2019/03/free-speech-champion-hannity-promotes | 2019-03-21 13:00:01+00:00 | 1,553,187,601 | 1,567,545,318 | politics | political dissent |
122,725 | crooksandliars--2019-04-06--Trump Isnt The First President To Try And Close The Border | 2019-04-06T00:00:00 | crooksandliars | Trump Isn't The First President To Try And Close The Border | Just a week ago, President Donald Trump appeared poised to take the drastic step of closing the U.S.-Mexico border to both trade and travel. He said he wanted to stop the flood of Central American migrants entering the United States but also punish Mexico for failing to do so. But on April 4, the president backpedaled and instead gave Mexico a year to stop the flow of drugs across the border. If that didn’t happen, he threatened, auto tariffs would be imposed – and the president suggested he might still close the border if that didn’t work. If Trump ever follows through on his threat and puts up a closed sign at the southern border, it wouldn’t be the first time. Twice in the last half-century the U.S. has tried to use the border to force Mexico to bend to America’s will. The ruse failed both times. I studied these incidents while researching for a book on the origins of U.S. drug control policies and militarized policing techniques in Mexico from the 1960s to the 1990s. The history suggests that threats of border closure may be politically useful but are never a real answer to human tragedy. In 1969, President Richard Nixon launched Operation Intercept in hopes of forcing Mexico to collaborate more fully with his administration’s policies to stop the flow of drugs – one of his campaign promises. Although it technically wasn’t a full border closure, it required customs agents to search every car, truck and bus entering the United States. This caused long delays and a significant drop in economic activity in both countries. Border businesses and politicians begged Nixon to end Operation Intercept. Meanwhile, Mexican leaders paid lip service to U.S. demands, based on my archival research. They highlighted the progress they had already made in their anti-drug operations and vowed to “continue with increasing intensity.” Mexico even said it was willing to accept American anti-drug aid – such as aircraft and sophisticated weaponry – in order to help the Nixon administration fight its drug war. In the end, however, nothing substantial changed. The border reopened after three weeks. The incident did, however, teach Mexican leaders how to appease similar American demands in the future by using the right “war on drugs” rhetoric. But in practice, drug control was never a top priority of the Mexican government. And Mexico even used American anti-drug policies to its own advantage. For example, in the 1970s, the country received U.S. financial aid to stem the flow of drugs. It used at least some of the money to suppress domestic political dissent instead. The war on drugs also inspired President Ronald Reagan’s partial border closure in 1985. Aptly named Operation Intercept II, it suffered a similar fate. The Mexican authorities were unable to find a kidnapped Drug Enforcement Administration agent, and the White House once again decided to use the border to force them into more vigorous action, closing nine checkpoints. Ordinary Mexicans saw this border closure as yet another form of “Yankee imperialism.” They wondered how the disappearance of one agent could cause such an uproar when hundreds of Mexicans had been killed as a result of our “war on drugs.” The abducted agent was later found dead. Although the border was reopened within a matter of days, once again, the shutdown severely hurt the border economy – as well as relations between the two countries. Both versions of Operation Intercept were severely disruptive while failing to motivate any meaningful changes in Mexican policy on drug control, border security or anything else. Put another way, they showed that it is effectively impossible to close the U.S.-Mexico border, or to severely restrict traffic, for any extended period of time. The economic, social and cultural interdependence of Mexico and the United States is too deep. And U.S. national security depends on strong relations with Mexico. Trump’s warnings about an “invasion” of Hispanic rapists and gang members may appeal to his supporters. His threat to close the border may as well. But, as his advisers apparently pointed out to him, border closings do little more than damage economies and foster resentments. Immigration would dip but hardly stop. Mexico and the United States are allies, not enemies. The way I see it, pushing Mexico and other nations to do America’s bidding on highly complex problems like drug control and migration simply produces more antagonism while failing to achieve the desired results. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. | The Conversation | https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-isnt-first-president-try-and-close | 2019-04-06 02:00:01+00:00 | 1,554,530,401 | 1,567,543,741 | politics | political dissent |
125,775 | dailybeast--2019-11-15--Twitter Will Ban Politicians From Buying All Ads, In Stark Contrast With Facebook | 2019-11-15T00:00:00 | dailybeast | Twitter Will Ban Politicians From Buying All Ads, In Stark Contrast With Facebook | Twitter’s announcement that it would end political advertising in late October signaled a strong departure from Facebook’s own hands-off approach to political ads—a position that delighted Republicans and had the political left again slamming the world’s biggest social network for its failure to take misinformation seriously. Now, Twitter is breaking down the details of its sweeping ad-policy changes, a shift that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already declared will “degrade democracy” and deny Americans an “important tool” for political dissent. On a call detailing the changes, which will kick in on Nov. 22, Twitter Legal, Policy and Trust & Safety Lead Vijaya Gadde explained that the new policy “addresses a lot of the risks that come with political advertising.” “We’re moving really quickly here because we believe the timing is urgent,” Gadde said, citing upcoming elections and the risks posed by political misinformation. Twitter’s new rules take a hard line, prohibiting the paid promotion of political content, which it defines broadly, across the board. The company will also no longer accept ads by government officials, political parties, candidates, social welfare organizations, and PACs or Super PACs, regardless of content. The platform defines political content as anything that “references a candidate, political party, elected or appointed government official, election, referendum, ballot measure, legislation, regulation, directive, or judicial outcome.” “We have made this decision based on our belief that political message reach should be earned, not bought,” a Twitter rep stated in the announcement. The platform’s issue-based ad policy—a historically gray area for social-media companies—will also see some key changes to limit microtargeting. Twitter will no longer allow issue-based ads that target zip codes and political affiliation, and it will also disable its tool that allows issue-based ads to reach “tailored audiences” as well. Those changes are designed to address what Twitter VP of Trust & Safety Del Harvey calls “super siloed” conversations that arise when advertisers target hyper-specific audiences that might be more vulnerable to forms of misinformation. Anyone who wants to run issue-based ads will need to go through an existing advertiser certification process, a tool that will allow the company to track advertisers and enforce its new rules. In likely the murkiest zone of its new policy, Twitter will limit issue and cause-based ads that “drive political, judicial, legislative, or regulatory outcomes” but allow ads that encourage conversations that align with an advertiser’s “publicly stated values.” To prevent a loophole for political figures, Twitter will disallow issue-based ads that promote or reference anything that falls under its definition of political content, including candidates, legislation, and political parties. News publishers will still be allowed to run ads promoting their own “fact-based” political reporting—another major gray area—but political op-eds and endorsements won’t fly. In a series of tweets first announcing the policy changes, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey pushed back against Mark Zuckeberg’s own characterization of political ads as a form of speech that deserves to be protected. “This isn’t about free expression,” Dorsey said. “This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address.” The company acknowledged that it will refine its policy changes over time to limit loopholes, adding that it plans to be “aggressive” in catching anyone who tries to game the system. Even with inevitable problems, Twitter’s reflective approach to political ads couldn’t be more different than Facebook’s declared “anything goes” strategy. “We are absolutely going to make mistakes here,” Harvey said. “We believe it is far better for us to start trying to get this right… than have a solution from every potential way people will try to game this.” | Taylor Hatmaker | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thedailybeast/articles/~3/-OgpN6ycn4k/twitter-will-ban-politicians-from-buying-all-ads-in-stark-contrast-with-facebook | Fri, 15 Nov 2019 18:28:39 GMT | 1,573,860,519 | 1,573,862,668 | politics | political dissent |
126,113 | dailybeast--2019-12-02--Here’s Why the Rejection Rate for Asylum Seekers Has Exploded in America’s Largest Immigration Court | 2019-12-02T00:00:00 | dailybeast | Here’s Why the Rejection Rate for Asylum Seekers Has Exploded in America’s Largest Immigration Court in NYC | The rate of asylum petitions denied in New York City’s busy immigration court has shot up about 17 times times faster than in the rest of the country during the Trump administration’s crackdown—and still Ana was there, a round-faced Honduran woman with a black scarf wrapped turban-like over her hair, a look of fright crossing her dark eyes as the judge asked if she faced danger in her home country. Her eyes darted over to her helper, a Manhattan lighting designer with New Sanctuary Coalition volunteers to offer moral support—she couldn’t find a lawyer to take her case for free. Then Ana turned back to the judge, or rather, to the video screen that beamed him in from Virginia, and whispered to the court interpreter in Spanish: “My spouse and my son were killed.” Tears welled in her eyes as she said a notorious transnational gang had carried out the slaying. “Yes we were receiving threats from them,” she added. And that was why, months before her husband and son were slain, she and her 5-year-old daughter had come “through the river,” entering the United States near Piedras Negras, Mexico. After ruling that she was deportable, the judge gave Ana—The Daily Beast is withholding her real name because of the danger she faces in Honduras—three months to submit a claim for asylum, a possible defense against her removal. “You should start working on that,” the judge told her. As she left the courtroom, Ana hugged the volunteer who’d accompanied her, Joan Racho-Jansen. New York’s immigration court has long been the asylum capital; it has made two out of every five of the nation’s grants since 2001, while handling a quarter of the caseload. With approval of 55 percent of the petitions in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, it still grants a greater percentage of asylum requests than any other courts except San Francisco and Guam. But New York’s golden door is slamming shut for far more asylum seekers than in the past, especially for women like Ana. The asylum denial rate in the New York City immigration court rose from 15 percent in fiscal year 2016, the last full year of the Obama administration, to 44 percent in fiscal year 2019, which ended Sept. 30. The rest of the country, excluding New York, has been relatively stable, with denials going from 69 percent to 74 percent. That is, the rate of denials in the rest of the country increased by one-ninth, but in New York they almost trebled. There are other courts where the rate of denials has shot up sharply over the same period: Newark, New Jersey (168 percent); Boston (147 percent); Philadelphia (118 percent). But because of the volume of its caseload, what’s happening in New York is driving the national trend against asylum. For now, in sheer numbers, New York judges still granted more asylum requests over the last year than those in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Arlington, Virginia, the next three largest courts, combined. An analysis of federal data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University and interviews with former immigration judges, lawyers, immigrant advocates and experts finds multiple reasons for the sharp shift in the nation’s largest immigration court as compared to the rest of the country: —Many more migrants are coming to the New York court from Mexico and the “Northern Triangle” of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, and the judges have been far more likely to deny them asylum than in the past: from two out of five cases in the 2016 fiscal year to four out of five cases in the 2019 fiscal year. —Many veteran New York judges retired, and most of the replacements have a prosecutorial, military, or immigration enforcement background. In the past, appointments were more mixed between former prosecutors and immigrant defenders. Immigration judges are appointed by the U.S. attorney general and work for the Justice Department, not the federal court system. —All the judges are under heavier pressure from their Justice Department superiors to process cases more quickly, which gives asylum applicants little time to gather witnesses and supporting documents such as police reports. New judges, who are on two years of probation, are under particular pressure because numerical “benchmarks” for completing cases are a critical factor in employee evaluations. “You have a huge number of new hires in New York,” said Jeffrey Chase, a former New York immigration judge. “The new hires are mostly being chosen because they were former prosecutors. They’re normally of the background that this administration thinks will be statistically more likely to deny cases.” Judge Jeffrey L. Menkin, who presided in Ana’s case via video hookup, began hearing cases in March. He is based in Falls Church, Virginia, the home of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that runs the immigration courts. He’d been a Justice Department lawyer since 1991, including the previous 12 years as senior counsel for national security for the Office of Immigration Litigation. Menkin can see only a portion of his New York courtroom on his video feed and as a result, he didn’t realize a Daily Beast reporter was present to watch him conduct an asylum hearing for a Guatemalan woman—we’ll call her Gloria—and her three young children, who were not present. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took Gloria into custody at the Mexican border in March. Released on bond, she made her way to New York and had an initial immigration court hearing on June 26, one of many cases on a crowded master calendar. She was scheduled for an individual hearing four months later. At the hearing scheduled three months later on the merits of her case, she decided to present an asylum defense to deportation. Her lawyer asked for a continuance—that is, a new hearing date—while his client waited to receive documentation she’d already requested from Guatemala. The papers were on the way, Gloria said. Judges in such cases—those that the Department of Homeland Security designates as “family unit”—have been directed to complete them within a year, which is about 15 months faster than the average case resolved for the year ending Sept. 30. Down the hall, other types of cases were being scheduled for 2023. Menkin called the lawyer’s unexpected request for a continuance “nonsense” and “malarkey” and asked: “Are you and your client taking this case seriously?” The judge then asked if Gloria was requesting a case-closing “voluntary departure,” a return to her homeland that would leave open the option she could apply again to enter the United States. But Gloria had no intention of going back to Guatemala voluntarily. So Menkin looked to the government’s lawyer: “DHS, do you want to jump into this cesspool?” The government lawyer objected to granting what would have been the first continuance in Gloria’s case. And so Menkin refused to re-schedule, telling Gloria and her lawyer that they had to go ahead right then if they wanted to present an asylum defense. Gloria began testifying about threats and beatings that stretched back a decade, beginning after a failed romance with a man who was influential in local politics. Details are being withheld to protect her identity. She finally fled, she said, when extortionists threatened to hurt her children if she didn’t make monthly payoffs that were beyond her means. When she observed that she and her children were being followed, she decided to leave. After she said she had gone to police three times, Menkin took over the questioning. “Are you familiar with the contents of your own asylum application?” he asked, pointedly. Menkin said her asylum application stated she had gone to police once, rather than three times, as she’d just testified. Gloria explained that she had called in the information for the application to an assistant in her lawyer’s office, and didn’t know why it was taken down wrong. When her lawyer tried to explain, Menkin stopped him, raising his voice: “I did not ask you anything.” Later, Menkin came back to the discrepancy he’d picked up on. “I don’t know why,” Gloria responded. “All right, STOP,” Menkin told the woman, who cried through much of the two-hour hearing. Again, he sought to terminate the case, asking the DHS lawyer, “Do I have grounds to dismiss this now?” “I’m trying to be fair,” she replied. “We’re all trying to be fair,” Menkin said. And to be fair, it should be noted that since October 2018, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has been evaluating judges’ performance based on the numbers for case completions, timeliness of decisions and the percent of rulings upheld on appeal. “In essence, immigration judges are in the untenable position of being both sworn to uphold judicial standards of impartiality and fairness while being subject to what appears to be politically-motivated performance standards,” according to an American Bar Association report that assailed what it said were unprecedented “production quotas” for judges. The pressure is especially strong on judges who, like Menkin, are new hires. They are probationary employees for two years. Denise Slavin, a former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges who retired from the bench in April after 24 years of service, said the judges’ union had tried to talk EOIR Director James McHenry out of his quotas. “It’s basically like the same problem with putting quotas on police officers for tickets,” she said. “It suggests bias and skews the system to a certain extent.” Told of the details of Gloria’s hearing, she added, “That’s a prime example of the pressure these quotas have on cases… the pressure to get it done right away.” Kathryn Mattingly, spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Immigration Review, said by email that she couldn’t comment on individual cases, but that all cases are handled on their individual merits. “Each asylum case is unique, with its own set of facts, evidentiary factors, and circumstances,” she wrote. “Asylum cases typically include complex legal and factual issues.” She also said that Menkin could not comment: “Immigration judges do not give interviews.” It’s true that each asylum case has its own complex factors. But a 2016 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office took many of them into account—the asylum seeker’s nationality, language, legal representation, detention status, number of dependents—and determined that there are big differences in how the same “representative applicant” will be treated from one court and one judge to another. “We saw that grant rates varies very significantly across courts and also across judges,” said Rebecca Gambler, director of the GAO’s Homeland Security and Justice team. Some experts say that changes in the way the Justice Department has told immigration judges to interpret the law may be having an outsize effect in New York. Starting with Jeff Sessions, the Trump administration’s attorneys general have used their authority over immigration courts to narrow the judges’ discretion to grant asylum or, in their view, to clarify existing law. Asylum can be granted to those facing persecution because of “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” In June 2018, Sessions overturned a precedent that many judges in New York had been using to find that victims of domestic assaults or gang violence could be members of a “particular social group,” especially when police were complicit or helpless. Justice’s ruling in the Matter of A-B-, a Salvadoran woman, seems to have had a particular impact in New York. “Where there’s a question about a ‘particular social group,’ judges in other parts of the country may have taken a narrower view” already, said Lindsay Nash, a professor at Cardozo Law School in New York and co-director of the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic. Mauricio Noroña, a clinical teaching fellow at the same clinic, said new judges would be especially careful to follow the lead in the attorney general’s ruling. Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington and a former immigration judge in York, Pennsylvania, said Sessions’ decision in the Matter of A-B- would particularly affect Central American applicants, whose numbers have increased sharply in New York’s court. Data show that just 8.5 percent of the New York asylum cases were from Central America or Mexico in 2016; in the past year, 32.6 percent were. Arthur said a larger portion of the New York court’s asylum rulings in the past were for Chinese immigrants, whose arguments for refuge—persecution because of political dissent, religious belief, or the one-child policy—are fairly straightforward under U.S. asylum law. Although the number of Chinese applicants is still increasing, they have fallen as a portion of the New York caseload from 60 percent in 2016 to 28 percent in the past year. Sessions’ determination against A-B- is being challenged, and lawyers have been exploring other paths to asylum in the meantime. “It’s extremely complicated to prepare cases in this climate of changing law,” said Swapna Reddy, co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. But, she said, “That’s not to say advocates and judges can’t get back to that [higher] grant rate.” Gloria continued to cry; the DHS lawyer asked that she be given a tissue. The government lawyer’s cross-examination was comparatively gentle, but she questioned why Gloria didn’t move elsewhere within Guatemala and seek police protection. “He would find out before I even arrived at the police station,” she said of the man she feared. And, she added, “They’re always going to investigate and as for always being on the run, that’s no life for my kids.” In closing arguments, Gloria’s lawyer said his client had testified credibly and that she legitimately feared her tormentor’s influence. The DHS lawyer did not question Gloria’s credibility, but she said Gloria’s problem was personal, not political—that she could have moved to parts of Guatemala that were beyond the reach of the man’s political influence. Judge Menkin then declared a 20-minute recess so that he could compose his decision. In the interim, the lawyers discovered that a man sitting in one corner of the small courtroom was a reporter and, when the judge returned to the bench to rule, so informed him. Immigration court hearings are generally open to the public. There are special rules for asylum cases, however. The court’s practice manual says they “are open to the public unless the respondent expressly requests that they be closed.” “Oh, Jesus Christ!” Menkin shouted at the lawyers when he learned a reporter had been present for the hearing. “Don’t you people look around the room? What’s the matter with you?” After the judge expressed his alarm, the reporter was ejected with Gloria’s tearful assent, and so the basis for Judge Menkin’s ruling on Gloria’s asylum petition is not known. The outcome is, though: denied, 30 days to appeal. | Paul Moses, Tim Healy | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thedailybeast/articles/~3/h25viUzIXKc/heres-why-the-rejection-rate-for-asylum-seekers-has-exploded-in-americas-largest-immigration-court-in-nyc | Mon, 02 Dec 2019 09:59:12 GMT | 1,575,298,752 | 1,575,308,702 | politics | political dissent |
136,719 | dailysignal--2019-12-09--Let’s Have Some Historical Perspective on Presidential Misconduct | 2019-12-09T00:00:00 | dailysignal | Let’s Have Some Historical Perspective on Presidential Misconduct | Last week, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee trotted out a trio of dispassionate legal experts to explain why the impeachment of Donald Trump was justified. They were there to bring a veneer of gravitas and erudition to what’s been, until now, a highly partisan affair. But however smart people such as Michael Gerhardt, distinguished professor of constitutional law at University of North Carolina, might be, they aren’t immune from peddling partisan absurdities. Once Gerhardt argued that Trump’s conduct was “worse than the misconduct of any prior president,” we no longer had any intellectual obligation to take him seriously on the topic. Because, while I’m certainly not a distinguished professor, I am very confident that history began before 2016. Which means that, even if I concede Gerhardt’s framing of Trump’s actions—bribery, extortion, etc.—I can rattle off at least a dozen instances of presidential misconduct that are both morally and constitutionally “worse” than Trump’s blundering attempt to launch a self-serving Ukrainian investigation into his rival’s shady son. Let’s ignore for a moment that American presidents have owned their fellow human beings, and focus instead on the fact that in 1942, the president of the United States signed an executive order that allowed him to unilaterally intern around 120,000 Americans citizens of Japanese descent. Not only was the policy deliberately racist, it amounted to a full-bore attack on about half the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold. Such an attack was a specialty of FDR’s, despite the all the hagiographies written about his imperial presidency. Woodrow Wilson—who regularly said things like, “a Negro’s place is in the corn field”—didn’t merely re-segregate the civil service, personally firing more than a dozen supervisors for the sin of being black; he first pushed for, and then oversaw the enactment of, the Sedition Act. Wilson threw dissenters and political adversaries into prison, instructed the postmaster to refuse delivery of literature he deemed unpatriotic, and created an unconstitutional civilian police force that targeted Americans for political dissent. So, all of what Wilson did was “worse.” Sorry to say, but despite their great achievements, both John Adams and Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the latter without any congressional approval. Surely, deep down, even those who act as if Russian social media ads can topple the republic believe that denying citizens their fundamental rights of due process is a more serious offense than Trump’s rhetoric and actions. We can go on and on. Andrew Jackson ignored courts and laws and used his power to ethnically cleanse lands that he also sometimes happened to have a financial interest in. Teddy Roosevelt threatened American citizens with military intervention and abused his power in one way or another every day of his presidency. A reckless John Kennedy probably shared a mistress with a leading Chicago mobster, Sam Giancana, whom he met in the White House, setting himself up for blackmail or worse. Richard Nixon may have lost his job after obstructing an investigation into freelance GOP spying on his political opponents, but Lyndon Johnson skipped any pretense, and just asked the FBI and CIA to spy for him. CIA officials, illegally operating inside the United States, spied on the Goldwater campaign in 1964 and brought Johnson information he used to undermine his opponents at every turn. That’s “worse.” Johnson also lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, escalating the Vietnam War, and then kept lying about the war until he left office. I won’t even bother to catalogue the instance of other presidents misleading the public—either though lies of commission or lies of omission—in their efforts to precipitate or extend military conflicts, costing thousands of American lives. All of this misconduct is in every conceivable way “worse” than Trump’s actions. Bill Clinton couldn’t go a month without some shady and humiliating scandal. Now, maybe, Gerhardt doesn’t view incidents that weren’t investigated, prosecuted, or contemporaneously illegal as “misconduct.” That would be unfortunate. But even if so, referring to Trump’s actions as “worse than the misconduct of any prior president” would be terminally ahistorical. Of course, to argue, “Sure, he’s bad, but hey, there were worse presidents than Donald Trump!” is a terrible defense. Indeed, it is no defense at all. Impeachment should be decided on the facts of the case, and nothing else besides. But this isn’t a case in favor of Trump; it’s a plea for people to resist the compulsion to say insane things because they dislike this president. There is plenty to criticize without embracing hyperbole or losing all sense of historical perspective. | David Harsanyi | https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/12/09/lets-have-some-historical-perspective-on-presidential-misconduct/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lets-have-some-historical-perspective-on-presidential-misconduct | Mon, 09 Dec 2019 13:19:52 +0000 | 1,575,915,592 | 1,575,937,230 | politics | political dissent |
143,060 | drudgereport--2019-02-03--1984 Big Brother Scenario | 2019-02-03T00:00:00 | drudgereport | 1984 Big Brother Scenario... | (Bloomberg) -- Yoshua Bengio, a Canadian computer scientist who helped pioneer the techniques underpinning much of the current excitement around artificial intelligence, is worried about China’s use of AI for surveillance and political control. Bengio, who is also a co-founder of Montreal-based AI software company Element AI, said he was concerned about the technology he helped create being used for controlling people’s behavior and influencing their minds. "This is the 1984 Big Brother scenario," he said in an interview. "I think it’s becoming more and more scary." Bengio, a professor at the University of Montreal, is considered one of the three "godfathers" of deep learning, along with Yann LeCun and Geoff Hinton. It’s a technology that uses neural networks -- a kind of software loosely based on aspects of the human brain -- to make predictions based on data. It’s responsible for recent advances in facial recognition, natural language processing, translation, and recommendation algorithms. Deep learning requires a large amount of data to provide examples from which to learn -- but China, with its vast population and system of state record-keeping, has a lot of that. The Chinese government has begun using closed circuit video cameras and facial recognition to monitor what its citizens do in public, from jaywalking to engaging in political dissent. It’s also created a National Credit Information Sharing Platform, which is being used to blacklist rail and air passengers for "anti-social" behavior and is considering expanding uses of this system to other situations. "The use of your face to track you should be highly regulated," Bengio said. Bengio is not alone in his concern over China’s use-cases for AI. Billionaire George Soros recently used a speech at the World Economic Forum on Jan. 24, to highlight the risks the country’s use of AI poses to civil liberties and minority rights. Unlike some peers, Bengio, who heads the Montreal Institute for Learning Algorithms (Mila), has resisted the temptation to work for a large, advertising-driven technology company. He said responsible development of AI may require some large technology companies to change the way they operate. The amount of data large tech companies control is also a concern. He said the creation of data trusts -- non-profit entities or legal frameworks under which people own their data and allow it be used only for certain purposes -- might be one solution. If a trust held enough data, it could negotiate better terms with big tech companies that needed it, he said Thursday during a talk at Amnesty International U.K.’s office in London. Bengio said there were many ways deep learning software could be used for good. In Thursday’s talk, he unveiled a project he’s working on that uses AI to create augmented reality images depicting what people’s individual homes or neighborhoods might look like as the result of natural disasters spawned by climate change. But he said there was also a risk that the implementation of AI would cause job losses on a scale, and at a speed, that’s different from what’s happened with other technological innovations. He said governments needed to be proactive in thinking about these risks, including considering new ways to redistribute wealth within society. "Technology, as it gets more powerful, outside of other influences, just leads to more concentration of power and wealth," he said. "That is bad for democracy, that is bad for social justice, and the general well-being of most people." To contact the reporter on this story: Jeremy Kahn in London at [email protected] To contact the editors responsible for this story: Giles Turner at [email protected], Nate Lanxon For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com | null | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DrudgeReportFeed/~3/CAxkaL2GOso/deep-learning-godfather-bengio-worries-060100282.html | 2019-02-03 09:55:37+00:00 | 1,549,205,737 | 1,567,549,796 | politics | political dissent |
153,626 | drudgereport--2019-11-09--Germany's Online Crackdowns Inspire World's Dictators... | 2019-11-09T00:00:00 | drudgereport | Germany's Online Crackdowns Inspire World's Dictators... | The German government has responded to a recent spate of right-wing extremist violence with a commitment to enact tough new measures against online hate speech. These would expand Germany’s existing efforts along these lines—but seemingly without any consideration of the pernicious effects they’ve already had around the world. As our new report shows, Germany’s ongoing crackdown on online speech has been closely watched, and copied, by authoritarian governments eager to curb political dissent. The crackdown began after 2015, when Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to welcome more than 1 million refugees and asylum-seekers was greeted with a tidal wave of protest ranging from derision to visceral hatred on social media. The anger migrated from the online trolling and memes of keyboard warriors into actual attacks on refugee centers across Germany. Sensing a loss of control, then-Minister of Justice Heiko Maas wrote a stern letter to Facebook warning the tech giant that, despite the need for free speech, “The internet is not a lawless space where racist abuse and illegal posts can be allowed to flourish.” Maas demanded much stricter policing of content violating German law and Facebook’s own community standards. Facebook and other tech companies agreed to a voluntary deal under which they would remove content deemed illegal within 24 hours. Facebook’s removal rates failed to satisfy Mass, however, and he decided that legally binding measures were necessary to curb the flood of online hate. In 2017, the government introduced the Network Enforcement Act, which was adopted that same year and entered into force early 2018. The law imposes so-called intermediary liability for social media networks with over 2 million registered users. Any content, which is “manifestly unlawful” must be removed in a time frame of 24 hours. For all other “unlawful” content, the deadline is seven days. Failure to remove illegal content is punishable by fines of up to 50 million euros, about $55 million. The Network Enforcement Act’s detractors argue that it delegates to the private sector the role of cybercop with little transparency or due process. This encourages social media companies to over-implement by providing an incentive to err on the side of caution to avoid fines. While no new offenses were crafted for the law, some of the existing definitions of “unlawful” are problematic in themselves. This includes most glaringly Germany’s approach to the offense of “defamation of religions,” which violates international human rights standards. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees freedom of expression including the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers.” In 2018, the United Nations’ independent expert on freedom of expression expressed concern about the new act and other state-imposed models of intermediary liability as potential violations of Article 19. The Network Enforcement Act has woven itself into the landscape of internet governance at a time when many states worldwide are pushing for increasing regulation to fight online threats, both real and imagined. The critics of the law who warned that the act might legitimize a model of online censorship that can readily be adapted to serve the ends of authoritarian states have been proved right. Our new research shows that in less than two years the law has essentially been copy-pasted by governments around the world—most of which do not match Germany’s commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. Since the adoption of the new German law, at least 13 countries—in addition to the European Commission—have adopted or proposed models of intermediary liability broadly similar to the act’s matrix. According to Freedom House’s 2019 assessment of freedom on the internet, four of those countries are ranked as being “not free” (Venezuela, Vietnam, Russia and Belarus, Honduras is not surveyed but is ranked as “not free” on press freedom), five are ranked “partly free” (Kenya, India, Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines), and only three are ranked “free” (France, the United Kingdom, and Australia). With the exception of India, Kenya, Vietnam, and Australia, all these countries—as well as the European Commission—have explicitly referred to the Network Enforcement Act as an inspiration or justification for their models of intermediary liability. Moreover, several of these countries, including Venezuela, Vietnam, India, Russia, Malaysia, and Kenya, require intermediaries to remove vague categories of content that include “fake news,” “defamation of religions,” and “anti-government propaganda,” and many of them include overly broad definitions of hate speech that go much further than the German law. A Russian bill signed into law by President Vladimir Putin in March is a good example. It defines “unreliable information” as follows: “Socially significant information disseminated under the guise of reliable messages, which creates a threat to life and (/or) the health of citizens or property, the threat of mass disturbance of public order and (/or) public safety, or the threat of creating or impairing the proper operation of vital elements of transport or social infrastructure, credit institutions, energy facilities, industry or communications.” Any controversial opinion or criticism of the government could plausibly be covered by this overly broad and vague definition, which falls considerably short of international human rights standards. The explanatory report of the Russian bill explicitly referred to the Network Enforcement Act, and, responding to criticism, Kremlin representatives argued that false information “is regulated fairly harshly in many countries of the world including Europe. It is therefore of course necessary to do it in our country too.” This is a clear example of how Germany’s internet law provides cover for authoritarian states attempting to restrict online content. In May, Singapore adopted the wide-ranging Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill. The law includes a vague definition of “false statements of fact,” authorizing a minister to issue directions to internet intermediaries that must correct or disable content. Prior to the adoption of the bill, a preliminary report referenced the German law. What might constitute false statement of facts? A 2018 report by the policy forum of Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party highlighted a Human Rights Watch report critical of press freedom restrictions in Singapore as based on “deliberate falsehoods” used to “advocate political change.” In other words, the law may well be used to target human rights and civil society groups shining a critical light on the Singaporean government. However, both the Russian and Singaporean laws pale in comparison to the sweeping category of illegal content covered by Vietnam’s draconian Law on Cybersecurity, which passed in 2018 and prohibits: “propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” “distortion or defamation of the people’s administrative authorities,” “psychological warfare … causing division or hatred between [Vietnamese] ethnic groups, religions and people of all countries,” “insulting the [Vietnamese] people, the national flag, national emblem, national anthem, great men, leaders, famous people or national heroes,” and “invented or untruthful contents causing confusion amongst the Citizens.” It is also problematic that some states, including Russia and Vietnam, have established (or proposed to establish) governmental entities responsible for notifying and ordering intermediaries to remove illegal content without any independent review or complaint mechanisms. When you combine the sweeping nature of the prohibited content with the lack of meaningful oversight, it is clear that these laws will serve to further entrench tight government control over an already restrictive online sphere. Several of the laws or proposals we identified, including in the U.K. and India, don’t merely rely on a notification and takedown regime. They establish a “duty of care” requiring intermediaries to actively police and preventively remove illegal or undesirable content. Such a step may encourage automated moderation or filtering of user content through artificial intelligence and upload filters. This essentially poses the risk of reintroducing government-mandated prepublication censorship enforced by private tech companies. In the 18th and 19th centuries, European censors lost the struggle to keep up with clandestine publications and increasingly sophisticated printing presses. Consequently, pre-publication censorship all but died in the second half of the 19th century, only to be revamped and revitalized by totalitarianism in the 20th century. But in the digital age, censorship may ultimately be able to search and destroy undesirable content at a scale previously unimaginable. All these developments suggest that the Network Enforcement Act has provided an important impetus for, and legitimacy to, models of intermediary liability that violate freedom of expression as set out in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This development contributes significantly to the weakening of the already perilous state of internet freedom around the world. The adverse consequences of the Network Enforcement Act were certainly not intended by the German government. In conjunction with the German constitution and commitment to the rule of law, the act provides safeguards absent from the most draconian laws subsequently adopted by other states. Indeed, several of the countries that have mimicked the German law had already implemented severe restrictions of online freedom prior to the German initiative and would likely have tightened their grip irrespective of the Network Enforcement Act. Yet, the act seems to have provided several states with both the justification and the basic model for swift and decisive action. Unwittingly, Europe’s most influential country has contributed to the erosion of global internet freedom by developing and legitimizing a prototype of online censorship that can readily be adapted to serve the ends of authoritarian states. In a world where both online and offline speech is under systematic global attack, democracies have a special obligation to err on the side of free speech. Succumbing to the ever-present temptation of fighting illiberal ideas with illiberal laws is shortsighted and irresponsible. Once democracies cede the high ground, authoritarians will rush in, creating a regulatory race to the bottom. This entails severe and negative consequences for free speech, independent media, vibrant civil society, and political pluralism, without which authoritarianism cannot be defeated, nor democracy defended. | null | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DrudgeReportFeed/~3/wCPvWCiI83c/ | Sat, 09 Nov 2019 00:16:40 GMT | 1,573,276,600 | 1,573,258,713 | politics | political dissent |
155,848 | drudgereport--2019-12-11--'Social credit score': China set to roll out 'Orwellian' mass surveillance tool... | 2019-12-11T00:00:00 | drudgereport | 'Social credit score': China set to roll out 'Orwellian' mass surveillance tool... | China is developing a new high-tech system of mass surveillance and coercion aimed suppressing political dissent among its 1.4 billion people, while forcing American and Western businesses to conform to the government’s communist policies if they want to operate there. The system that critics call an Orwellian national-level control system has been dubbed the Social Credit System (SCS) and was set for launch in the coming year, although recent reports from China now say the rollout could be delayed until 2021. The massive system has been tested in several major Chinese cities and uses millions of surveillance cameras linked to supercomputers containing massive databases. Face and voice recognition technology then identifies and monitors people with the goal of controlling behaviors that range from dissident political activity to jaywalking, ostensibly as part of a financial credit monitoring system similar to those used in the West. Vice President Mike Pence called out the program in a recent speech, warning that China’s surveillance state is “growing more expansive and intrusive — often with the help of U.S. technology.” “By 2020, China’s rulers aim to implement an Orwellian system premised on controlling virtually every facet of human life — the so-called social credit score,” Mr. Pence said. “In the words of that program’s official blueprint, it will ‘allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven, while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.’” Facial recognition tools are widely used now in China bolstered by cameras deployed along streets, on buildings, in train stations, in classrooms and subway lines. With the emergence of next-generation 5G telecommunications technology, the reach of the surveillance networks is only expected to increase. As part of the stepped-up surveillance, the Chinese government announced this month that all who purchase SIM cards for mobile phones must first produce a facial recognition print. Pilot projects for the SCS have been under way for the past several years around China. The system has its kinks. A Western corporate executive leaving China faced a fine after an SCS search claimed she ran a traffic light and failed to pay the fine. A diplomatic source familiar with incident said the executive’s only crime was that her face appeared in a photograph that was part of bus advertisement and was captured by a surveillance camera when the bus ran the light. A gray market in China has started for people with bad social credit who can boost their scores by buying points online. China’s Alibaba online retailer has listed available social credit from people in rural areas. One Chinese national in the country who declined to be identified by name said those who fail the social credit system are called “laolai” — roughly translated as serial scoundrel or rascal. “It is quite an insulting term,” the person said. “In a totalitarian state, everyone is expected or forced to be a small, useful cog of the society. It happened now and then in the human history and it is happening now.” Another Chinese citizen said social media discussion of the SCS is being heavily censored. “Basically, as far as I know, the system connects everything and perhaps controls everything,” this person said. “For example, all my bank cards and payment accounts, my WeChat and other social media accounts, the accounts to buy train and air tickets, my phone number, and even my face ID, are connected to my identity card in China.” The official government website, creditchina.gov.cn, described the social credit system only as “an important part of the socialist market economic system and social governance system.” Outside China, the international variant is known as the “corporate social credit system” and is already been used by Beijing to coerce foreign businesses that fail to toe China’s political line on issues such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and Tibet. The official National Public Credit Information Center, reported last year that a total of 23 million people were “discredited” and barred from traveling by air or rail. Another 17.5 million Chinese could not purchase airline tickets, while 5.5 million were barred from buying high-speed train tickets — all due to poor social credit scores. Among those caught up in the SCS was Chinese actress Michelle Ye Xuan. She was unable to board a flight last March after information about a recent court case popped up on a computer screen at an airport checkpoint. She was found guilty of defaming her boyfriend’s ex-lover and failed to apologize. The ban was lifted after she apologized. Beijing euphemistically calls the program part of “social management” — a key element of communist ideology to shape and control society. In reality, critics say, the system is designed to preserve the power of the Communist Party of China, blacklisting and punishing anyone who is spotted by the system engaging in any unapproved activities. It’s marks a high-tech upgrade of traditional measures of control. In the past, the party relied on a system called “dongan” or personal file — millions of dossiers on citizens filled with personal information ranging from comments made in high school to remarks made to coworkers. The SCS is expected to take the dongan system to new levels of surveillance by the use of use of advanced technology. “At its core, the system is a tool to control individuals,’ companies’ and other entities’ behavior to conform with the policies, directions and will of the [Communist Party of China],” said Samantha Hoffman, a China specialist with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra. “It combines big-data analytic techniques with pervasive data collection to achieve that purpose.” The heart of the SCS is the more than 200 million video cameras that line streets and alleys, all networked to vast stores of personal data sifted by increasingly advanced data mining software. China plans to have as many as 626 million cameras deployed by next year. Low credit scores — whether due to political activity, financial impropriety or even minor offensives like smoking on a train — employment, can result in schooling and travel being blocked or restricted. Jeremy Daum, a Yale University expert on Chinese law, said the SCS is a surveillance apparatus that seeks to incentivize “trustworthy” and “untrustworthy” behavior. It’s very different from the work of credit reporting agencies in the U.S. and other free-market economies to monitor individual financial activity. Early pilot programs assigned a score using a point system, although Mr. Daum says it is not clear that the point system will be used in the final nationwide system. The figure of 800 or 900 points has been reported as a baseline for a person’s unblemished social credit — reflecting the Western credit reporting scoring system. One area already in use is a blacklist for those found guilty under China’s legal system. But Ms. Hoffman notes that in China the law is not the same as in democratic states. It is used by Communist Party to set expectations and communicate intentions. “By the party’s own definition, the law functions to ensure the party’s political security above everything else,” she said. Any person who fails to abide by a court judgement gets added to the blacklist and is restricted from buying airplane tickets, train tickets, private school education, entertainment, and other areas. Corporations on the list face limits on access to tightly controlled Chinese industries and also can be required to leap greater regulatory hurdles. “Like many other parts of China’s surveillance apparatus, it is very frightening,” Mr. Daum said on his blog China Law Translate. “Even as it delivers some safety and security to many Chinese, it is all too clear from watching Xinjiang or other areas of unrest, that these systems can be quickly weaponized for harsh control.” Earlier this year, the Communist Youth League offered an app called “Unictown” that gives users a credit score of between 350 and 800. Those with higher scores may receive preferential treatment, such as school tuition discounts or favorable treatment in seeking jobs. But the app is also being used by China’s leaders to spy on the political leanings and other activities of the users. Those who post anything critical of the party will lose points. Points can be gained from reading speeches by Chinese President Xi Jinping. The app and the massive amounts of data it collects are used by a government entity called China Youth Credit Management system. A U.S. congressional commission has studied the system and warns the Beijing government wants to control all speech and writing by deploying the increasingly advanced social management technology. Communist Party efforts “to control discourse within China’s borders also resulted in its deployment of increasingly advanced social management technology,” concluded the latest annual report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The government earlier this year introduced a mobile application called “Study Xi, Strong Country” that requires party and state employees to study daily Mr. Xi’s speeches and other ideological writings. “The application also enables digital surveillance because it is linked to users’ personal information, and metrics regarding users’ performance can be accessed by government offices, schools, and private companies to sanction employees and students who earn too few points,” the commission report said. The SCS is also being integrated into China’s system called “smart cities” — wired and internet-linked localities that will further facilitate mass surveillance. Beyond the borders China is finding markets abroad for the SCS in the form of exports of surveillance cameras; command and control centers; facial and license plate recognition technologies; data labs; intelligence fusion capabilities and portable rapid deployment systems for use by governments in emergencies. For example, Turkey’s mobile operator Turkcell in 2018 signed an agreement with China’s military-linked Huawei Technologies for smart city development that will allow authorities in Ankara to better track political dissent, Ms. Hoffman said. The overseas program was on display again in Beijing’s recent efforts to punish the National Basketball Association after a single NBA executive tweeted support for Hong Kong democracy protesters. A second example was China’s attempt earlier this year to coerce U.S. and European airlines into changing their online description of Taiwan as separate from China on company maps. The corporate SCS push drew the attention of 25 U.S. senators, who wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer on Dec. 2. The senators warned China will use the control system to coerce U.S. companies into “onshoring” research and development in China. That in turn could force the transfer of American technology and demands for support of Beijing’s policies as the price for market access. “Once the corporate SCS is fully operational, firms with scores below a certain state-determined threshold will face an interlocking series of sanctions across multiple Chinese government agencies, including restrictions on procurement and business licenses, less favorable interest rates, higher inspection rates, and even potential debarment from the Chinese market,” the lawmakers said. In September 2019, the Chinese Communist Party threatened to lower social credit scores for American companies unless the companies acknowledged Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan as part of China. “What our country witnessed recently with respect to the NBA over a tweet by one American team’s general manager is not an aberration, but the latest in a litany of attempts by China to deploy its state and economic power to bend American entities to its will,” the senators said. “It seems the SCS is designed, in part, to further and formalize this practice.” A recent report by the European Chamber of Commerce also warned the corporate SCS could be used to enhance the party’s ability to control the behavior of European businesses in China. “It is no exaggeration to say that the corporate SCS will be the most comprehensive system created by any government to impose a self-regulating marketplace, nor is it inconceivable that the corporate SCS could mean life or death for individual companies,” the chamber’s president, Joerg Wuttke, said. Not all experts agree about the threat. Wired magazine recently published an analysis of the system warning of “science fiction myths” prevalent in the West about it. China expert Paul Midler questions whether China’s rulers will adopt a system that lacks direct control by party officials. “This is a totalitarian regime. That’s the point really,” Mr. Midler says. “The CCP doesn’t need a ‘system’ of any kind. Their officials can do anything they want to any person at any time.” Mr. Midler added there is some debate on how much control the SCS will have. “Knowing the Chinese and this debate of ‘rule of law’ vs. ‘rule of man,’ they will never allow any system to take power away from actual communists,” he says. “Just as officials will take an arbitrary, draconian action and pin it on the law — ‘We have arrested him according to the law’ — they will one day flush people down a hole and say it wasn’t any one official who ruined the man, but that it was their automated system which led to his demise. This sort of capricious behavior is actually more frightening to me.” China’s social credit system, said Victor H. Mair, professor of Chinese language at the University of Pennsylvania, ” is stripping away individual identity and reducing people to mere ciphers.” | null | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DrudgeReportFeed/~3/6smenymkSPs/ | Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:16:37 GMT | 1,576,041,397 | 1,576,023,488 | politics | political dissent |
195,318 | fivethirtyeight--2019-10-03--Why Partisans Look At The Same Evidence On Ukraine And See Wildly Different Things | 2019-10-03T00:00:00 | fivethirtyeight | Why Partisans Look At The Same Evidence On Ukraine And See Wildly Different Things | One man’s vandalism is another’s political dissent. Back in 2012, researchers from Kent State University presented survey respondents a hypothetical news story: A partisan political group has been caught swiping yard signs and defacing campaign ads. Then they asked the respondents to rate both the seriousness of crime (which, technically, it is) and how justifiable it was to break the rules. The overwhelming response: It’s not that big of a deal and it is reasonably justifiable — at least, as long as the party affiliation of the group doing the vandalism matched the affiliation of the person answering the question. If the other guys are doing it, well, by jove, Geoffrey, that is just not how things are done. Drawing squiggly moustaches upon an opponent’s face is fine for me … but not for thee. Now a stolen yard sign is not exactly an impeachable offense. But there is a lesson here about the more serious scandal currently threatening to swamp President Trump. It is not your imagination — partisanship really does affect the way we understand evidence of a scandal and how we interpret that evidence. You can see that in the polls that came out this week, which show sharp divides between Democrats who overwhelmingly support impeachment proceedings and Republicans who overwhelmingly oppose them. You can also see it in the comments of politicians — while Democrats see obvious malfeasance in Trump’s pressuring the Ukrainian president to look into the Bidens, Republicans have called the conversation a “nothingburger” that Democrats are hyping as an excuse to reach a foregone conclusion. And while partisanship isn’t the only thing that creates those dueling realities, experts say it’s the biggest factor. And it probably matters more now than it did in the past. There are many different personal factors that affect how people evaluate the evidence for or against a political scandal and what they think should be done about it. Gender — both the politician’s and the voters’ — is one example, said Nick Vivyan, a politics professor at the U.K.’s Durham University. He’s found evidence that female voters have more of an interest in punishing female politicians’ who misbehave, compared to how those same voters treat men. Male voters are also more likely to treat male politicians more leniently than they treat female ones. (This is just one of many structural reinforcements that makes the glass ceiling of politics so hard for American women to crack through.) External social and political context also affect whether a scandal sticks and what impact it has. When Brendan Nyhan, professor of government at Dartmouth, studied Washington Post coverage of presidential scandals between 1977 and 2008, he found that controversies became news faster and were covered more extensively when presidents had lower approval ratings among opposition voters and when there was simply less happening in the news to distract the reporters. But while those things matter, Vivyan told me, it’s partisanship that is “the most obvious and often the most salient” factor at play. “Partisanship is the biggest predictor we have,” he said, of whether someone who looks at a set of facts will see an im?ment waiting to happen or just so much rotten fruit. And that effect has grown over time in the United States, as partisans of both parties dislike one another more and have stronger negative emotional reactions to the other side, said Eva Anduiza, professor of political science at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. This “affective polarization” is something that’s been measured by the American National Election Study’s “feelings thermometer” since the late 1970s. The survey asks respondents to rate their feelings about “Democrats” and “Republicans” on a 100-point scale and then compares how people rate the party they identify with vs. the one they don’t. Since 1980, our average feelings about “the other guys” have become significantly chilly — falling from around 50 to around 25 points on the 100-point scale. In fact, almost all the significant increase in affective polarization is due to an increased dislike of the other side and not, say, an increased preference for your own side. That kind of emotional partisanship matters for scandals because it increases the likelihood of motivated reasoning — basically upping our tendency to not want to hear things that contradict our previously held beliefs. In the case of politics, that means finding reasons why the other side’s scandals are a very big deal and/or finding reasons why our own preferred party’s scandals are not. “People who are strong partisans will tend to have the blinkers on,” said Elisabeth Gidengil, professor of political science at McGill University in Canada. “They’ll try to discount what’s happening and say it’s not that serious. All the parties do this.” And she does mean all. Gidengil has found evidence of this effect in Canadian politics. Anduiza has seen it in Spain. Vivyan in the U.K. If it’s happening in multiple countries to many different political parties, you might be forced to accept that it’s also something you and your fellow partisans might be doing right here in the good old US of A. There’s evidence political partisanship can make you more biased against others than racism does, at least in some circumstances. Nyhan even thinks this partisan affective polarization could be behind conflicting research that sometimes suggests the people who know the most about a controversial issue like climate change or a presidential scandal are more likely to dig in their heels and refuse to change their minds even in the face of new evidence. It’s not that knowing more details of a case makes you less willing to change your mind, he said. It’s more that the people who are the most affectively polarized to begin with also have the most reason to pay attention to the news. Maybe they know the details not because they’re doing thoughtful, unbiased observation, but because they’re keeping close track of the political ballgame and how their team scored points. Of course, if what you want to hear is that Democrats and Republicans could really join hands and sing together in the spirit of harmony and peace, then all of this is rather disheartening. After all, there are good reasons why some scandals should stick (and others should not), and partisan divides get in the way of finding that middle ground. But there is some good news. Researchers are finding that there are ways around strong partisan affective polarization — and they don’t even depend upon the two sides coming to an agreement on actual policy. In a 2019 study involving nearly 1,000 political partisans, “warm contact” between political leaders did more to reduce affective polarization and negative opinions about the other party than issue compromise. Maybe if the President wants out of impeachment, it’s time to invite Nancy Pelosi over for pie? | Maggie Koerth-Baker ([email protected]) | https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-partisans-look-at-the-same-evidence-on-ukraine-and-see-wildly-different-things/ | Thu, 03 Oct 2019 16:29:36 +0000 | 1,570,134,576 | 1,570,399,671 | politics | political dissent |
220,374 | freedombunker--2019-03-23--The Decline of American LiberalismSix Decades Later | 2019-03-23T00:00:00 | freedombunker | “The Decline of American Liberalism”—Six Decades Later | The Decline of American Liberalism was first published by Professor Arthur Ekirch in 1955 when the United States was in the throes of the Red Scare and its attendant oppressive environment of fear and intimidation of political dissent. Living through such an era would undoubtedly lead adherents of the classical liberalism espoused by the Founders and embodied in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights to a sense of profound pessimism over the then-current and future course of the republic. And Ekirch was nothing if not pessimistic. Therefore, it is useful and instructive to evaluate his thesis and how it has held up in light of events since its first publication over 50 years ago. To that end, the Independent Institute has republished The Decline with a foreword by one of the institute’s senior fellows, Robert Higgs, who writes that “the most striking thing is how well the book holds up after more than fifty years.” But does it, really? Essentially, Ekirch held that the greatest progress towards liberty and away from despotism in the West occurred during the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. This culminated with the establishment of a country whose Constitution and form of government were founded on the inviolability of the individual; a radical departure from the prevalent European model, which held that individual rights were subordinate to church and state. However, once the Constitution was ratified, it was all downhill from there, with an almost uninterrupted decline in liberty. Non-interventionism in foreign affairs and free-market capitalism were considered quaint anachronisms by the intelligentsia of both the right and left. Indeed, when the book was first written, there was woefully little cause for classical liberals to be optimistic. Practically the only organization left to keep the flame of liberty alive at the time was the one that regularly published The Freeman. The McCarthy hearings, which ruthlessly suppressed dissent by lies and innuendo, were in full swing, and the military-industrial complex was firmly entrenched. Non-interventionism in foreign affairs and free-market capitalism were considered quaint anachronisms by the intelligentsia of both the right and left. Nevertheless, there were important counter-trends that impeded the relentless march of statism, and there were significant advances in the cause of freedom that did not exist at the country’s founding. The triumph of Jefferson over the Federalists, Jacksonian democracy, the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the tremendous rise in standards of living and quality of life rooted in free-market principles were accomplishments that Americans in 1955 could point to with justifiable pride. Since that time, there has been something of a resurgence in the classical liberal ideal. In 1964, the first classical liberal in decades captured the presidential nomination of a major political party, culminating in the election of a president in 1980 who actually articulated, however unevenly, the Founders' vision. Popular protest of an unpopular war led to its end, along with an end to the military draft. At long last, the Civil Rights Movement provided economic and legal equity to black Americans. Whole industries have been deregulated from price controls, the Cold War ended with the good guys winning, and the coercive labor union movement has suffered a steep decline. Bailouts, taxpayer subsidies, unsustainable budget deficits, and the sheer size and growth of government are cause for great alarm. Thinks tanks and activist organizations at the state and national levels that promote and advocate economic and political liberty have proliferated to an extent that would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. And they are having an impact. So-called modern-day progressives have been put on the defensive and have to fight tenaciously for their big government agenda against an intellectual army of determined foes. In short, there has been a renaissance in American classical liberalism. Nevertheless, despite these recent causes for optimism, there have been disheartening setbacks. Bailouts, taxpayer subsidies, unsustainable budget deficits, the threat of a government takeover of healthcare, and the sheer size and growth of government are cause for great alarm. So in the final analysis, was and is Ekirch’s pessimistic view a valid one? For the most part, and at the time he wrote it, it was. But I would argue that he carried it too far, and events since then have to some extent discredited it. Besides, if we want to make the world over to the vision of the Founders, relentless pessimism is not going to motivate people to work for positive change. Optimism of the kind President Reagan offered the country is a far better strategy. The Founders’ acceptance of altruism, where self-interest is immoral and self-sacrifice the highest moral ideal, was the root cause for The Decline. The most disappointing aspect of The Decline is that it offered no reason for why it took place other than to agree with Jefferson’s observation that “[t]he natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” I would argue that the Founders’ acceptance of the morality of altruism, where self-interest is regarded as immoral and self-sacrifice is the highest moral ideal, was the root cause for the decline of American liberalism. Until classical liberalism embraces rational self-interest as the highest moral ideal and can build a society upon that foundation, then further decline will become the order of the day until, indeed, the well of freedom becomes almost completely dry. | Sean McBride | http://freedombunker.com/2019/03/23/the-decline-of-american-liberalism-six-decades-later/ | 2019-03-23 17:00:03+00:00 | 1,553,374,803 | 1,567,545,072 | politics | political dissent |
220,606 | freedombunker--2019-04-09--Nixon and Reagan Tried Closing the Border to Pressure MexicoHeres What Happened | 2019-04-09T00:00:00 | freedombunker | Nixon and Reagan Tried Closing the Border to Pressure Mexico—Here’s What Happened | Just a week ago, President Donald Trump appeared poised to take the drastic step of closing the U.S.-Mexico border to both trade and travel. He said he wanted to stop the flood of Central American migrants entering the United States but also punish Mexico for failing to do so. But on April 4, the president backpedaled and instead gave Mexico a year to stop the flow of drugs across the border. If that didn’t happen, he threatened, auto tariffs would be imposed—and the president suggested he might still close the border if that didn’t work. If Trump ever follows through on his threat and puts up a closed sign at the southern border, it wouldn’t be the first time. Twice in the last half-century, the U.S. has tried to use the border to force Mexico to bend to America’s will. The ruse failed both times. I studied these incidents while researching for a book on the origins of U.S. drug control policies and militarized policing techniques in Mexico from the 1960s to the 1990s. The history suggests that threats of border closure may be politically useful but are never a real answer to human tragedy. In 1969, President Richard Nixon launched Operation Intercept in hopes of forcing Mexico to collaborate more fully with his administration’s policies to stop the flow of drugs—one of his campaign promises. Although it technically wasn’t a full border closure, it required customs agents to search every car, truck, and bus entering the United States. This caused long delays and a significant drop in economic activity in both countries. Border businesses and politicians begged Nixon to end Operation Intercept. Meanwhile, Mexican leaders paid lip service to U.S. demands, based on my archival research. They highlighted the progress they had already made in their anti-drug operations and vowed to “continue with increasing intensity.” The incident did, however, teach Mexican leaders how to appease similar American demands in the future by using the right “War on Drugs” rhetoric. Mexico even said it was willing to accept American anti-drug aid—such as aircraft and sophisticated weaponry—in order to help the Nixon administration fight its drug war. In the end, however, nothing substantial changed. The border reopened after three weeks. The incident did, however, teach Mexican leaders how to appease similar American demands in the future by using the right “War on Drugs” rhetoric. But in practice, drug control was never a top priority of the Mexican government. And Mexico even used American anti-drug policies to its own advantage. For example, in the 1970s, the country received U.S. financial aid to stem the flow of drugs. It used at least some of the money to suppress domestic political dissent instead. The War on Drugs also inspired President Ronald Reagan’s partial border closure in 1985. Aptly named Operation Intercept II, it suffered a similar fate. The Mexican authorities were unable to find a kidnapped Drug Enforcement Administration agent, and the White House once again decided to use the border to force them into more vigorous action, closing nine checkpoints. Ordinary Mexicans saw this border closure as yet another form of “Yankee imperialism.” They wondered how the disappearance of one agent could cause such an uproar when hundreds of Mexicans had been killed as a result of our “War on Drugs.” The abducted agent was later found dead. Although the border was reopened within a matter of days, once again, the shutdown severely hurt the border economy—as well as relations between the two countries. Both versions of Operation Intercept were severely disruptive while failing to motivate any meaningful changes in Mexican policy on drug control, border security, or anything else. Put another way, they showed that it is effectively impossible to close the U.S.-Mexico border, or to severely restrict traffic, for any extended period of time. The economic, social, and cultural interdependence of Mexico and the United States is too deep. And U.S. national security depends on strong relations with Mexico. Pushing Mexico to do America’s bidding on complex problems like drug control and migration simply produces antagonism and fails. Trump’s warnings about an “invasion” of Hispanic rapists and gang members may appeal to his supporters. His threat to close the border may as well. But, as his advisers apparently pointed out to him, border closings do little more than damage economies and foster resentments. Immigration would dip but hardly stop. Mexico and the United States are allies, not enemies. The way I see it, pushing Mexico and other nations to do America’s bidding on highly complex problems like drug control and migration simply produces more antagonism while failing to achieve the desired results. This article is republished with permission from The Conversation. | Sean McBride | http://freedombunker.com/2019/04/09/nixon-and-reagan-tried-closing-the-border-to-pressure-mexico-heres-what-happened/ | 2019-04-09 17:00:23+00:00 | 1,554,843,623 | 1,567,543,403 | politics | political dissent |
225,559 | frontpagemagazine--2019-06-02--Pelosi That Drunk Video of Me Proves Facebook Enabled Russia | 2019-06-02T00:00:00 | frontpagemagazine | Pelosi: That Drunk Video of Me Proves Facebook Enabled Russia | Once again, the Dem elite demonstrate that their false claims of a Russian conspiracy are a lever for silencing political dissent and shutting down any speech they don't like. Slowed down videos of public figures have been around nearly as long as online video. There are countless videos like that of Trump. But somehow a video of Pelosi was a particular offense that has the media declaring a democratic emergency (a democratic emergency is when the Democrats want to shut down civil rights because they lost a presidential election) and [Pelosi intimidating Facebook](https://www.kqed.org/news/11750792/nancy- pelosi-doctored-videos-show-facebook-willing-enablers-of-russians-in-2016) with Russian conspiracy theories. > Trump shared one heavily edited video on Twitter, which was first featured on Fox News, accusing the speaker of "stammering" through a news conference. Pelosi said Facebook knows the videos are false and should take them down. > > "We have said all along, poor Facebook, they were unwittingly exploited by the Russians. I think wittingly, because right now they are putting up something that they know is false. I think it's wrong," she said. "I can take it ... But [Facebook is] lying to the public." > > Pelosi added, "I think they have proven — by not taking down something they know is false — that they were willing enablers of the Russian interference in our election." Is Facebook in the habit of taking down gag videos of politicians? Nope. The lip reading ones are already very popular. But Speaker Pelosi is using false claims of a Russian conspiracy to intimidate a company into taking down a video making fun of her. That is a democratic emergency. | Daniel Greenfield | https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/273901/pelosi-drunk-video-me-proves-facebook-enabled-daniel-greenfield | 2019-06-02 17:48:47+00:00 | 1,559,512,127 | 1,567,539,394 | politics | political dissent |
225,678 | frontpagemagazine--2019-06-30--Typhus Tourism Los Angeles Has Biggest Population Loss in America | 2019-06-30T00:00:00 | frontpagemagazine | Typhus Tourism: Los Angeles Has Biggest Population Loss in America | California has been the country's largest scale experiment as to what happens when a somewhat Republican state become a one-party socialist oligarchy in which there's less room for political dissent than in a vegan juice bar. In Los Angeles, Democrat rule led to a typhus outbreak. And people are [fleeing the area.](https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/06/26 /census-data-shows-thousands-more-moving-out-of-la-oc-than-moving-in/) > A breakdown of last year’s census numbers shows Orange County had 20,104 more people leave than move in, marking the 10th worst net out-migration among big counties in the U.S. L.A. County had 98,608 people leave, marking the biggest net loss in the U.S. > > Leaving is still going to cost you. According to one U-Haul store employee in Orange County, trucks going one-way out of state are in high demand. > > From Orange County to Phoenix, a 26 ft. truck is estimated to cost $1,465. The same truck going in the opposite direction is estimated to cost $101. That's what you call market signals. Typhus, crazy people wandering the streets and an endless array of taxes is not as appealing as lefties seem to think. Los Angeles is eliminating any possibility of a permanent millennial middle class without which it has no future. Like New York and so many other hip cities, its under 35 population consists of either the very wealthy, the very poor, or an upper middle class that can't afford to settle down there. Add on the typhus and the taxes, and more millenial couples than ever are headed for the door. | Daniel Greenfield | https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/274167/typhus-tourism-los-angeles-has-biggest-population-daniel-greenfield | 2019-06-30 04:29:00+00:00 | 1,561,883,340 | 1,567,537,533 | politics | political dissent |
227,930 | globalresearch--2019-02-09--US-led Military Coup in Venezuela Modelled on Chile 1973 | 2019-02-09T00:00:00 | globalresearch | US-led Military Coup in Venezuela Modelled on Chile, 1973? | At this stage, “all options are on the table”. A self-proclaimed “interim president” endorsed by the “international community”, NGO supported protest movements, co-optation of opposition groups, the funding of political dissent, social media propaganda… The people of Venezuela will resist. While the US for the moment is not contemplating direct military intervention, both Colombia and Brazil are slated to intervene militarily, if required, in Venezuela’s border regions, doing the “dirty work” on behalf of the Pentagon: “Since the new year, alleged eyewitness reports, including photos, have circulated rumoring the presence of U.S. Army helicopters and unusually large troop deployments to Panamá along the Colombian border. … General Mark Stammer, the head of US Army South, is in Bogotá to discuss border issues. Right now, the Colombian military has its largest concentrations of troops in the coca growing areas of south Colombia, and along the border with Venezuela. Both areas were visited by former SouthCom commander Admiral Kurt Tidd twice last year, in February and November. One of the first acts of the new commander, Admiral Craig S. Faller, was to visit Colombia, also in November, two days after the change of command. (Venezuela analysis, January 31, 2019) Washington is also attempting to create divisions within the Venezuelan armed forces which have remained loyal to president Maduro as well as co-opt various factions of the opposition into supporting a Coup d’Etat. Venezuela’s Defense Minister Padrino earlier confirmed that the Venezuelan Armed forces were firmly behind the president: On February 4, representatives of the Lima Group meeting in Ottawa, called upon the Venezuelan Armed Forces to pledge their support for the self-proclaimed “interim president” Juan Guaido. Scenarios: What is on the drawing board of the Pentagon and US intelligence is to trigger a shift in the command structures of the Armed Forces with a view to fomenting a military coup. According to reports, the White House is “speaking with members of the [Venezuelan] armed forces and hoping for more defections.” (Independent). In all likelihood, the US has already developed ongoing and tangible contacts with members of the Venezuelan military. Venezuela vs. Chile: The September 11, 1973 Coup in Chile Is Washington’s initiative modelled on the Coup d’Etat in Chile, September 11, 1973 which led to the assassination of president Salvador Allende and the instatement of a military Junta led by General Augusto Pinochet? In contrast to Chile in 1973, the Venezuelan military is firmly committed to the Maduro government and the possibilities of coopting the top brass are limited in comparison to Chile in 1973. Moreover, linked to the Armed Forces is the National Bolivarian Militia, a civilian grassroots force created by Chavez in 2009. In contrast, in Chile in 1973, the grassroots civilian militia linked to the cordones industriales were disarmed in August 1973. The model of US intervention in Chile bears some similarities: In the weeks leading up the 1973 coup, US Ambassador Nathaniel Davis and members of the CIA held meetings with Chile’s top military brass together with the leaders of the National Party and the ultra-right nationalist front Patria y Libertad. While the undercover role of the Nixon administration is amply documented, what was rarely mentioned in media reports is the fact that the military coup was also supported by a sector of the Christian Democratic Party. The resignation of General Carlos Prats who was loyal to Allende was crucial in paving the way for the September 11, 1973 coup d’Etat. Prior to General Prats resignation, a campaign was waged to disarm the civilian militia, integrated by the cordones industriales. In 1973 I was Visiting Professor at the Catholic University of Chile in Santiago. In the wake of the coup, I attempted to review the chronology, focussing on divisions within the Armed Forces. The following is an excerpt from the text I wrote in the immediate wake of the September 11, 1973 military coup (emphasis added): In August 1973, the Armed forces initiated a series of violent search and arrests directed against the MIR and state enterprises integrated by the industrial belts (cordones industriales). These searches were conducted in accordance with the Fire Arms control Act, adopted by [the Chilean] Congress after the October 1972 employers strike and which empowered the Armed Forces bypassing the civilian police authorities to implement (by Military Law) the control of fire arms. The objective of this measure was to confiscate automatic weapons in the members of the industrial belts and curb armed resistance by civilians to a military coup. Meanwhile, right-wing elements in the Navy and Air Force were involved in actively eliminating Allende supporters by a well organized operation of anti-government propaganda, purges and torture. On August 9, Allende reorganized his cabinet and brought in the three joint chiefs of staff, Carlos Prats (Army), Cesar Ruis Danyau (Air force) and Raul Montero (Navy) into a so-called “National Security Cabinet”. Allende was only intent upon resolving the Transport Strike, which was paralyzing the country’s economy, he was anxious to gain whatever support was left within the Armed Forces. The situation was not ripe for a military coup as long as General Carol Prats was member of the cabinet, commander in Chief of the Army and Chairman of the Council of Generals. Towards mid-August, the armed forces pressured Allende and demanded Prats’ resignation and retirement ” due to basic disagreements between Prats and the Council of Generals”. Allende made a final attempt to retain |Prats and invited General Prats, Pinochet, Bonilla, and others for dinner at his private residence. Prats resigned officially on August 23, both from the Cabinet and from the Armed Forces: “I did not want to be a factor which would threaten institutional discipline.. or serve as a pretext to those who want to overthrow the constitutional government” With General Carlos Prats out of the way, the road was clear for a consolidated action by the Army, Navy and Air Force. Prats successor General Augusto Pinochet convened the Council of 24 generals in a secret meeting on August 28. The purpose and discussion of this meeting were not made public. In all likelihood, it was instrumental in the planning of the September 11 military coup. The reshuffle of Allende’s National Security Cabinet took place on the same day (28 August). It resulted after drawn out discussions with party leaders of the Unidad Popular coalition, and in particular with Socialist Party leader Carlos Altamirano. The following day, August 29, Altamirano in a major policy speech made the following statement: We hope that our Armed Forces have not abandoned their historical tradition, the Schneider Doctrine … and that they could follow a course leading to the installation of a reactionary Brazilian style [military] dictatorship … We are convinced that our armed forces are not prepared to be instrumental in the restoration of the privileges of the financial and industrial elites and landed aristocracy. We are convinced that if the Right wing golpe (coup) were to succeed, Chile would become a new Vietnam. On the weekend preceding the military coup, leaders of the National Party and Christian Democratic Party made major political statements, declaring Allende’s government illegal and unconstitutional. Sergio Onofre Jarpa of the National Party declared: After the Marxist downfall, the rebirth of Chile! … We will continue our struggle until we see out of office those who failed to fulfill their obligations. From this struggle, a new solidarity and a new institutional framework (institucionalidad) will emerge. A few days later, the Presidential Palace was bombed and Allende was assassinated. The “rebirth of Chile”, and a new institutional framework had emerged. (Michel Chossudovsky, Santiago de Chile, September 1973) | Prof Michel Chossudovsky | https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-led-military-coup-in-venezuela-modelled-on-chile-1973/5668038 | 2019-02-09 12:35:52+00:00 | 1,549,733,752 | 1,567,549,077 | politics | political dissent |
228,475 | globalresearch--2019-03-17--ICC Tribunal Declares Trump and Duterte Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity | 2019-03-17T00:00:00 | globalresearch | ICC Tribunal Declares Trump and Duterte Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity | Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and his government committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, aided and abetted by U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration, according to a recent ruling from the International Peoples’ Tribunal on the Philippines. The tribunal, which was held in Brussels, Belgium, on September 18 and 19, 2018, rendered its 84-page decision on these crimes on March 8. Conveners of the tribunal included the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights, Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, IBON International, and the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines. A panel of eight jurors from Egypt, France, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands and the United States heard testimony from 31 witnesses, including me. These jurors ordered the defendants to make reparations; to provide compensation or indemnification, restitution and rehabilitation; and to be subjected to possible prosecution and sanctions for their crimes. Although the tribunal does not have the power to enforce those measures, its findings of facts and conclusions of law could be used to bolster the preliminary examination of crimes by the Duterte regime currently pending in the International Criminal Court (ICC). “The Tribunal has finally rendered its historical and comprehensive decision,” Edre Olalia, president of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) in the Philippines, who also served as clerk of the tribunal, told Truthout in an email. Olalia added that the decision “sends out a message loud and clear: a people continually victimized by authoritarian and repressive governments and exploitative entities will seek justice wherever they can before those who are willing to give them a fighting chance.” Finally, Olalia said, Much of this tyranny, brutality and corruption has been endorsed, whether implicitly or explicitly, by the United States. The unholy alliance between the Philippine and U.S. governments is long-standing. For the past 18 years, under Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump, the United States has continued to provide assistance to the Philippine government, which enables it to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity against its own people and deny them their legal right to self-determination. After the 9/11 attacks, Bush declared the Philippines a second front in the war on terror, calling it “Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines.” The Philippine government used Bush’s campaign as an opportunity to escalate its vicious counterinsurgency program against Muslims and individuals and organizations that oppose its policies. The Philippine government labels specific people and groups as “terrorists,” which makes them targets of the regime. The government also engages in “red tagging” — political vilification. These labels can lead to harassment, assault, detention, torture and even murder. Targets are frequently human rights activists and advocates, political opponents, community organizers or groups struggling for national liberation. Indeed, attorney Benjamin Ramos, secretary general of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, was assassinated on November 6, 2018, two months after the tribunal proceedings. Ramos was the 34th lawyer killed by the Duterte regime. Two more have been killed since. The tribunal found Defendants Rodrigo Duterte and his regime, and Donald Trump and his administration guilty of gross and systematic violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights; and the rights of the people to national self-determination and development. Duterte is responsible for the crimes of his administration under the doctrine of Command Responsibility. Commanders are criminally liable for murders and other crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew or should have known they would be committed and they did nothing to stop or prevent it. Liability for the Trump administration was based on its role as accomplice to Duterte’s crimes. The Rome Statute of the ICC includes aiding and abetting liability for war crimes. An individual can be convicted of a war crime in the ICC if he or she “aids, abets or otherwise assists” in the commission or attempted commission of the crime. This includes “providing the means for its commission.” The U.S. government supplied the Duterte regime with $175 million in foreign military financing in 2017 and 2018, and $111 million in 2019. The tribunal found the Duterte regime responsible for “mass murder, gross violations of the right to due process, unabated killings, attacks, terrorist-tagging and criminalisation of human rights defenders and political dissenters, muzzling of the right to free expression, impunity to the hilt, general situation of unpeace, and the utter contempt for human rights.” Duterte is perpetrating a ruthless “war on drugs,” which has taken the form of a violent war on suspected drug users. Most victims of the drug war are poor people from the slums. A police memo ordered that suspected drug users be “neutralized” or killed. The government admits to killing at least 4,410 people suspected of drug use as of July 31, 2018. Independent sources put the number at 23,000. The police claim that they acted in self-defense. But, tribunal prosecutor Neri Colmenares, the chairperson of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, argued, Colmenares noted the brazenness of these killings, saying, There is a culture of impunity for officials in the Philippines. Police officers who carry out illegal killings are not brought to justice. They are promoted to higher posts. Many lawyers are afraid to defend drug suspects for fear they might be killed. Since Duterte took office on July 1, 2016, the regime has illegally killed 10 prosecutors, 21 lawyers, three judges, and 13 journalists. Duterte is unapologetic. On September 27, 2018, he publicly admitted, Fatou Bensouda, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court wrote in an October 2016 statement about the situation in the Philippines that extra-judicial killings may fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC “if they are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population pursuant to a State policy to commit such an attack.” That is the definition of a crime against humanity. Witnesses testified at the tribunal that suspects and prisoners endure physical and psychological torture. Janry Mensis, a miner in Mindanao, testified via video. He described how he and his brother were arrested, detained and tortured. They were tied and detained inside an ambulance for nine days. Then they were hogtied and their mouths covered with packing tape. The soldiers then strangled them. When the brothers pretended to be unconscious, they were thrown into a pit with wood and oil and set afire. They dragged themselves out of the pit after the soldiers left them for dead. They both suffered third-degree burns and other injuries from the torture. Duterte declared Martial Law in Mindanao on May 23, 2017, purportedly in response to an invasion in one city by an alleged ISIS-inspired group (ISIS is also known as Daesh). His government has used the Martial Law to conduct illegal arrests and detentions, enforced disappearances, forced displacement and arbitrary deprivation of property, destruction of mosques and schools, and arbitrary denial of humanitarian aid to civilians caught in the crossfire. After considering this evidence, the tribunal found violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Geneva Conventions; Nuremberg Tribunal; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Murder, torture and cruel treatment constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions. Murder or torture committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack, constitute crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute. The Philippine and U.S. governments were not the only entities on trial at the tribunal. Other defendants included the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and transnational corporations and foreign banks doing business in the Philippines. The tribunal determined that Duterte “has perpetrated anti-democratic and exclusionary economics and governance as he dramatically perpetuates neoliberal policies imposed or influenced by Defendant actors and transnational entities doing business in the Philippines by the systematic violation of fundamental human rights as exemplified in the mining exploitation.” Moreover, the tribunal concluded, The evidence revealed the imposition of “an exploitative system which has reduced the Philippines into a producer of raw material for industries; reduced the Philippines into a mere source of cheap labor and a lucrative and pliant market for their goods.” This is called neoliberalism. The tribunal concluded that the Duterte regime “has consistently failed to provide the basic rights to work; to living wages and regular employment; to land; to an adequate standard of living; and to health, housing and education.” The tribunal also faulted the regime for imposing “new taxes that hit primarily the poor; and forced displacement of poor families to install tourism projects on their lands.” The tribunal found violations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Convention Concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize; Convention on the Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively; Algiers Declaration; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and International Convention on Protections of Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families. Violations of the Rights to National Self-Determination and Development The tribunal explained how the U.S. bases in the Philippines facilitate Duterte’s counterinsurgency program: U.S. government assistance to the Duterte government includes the provision of “intelligence, funding, orientation, training and arms to promote and pursue its economic and geopolitical interests in the region.” The tribunal adopted my testimony as follows: The Filipino people have the right to self-determination, which includes the right to development. As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, it is “by virtue of” self-determination that peoples “have the right freely to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” The people have the “inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their national wealth and resources.” Witnesses documented widespread and systematic attacks on indigenous peoples and national minorities, and the use of white phosphorous gas and enforced disappearances, which amount to crimes against humanity. In February 2018, Bensouda opened a preliminary examination into possible crimes committed since at least 1 July, 2016, in the context of the “war on drugs” campaign launched by the Philippine government. A preliminary examination is an initial step to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed with a full investigation. The following month, in March 2018, the Philippine government submitted a withdrawal from the Rome Statute. It takes effect one year later. Bensouda responded, Even if the ICC does not ultimately investigate and prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by military and police officials of the Philippine government, other countries could bring the offenders to justice under the well-established principle of universal jurisdiction. Any country can try a foreign national for war crimes and crimes against humanity when the suspect’s home country is unable or unwilling to prosecute, and Duterte has proved unwilling to prosecute those responsible for the heinous crimes against the Filipino people. Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc. Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research. | Prof. Marjorie Cohn | https://www.globalresearch.ca/tribunal-declares-trump-duterte-guilty-crimes-against-humanity/5671656 | 2019-03-17 12:42:32+00:00 | 1,552,840,952 | 1,567,545,881 | politics | political dissent |
229,025 | globalresearch--2019-04-20--CIA Docs Shows UK France and West Germany Wanted to Bring Operation Condor To Europe | 2019-04-20T00:00:00 | globalresearch | CIA Docs Shows UK, France and West Germany Wanted to Bring “Operation Condor” To Europe | A recently declassified CIA document has revealed that members of the intelligence agencies of France, the United Kingdom and West Germany discussed how to establish “an anti-subversive organization similar to [the CIA’s Operation] Condor” in their own countries. Described by the CIA as “a cooperative effort by the intelligence/security services of several South American countries to combat terrorism and subversion,” Operation Condor was a campaign of state terrorism originally planned by the CIA that targeted leftists, suspected leftists and their “sympathizers” and resulted in the forced disappearances, torture and brutal murders of an estimated 60,000 people, as well as the political imprisonment of around half a million people. Around half of the estimated murders occurred in Argentina. The document, released last Friday as part of a release of newly declassified U.S. government documents related to the U.S.-backed military dictatorship that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983, states that: Declassified: A Brief Look … by on Scribd The representatives from the three countries then stated that they felt that pooling “their intelligence resources in a cooperative organization such as Condor” would be an important way of combating the “subversive threat.” Notably, England at the time was already involved in an international “intelligence sharing” program known as ECHELON, a program between the “Five Eyes” intelligence pact between the U.K., the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand that continues in a different form today. The document, which was written in 1978, came two years after Operation Condor targeted left-wing Latin American exiles living in Europe. Several other documents in the recent release discuss a decision made by Condor member countries in May 1976 to train and send a military unit to “conduct physical attacks” against left-wing Latin American exiles and their supporters in France, in what was codenamed “Teseo.” Several Condor countries, aside from Brazil and Bolivia, were eager to participate and the training of the “Teseo” unit did occur, though the CIA was apparently unaware whether the unit was actually sent to France. European interest in bringing home a state-sponsored terror campaign may seem shocking, given Europe’s publicly stated concerns at the time regarding Condor member countries’ mind-boggling human rights abuses and state-sponsored murders. But it will hardly surprise those who have studied Operation Condor, as the operation itself was a Western invention that was imposed on Latin America through a series of military coups, which again were backed by Western governments. Operation Condor officially began in 1975, though CIA documents in this recent release suggest that the inter-country intelligence-sharing aspect had likely begun a year earlier in 1974. The countries involved — Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, and Bolivia — were all backed and supported by the U.S., which was also incidentally the largest weapons dealer to these government over this same time frame. During the latter portion of Operation Condor, one of the recently declassified documents claims that Israel took over key roles played by the U.S. in Operation Condor, including the “training of local personnel and sales of certain types of advanced military equipment,” despite the many innocent Jews murdered by several of the Condor dictatorships. Several of the Condor countries had seen their military dictatorships installed with U.S. government involvement, as was the case in Chile and Brazil, with the U.S. government suspected in other coups that preceded Operation Condor by only a few years, such as the 1971 coup in Bolivia and the 1973 coup in Uruguay. After the 1976 coup in Argentina — Argentina’s sixth and final coup of the 20th century — it too joined Operation Condor. The U.S. provided planning, training, funding and arms for Operation Condor, and European nations also provided a significant number of weapons. France — one of the countries interested in creating a Condor-style program for Europe — was noted in one of the recently declassified documents for its “excellent prospects for sales of jet aircraft and air defense systems” to Condor dictatorships; while West Germany, another country interested in a European Condor, “should be able to market missiles, ground force equipment and submarines.” U.S. and European intelligence agencies were well aware of what Condor dictatorships were doing with those weapons, as indicated by past and recent document releases that detail horrific descriptions of the torture and murder of those suspected of being left-wing and those suspected of sympathizing with the left, as well as those who opposed the neoliberal economic policies imposed by all of the U.S.-backed Condor dictatorships. Some of the more infamous tactics used by Condor nations had also been inspired by past European and U.S. war crimes. This includes the “death flights,” where victims were drugged, bound and placed in plastic body bags, and/or had their stomachs cut open before being thrown out of a plane or helicopter over the ocean. This tactic was said to have been inspired by the actions of French armed forces during the Algerian war and, according to the 2003 documentary The Death Squads: The French School, French intelligence had taught these and other methods to Argentine military officials during the dictatorship. Whitewashing away the full horror of Condor Notably, much of the recent coverage of Operation Condor and the CIA releases has sought to whitewash the program’s horrific legacy, with The Guardian describing Operation Condor as “a secret programme in which the dictatorships of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador conspired to kidnap and assassinate members of leftwing guerrilla groups in each other’s territories.” This, of course, implies that those targeted were guerilla members and thus combatants. However, many — and one could convincingly argue the majority — of those killed, tortured and imprisoned were not members of guerilla groups, as there are thousands of documented cases of college students, musicians, writers, journalists, priests and nuns, pregnant women, teachers, indigenous leaders, union members and others who were subject to the extreme prejudice of Operation Condor despite not being combatants in any capacity. The Guardian also dramatically downplayed the program’s death toll, claiming that “the conspiracy led to the deaths of at least 100 people in Argentina,” while the actual figure is around 30,000. The Guardian also failed to mention the intimate role of the U.S. and other Western nations in facilitating and arming the program. Such poor reporting is offensive to those who lost their lives and to their families, many of which have never stopped looking for their lost loved ones. Many of those families, such as Argentina’s “Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo,” have spent the last several decades looking for the estimated 500 children and babies separated from their disappeared and murdered parents and given to dictatorship-supporting families. In a clear testament to how the effects of Operation Condor are still felt today, one of those babies — now over 40 years old — was identified on April 9 and is set to be reunited with her father, who survived the dictatorship and has spent the last several decades looking for his lost daughter. The mother was kidnapped while pregnant, allowed to give birth to the baby and killed immediately afterwards. The very idea that European countries wanted to bring such a horrific terror campaign to their continent to target “subversives” should serve as a cautionary tale to Europeans who trust their government’s professed interest in promoting democracy and human rights, all while exporting terror overseas. Top photo | Former Argentina’s president Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla, left, talks with Paraguay’s dictator Gen. Alfredo Stroessner. Videla, led the military dictatorship and the so-called Dirty War against political dissents between1976-83, more than 12,000 people died or disappeared, the vast majority have never been found or identified. Eduardo Di Baia | AP Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism. | Whitney Webb | https://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-docs-shows-uk-france-and-west-germany-wanted-to-bring-operation-condor-to-europe/5675011 | 2019-04-20 15:06:12+00:00 | 1,555,787,172 | 1,567,542,305 | politics | political dissent |
229,401 | globalresearch--2019-05-20--Imperialism In An X-Factor Age If The Drugs Dont Work The Drones Certainly Will | 2019-05-20T00:00:00 | globalresearch | Imperialism In An X-Factor Age: If The Drugs Don’t Work, The Drones Certainly Will | In Vietnam, Agent Orange was dropped by the US to poison a foreign population. In Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, depleted uranium was used. In western countries, things are a bit more complicated because various states have tended to avoid using direct forms of physical violence to quell their own populations (unless you belong to some marginalized group). The pretence of democracy and individual rights has to be maintained. One option has been to use South American crack cocaine or Afghan heroin to dope up potential troublesome sections of the population. It has been a fine double-edged sword – highly profitable for the drug running intelligence agencies and banks awash with drug money, while serving to dampen political dissent in the most economically and socially deprived areas. Another tactic has of course been the massive growth of the surveillance industry to monitor ordinary citizens. But drugs, surveillance and direct violence are kind of a last resort to keep a population in check. Ideology via the media has and continues to be the choice of method for population control in western countries. Modes of thought are encouraged which seek to guarantee integration, rather than forms of critical thought or action that may lead to a direct questioning of or a challenge to prevailing forms of institutionalised power. Oppositional stances are stifled or marginalized and consensus is manufactured both in cultural and political terms. Political discourse and much of the popular mass media is void of proper analytical debate – public theatre, often presented in manipulative, emotive, ‘human-interest’ terms. It’s infotainment in purest form. From the TV news and commercials to the game-shows and latest instant fame programme, misinformation, narcissism and distraction pervades all aspects of life. Why be aware of the world’s ills and challenge anything when you can live in the dark, watch X-Factor, wear Reebok and shop till you drop? It is a consumer paradise where lies are truth and unfettered desire a virtue. It’s a world of crass consumerism and gleaming shopping malls bathed in designer lifestyle propaganda where people drown in their Friday night alcohol vomit, shop till they drop for things they don’t really need or indeed want and bask in their emptiness by watching TV with eyes wide shut. This is ‘free market’ democracy. And the concept behind it is that the mass of the population are a problem, and any genuine debate or the electorate’s ability to see what is actually happening must be prevented. People must be distracted – they should be watching millionaire footballers kick a ball around, mind numbing soap operas or some mindless sitcom. Every once in a while, at voting time, they are called on to parrot or back some meaningless slogans. And if ‘serious’ debate does even attempt to rear its head, it is increasingly to be found as part of a standardized, corporate TV news-cum-chat show format that is the same from country to country. There is usually some or other smug, user-friendly couple fronting the show, lying about how we may smooth away the wrinkles, according to the gospel of some grossly overpaid beauty guru to the stars. But then, moving on to the next topic and with an anguished expression, no doubt well rehearsed in front of the mirror that morning, one of the hosts states: “A recent report says that high street fashion retailers use children to make its clothes in the developing world.” A light and punchy studio debate among the show’s hosts and a ‘fashion expert’ will ensue, peppered with a certain degree of moral outrage. But only a ‘certain degree’ because hypocrisy abounds: “Stay tuned as next up you will be informed of how you too can dress like the celebs but for a fraction of the price.” The next day it’s competition time. Win vouchers to go shopping for the latest high street fashion items. “Top of the range stuff… But the prices are so cheap… Just how do they do it?” one of the hosts remarks: the very same person from the day before who fronted the ‘in-depth debate’ about how they actually manage to do it by exploiting poverty and child labour. It’s all very cosy and comforting, with its sanctimonious world view of sexed up infotainment and bland titillation. It’s TV to inspire. TV to inspire the masses into apathy, fatalism and acceptance. “Next up, we have a man who swallowed a live rabbit and lived to tell the tale” is sandwiched between “How you can save on your weekly wine bill” and “Knife crime – lock ’em up and throw away the key.” Forget about informed debate when platitudes, simple emotion and ‘common sense’ outlooks will do. You will rarely find anything radical or challenging here or elsewhere on mainstream TV because that’s not the point of it. The point of it all is to convince the public that their trivial concerns are indeed the major concerns of the day and that the major world events and imperialist wars can be trivialised or justified with a few glib clichés about saving oppressed woman in Afghanistan or killing for peace in Africa. From Fox to CNN, the BBC and beyond, this mind altering portrayal of the world is devoured as avidly as the health-altering, chemically-laden TV dinner that accompanies it. How about a can of pesticide-ridden, cancer inducing cola to finish off? Feel the spray. It’s all so unrefreshingly toxic. No need for Agent Orange here. So many people are already swallowing the poison (in more ways than one). If that fails and the drugs no longer work, the drones are waiting overhead. | Colin Todhunter | https://www.globalresearch.ca/imperialism-in-an-x-factor-age-if-the-drugs-dont-work-the-drones-certainly-will/5308068 | 2019-05-20 18:30:11+00:00 | 1,558,391,411 | 1,567,540,396 | politics | political dissent |
236,281 | hitandrun--2019-09-24--Why Does the Popular Social Media App TikTok Have Almost No Hong Kong Protest Footage | 2019-09-24T00:00:00 | hitandrun | Why Does the Popular Social Media App TikTok Have Almost No Hong Kong Protest Footage? | Footage of Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement is essentially nowhere to be found on the globally popular social media app TikTok. Instead, protesters are getting the word out on Twitter and Facebook. With roughly 1 billion global users, what could explain TikTok's Hong Kong blackout? While it might be that TikTok's core demographic is teens and young adults, or that the app's most popular content categories are viral video clips of lip-syncing and physical stunts, the more likely explanation is that TikTok is owned by a Chinese company which has historically tried to curry favor with the Communist Party of China (CCP). Many of TikTok's users are unaware of its Chinese roots. The app is owned by ByteDance, which also owns Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok. Douyin, like all other social media companies in mainland China, must comply with the "Great Firewall," which blocks any political content that the CCP finds objectionable. Political dissent is banned, though social media users tend to find shortlived ways to circumvent the firewall: Tiananmen Square is famously referred to as "May 35th," since references to the actual date of the massacre—June 4—are scrubbed from social media by the CCP's censors. The Washington Post reports that "It's impossible to know what videos are censored on TikTok: ByteDance's decisions about the content it surfaces or censors are largely opaque," but that "popular hashtags used by Hong Kong protesters that have spread widely across other social media barely exist on TikTok." Other youth-dominated visual mediums, like Instagram, are rich with Hong Kong content. The #HongKong hashtag returns 33.3 million posts on Instagram; #HongKongProtest turns up nearly 43,000 posts, and #HongKongAirport, where many of the protests have taken place, turns up more than 97,000 posts. Part of the reason TikTok might not be used to spread Hong Kong protest content might be due to low interest among the app's predominately teen users. Or it might be the case that many Americans simply aren't interested in Hongkongers' ongoing fight for democracy. But it's not as if TikTok and Douyin are devoid of other types of political content. Douyin is used semi-cryptically by Uighurs in China's western Xinjiang province to communicate with the rest of China that they have missing, dead, or separated relatives. This month, Nevada high schoolers used TikTok to organize a strike in solidarity with their teachers to get them better pay and working conditions. TikTok users have also used clips of art and body makeup to spread awareness of climate change, in addition to streaming coverage of climate-related protests (the #climatechange hashtag has nearly 30 million views and an endless stream of posts). In the past, ByteDance has showed a strong degree of deference to the CCP. The Post notes: In a statement, ByteDance said that the content moderation team for TikTok is based in the U.S. and held to wholly different standards than Douyin. And in terms of content, images that have caused a stir on Douyin (such as a cartoon pig named Peppa Pig, which Chinese state-owned media claim is antithetical to Party values) are allowed on TikTok. Still, a video-centric app would seemingly be a natural fit for those who want to spread footage of the Hong Kong protests, which are now in their 16th week. The protests, which were sparked by a proposed extradition treaty that would have allowed suspected criminals to be extradited from Hong Kong to Taiwan and mainland China, has turned into a larger demonstration against China's power creep. Since 1997, Hong Kong and China have used the "one country, two systems" policy, under which Hongkongers are allowed significant political freedoms. Hong Kong could lose these freedoms and be fully absorbed by China in 2047, when the policy agreement is set to expire. Proposals like the extradition treaty have many Hongkongers worried that China is speeding up the timeline and attempting to prematurely winnow away at their freedoms. | Liz Wolfe ([email protected]) | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/n1ZqIrcdcsU/ | 2019-09-24 18:15:14+00:00 | 1,569,363,314 | 1,570,222,334 | politics | political dissent |
236,373 | hitandrun--2019-10-01--In Todays America Everybody Who Disagrees With You Is a Traitor | 2019-10-01T00:00:00 | hitandrun | In Today's America, Everybody Who Disagrees With You Is a Traitor | With a little over a year to go before the next presidential election, politicians, pundits, and political players have grown comfortable yelling "treason" in each other's faces. That's a problem. Except in those rare circumstances when the charge is accurate, tagging your enemies as traitors lazily bypasses debating their ideas and actions and goes straight for accusations of betraying the nation on behalf of its enemies to such a heinous degree that it warrants punishment with a bullet or a noose. It'll be interesting to see whether, after the votes are counted, the side that comes up short will be comfortable conceding to "traitors"—or if the victors will overlook the "treason" of the vanquished. One of the sillier examples comes from Paul Krugman, former economist and current stroker of Manhattanite prejudices. "Big Finance, given the choice between treason and a wealth tax, chooses treason," huffed Krugman. Were these big financiers defecting to North Korea or diverting support to ISIS? Nope! Krugman, a high-profile New York Times columnist, saw treason in the disinterest many Wall Street Democratic donors have in his preferred presidential candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). If failing to support the "right" candidate constitutes treason, then it's no surprise that politicians feel so free to level the same charge when referring to each other. "Donald Trump is a traitor," hissed super-wealthy Democratic presidential hopeful Tom Steyer, linking to recent news about President Trump's abusive arm-twisting of Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky. Trump wanted his counterpart's guarantee of an investigation into potentially corrupt dealings with the Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma, involving leading Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. "It's treason," agreed Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). Long-shot Republican presidential challenger Bill Weld concurred that Trump had committed "treason, pure and simple." Not that Trump can't give as good as he gets. "Spies and treason" is how he referred to whistleblower leaks about his dealings with Ukraine's president. Trump also suggested that Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-Calif.) comments about presidential conduct could be grounds for arresting the congressman for treason. It wasn't the first time he lobbed the treason insult, having unleashed it against former FBI officials James Comey and Andrew McCabe for allegedly abusing their power to aid his political opponents. He also slammed Democrats who refused to applaud his State of the Union address for "treasonous" behavior." All of this would be little more than stupid and unseemly if "traitor" was just the new pronunciation of "jerk," but it's not. Treason is a specifically defined crime named in the Constitution, and one that potentially carries the death penalty. "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," the Constitution specifies. Referring to that definition, Professor Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law warned last year (even before accusations of treason had reached current levels of popularity) that "treason is not defined by the gravity of the offense; it's a crime indicating the clear support our enemies during wartime, period." He called for a "long overdue moratorium" on calling people traitors. Conspiring with another country may break all sorts of laws, but it's not treason unless the United States is actually at war with that country, agrees Professor Carlton F.W. Larson of the University of California. Likewise, "leaks might violate other provisions of federal law, but they are not treason." That means that dirty political shenanigans don't rise to the level of "treason." Neither does failing to clap for a politician's speech. Nor does—and this deserves emphasis—declining to open your checkbook for political candidates favored by excitable pundits. Treason is so narrowly defined cautions Vladeck, because "for much of the pre-revolutionary period in England, the accusation was a means of suppressing political dissent and punishing political opponents." To accuse somebody of treason was to put them beyond the pale and delegitimize anything they might do or say. Unfortunately, that's exactly where we are in America's political life. Over 40 percent Americans now say the political opposition is "downright evil" and many think the country would be better off if opponents "just died," according to a paper published this year by Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason, political scientists at Louisiana State University and the University of Maryland. To deal with such evil opponents, "violence would be justified" if the opposing party wins the 2020 presidential election say 18 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans. Anticipating an election win increased support for violence among strong partisans in the study. So, throwing the word "treason" around, unmoored from its actual meaning, is a weapon for delegitimizing political opposition and dissent. It's a way of rallying the troops and telling them they don't need to respect the enemy—they just need to destroy them. This is not a new tactic; it's too common, and very destructive of political systems. "Perceptions of the out-party as a threat to the nation or way of life if they were to come to power or stay in power lead to violation of democratic norms," write Jennifer McCoy and Tahmina Rahman of Georgia State University and Murat Somer of Turkey's Koç University in "Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy," published last year in American Behavioral Scientist. "Government supporters grow increasingly tolerant of illiberal actions to tamp down dissent and of extra-constitutional (or at times anti-constitutional) measures to extend an incumbent's term in power. Oppositionists contemplate extra-constitutional (or at times anti-constitutional) measures to remove the incumbent group from power…" The United States hasn't gone that far, yet, and hopefully never will. But calling somebody a traitor certainly paints him or her as "a threat to the nation or way of life." They don't just have different ideas—they're existential dangers. And once you've acquired the habit of tagging your opponents as traitors and their political conduct as illegitimate, how do you gracefully concede a lost election to them? Or, should you be the winner once the votes are counted, how do you sit back and let your enemies continue their allegedly treasonous behavior in preparation for someday taking office? Republicans and Democrats, politicians and pundits, are gleefully backing each other into a corner in their scramble for victory in next year's elections and their grab for the sort of total victory that healthy democracies just don't offer. Having smeared each other as traitors and done their best to delegitimize disagreement, they're going to have a hell of a time extracting themselves from that tight spot. Unfortunately, the rest of us are stuck in that corner with them. | J.D. Tuccille ([email protected]) | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/PzK-FAqkwjQ/ | 2019-10-01 11:00:17+00:00 | 1,569,942,017 | 1,570,221,839 | politics | political dissent |
240,251 | hotair--2019-06-19--Will the radicalization of white liberals create the monster they fear most | 2019-06-19T00:00:00 | hotair | Will the radicalization of white liberals create the monster they fear most? | I’ve written before about the “Great Awokening” of white liberals (or if you prefer Social Justice Warriors) who have made news in the past few years, often on college campuses. A couple of weeks ago, Zach Goldberg, a student pursuing his Ph.D. in political science, published a piece at Tablet offering a social science perspective on the phenomenon and his conclusions are interesting. Golberg argues that something quite dramatic has happened in the past few years among white liberals who are now the only group of Americans who express a preference for other racial groups over their own. Over the past decade, the baseline attitudes expressed by white liberals on racial and social justice questions have become radically more liberal. In one especially telling example of the broader trend, white liberals recently became the only demographic group in America to display a pro-outgroup bias—meaning that among all the different groups surveyed white liberals were the only one that expressed a preference for other racial and ethnic communities above their own. As woke ideology has accelerated, a growing faction of white liberals have pulled away from the average opinions held by the rest of the coalition of Democratic voters—including minority groups in the party. The revolution in moral sentiment among this one segment of American voters has led to a cascade of consequences ranging from changes in the norms and attitudes expressed in media and popular culture, to the adoption of new political rhetoric and electoral strategies of the Democratic Party… For the woke and their allies, these rapid changes are heralded as signs of progress, leading at times to harsh criticism of anyone who would stand in their way. This ideological stridency and triumphalist attitude can be powerful weapons against political opponents but are alienating—perhaps deliberately so—to moderates and conservatives. But, in a sense, no one is put in a more strained and problematic position by the politics of white liberals than the white liberals themselves. The woke elite act like white saviors who must lead the rest of the country, including the racial minorities whose interests they claim to represent, to a vision of justice the less enlightened groups would not choose for themselves. The jury is still out on what led to this sudden change but Goldberg points to the rise of woke media as playing a significant role. The reasons for this are interesting to tease out. There is a large amount of social science data based on the “big five” personality traits. One of those traits where liberals tend to score higher than conservatives is “agreeableness.” And a subset of that is “compassion.” Also important to liberals are issues of emotional harm and fairness. Goldberg argues that when you pair already low thresholds for harm with the new social media landscape in which the message of harm is constantly reinforced through partisan media outlets, you get a kind of moral outrage feedback loop. This is aided by the fact that liberals spend more time on social media than conservatives. As a result, they have a disproportionate impact on the market for what gets reported and produced. And so, over a fairly short time, you see woke social justice terminology appearing on sites like the NY Times: If you had to identify a reason why these terms became so common after 2014, a good guess would be the media dominance of Black Lives Matter, which succeeded in elevating several instances of police brutality into months-long national stories. But Golberg argues the prevalence of some of those stories may be misleading many online progressives about how common those incidents actually are in America: One way that constant media exposure can warp people’s perception of reality is by leading them to overestimate the danger from certain threats. For instance, research shows that frequent and vivid exposure to crime-related media increases perceptions of the prevalence of crime and police racism. Other more limited work points to a relationship between Twitter use and the perceived prevalence of school shootings. This tendency to overestimate the prevalence and significance of things we are frequently exposed to and thus more easily able to recall is known as the availability heuristic. As a cognitive shortcut for quickly arriving at judgments the availability heuristic can be a useful adaptation in some circumstances but misleading in others. It means, for example, that if videos of white-on-black police shootings or other instances of discriminatory behavior are circulating on Twitter, people may perceive such incidents to be far more common than they actually are and, consequently, that white society is more prejudiced than it actually is. And the misestimation of the moral climate creates activism that often seems detached from reality, i.e. the campus activism we’ve been seeing for the past few years: When these moral emotions become hyperactive and detached from objective reality; when they motivate the division of society into ‘allies’ and enemies; and when they generate a level of sanctimonious outrage and judgment that places all political dissent beyond the pale. The advent of digital and social media has fomented just such a carnival of excesses. It cultivates an image of the world soaked in the very oppression and injustices to which the user is most sensitive and attuned—and thus one that frequently triggers liberal moral alarms. There is no shortage of oppression and injustice in America and the wider world. But things are not nearly as bad nor as uniformly black and white as they appear on Twitter and YouTube feeds. In addition to the availability heuristic, i.e. overestimating how prevalent certain incidents are, liberals may also be underestimating the extent to which it is they who have become radicalized. Instead, they may assume it is conservatives who are suddenly becoming more extreme when in fact conservatives haven’t moved all that much: Due at least in part to digital media, white liberal attitudes that more or less endured for decades have been drastically overturned in the space of months or single years. In contrast, the attitudes of white conservatives—and conservatives in general—have moved at a more glacial pace, if at all. For liberals, the lack of awareness of how fast and far their attitudes have shifted fosters an illusion of conservative extremism. In reality, the conservatives of today are not all that different from the conservatives of years past. And it’s the frustration with white conservatives’ inability or reluctance to keep pace with liberals on the path to enlightenment that is intensifying our political divide. But conservatives tend toward normative and structural stability. They don’t take well to rapid social change. The perceived imposition and spread of progressive norms naturally elicits psychological reactance—a visceral desire to resist and affirm one’s agency in the face of perceived social pressure. This is the very process that is at least partly responsible for the election of Trump. We can argue over whether this helps explain the election of Trump but this leads me to another video making what I think is a related case about the danger of progressive activists becoming hyper-critical of conservatives with accusations of racism as their touchstone. As Bret Weinstein argues in this clip, the danger is that you wind up creating a cultural mindset that makes people on the receiving end feel threatened. “People who are the object of ire from the intersectionalists are going to be backed against the wall together. Who are they going to be? Well primarily they are going to be straight and white and male,” Weinstein said. He predicts that if this happens those groups are then likely to fall into their own identity-based cooperation, i.e. something like white nationalism (which is obviously not a desirable outcome). So the progressive effort to aggressively attack “the enemy” winds up creating conditions that help foster the thing they oppose. To be clear, Goldberg isn’t endorsing this view and, so far as I know, Weinstein hasn’t connected his thoughts here to Goldberg’s research. But I think you can see this as an additional danger that results from the moral outrage feedback loop that has been radicalizing white liberals for the past several years. | John Sexton | https://hotair.com/archives/2019/06/19/will-radicalization-white-liberals-create-monster-fear/ | 2019-06-19 23:21:10+00:00 | 1,561,000,870 | 1,567,538,785 | politics | political dissent |
242,807 | hotair--2019-12-12--Chris Wallace: Trump's "engaged in the most direct assault on freedom of the press in our history" | 2019-12-12T00:00:00 | hotair | Chris Wallace: Trump's "engaged in the most direct assault on freedom of the press in our history" | This isn’t new from the media, and not even new from Fox’s Chris Wallace, but historically ignorant nonetheless. Without even an Alien and Sedition Act to his name, Wallace accused Donald Trump of being the worst threat ever to press freedom in the nation’s history. The speech at the Washington DC Newseum came as part of a celebration of the First Amendment, which clearly didn’t include any real perspective on it: “I believe that President Trump is engaged in the most direct sustained assault on freedom of the press in our history,” Wallace said to applause at the Newseum, a media museum in Washington, on Wednesday night. “He has done everything he can to undercut the media, to try and delegitimise us, and I think his purpose is clear: to raise doubts when we report critically about him and his administration that we can be trusted. Back in 2017, he tweeted something that said far more about him than it did about us: ‘The fake news media is not my enemy. It is the enemy of the American people.’” Wallace recalled that retired admiral Bill McRaven, a navy Seal for 37 years, had described Trump’s sentiment as maybe “the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime” because, unlike even the Soviet Union or Islamic terrorism, it undermines the US constitution. Lest one think that this is a novel argument from Wallace, he made exactly the same argument in almost exactly the same words a little over two years ago. In fact, Wallace even used the same McRaven argument in this video op-ed for the Washington Post. Wallace’s speech last night was essentially a rerun of this: Unfortunately, Wallace is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Rather than engage in well-tuned criticism about the hyperbole Trump uses in criticizing the press, Wallace simply ups the ante. The fact is that other presidents have been far worse when it comes to dealing with the press and in much more substantial ways, and Wallace should know it. For instance, we have the Alien and Sedition Acts that American founding father John Adams signed into law at the very beginning of the Republic. The laws included provisions which made criticism of the government a criminal offense, and the Sedition Act portion lasted three years. The Adams administration used this act to arrest newspaper owners who aligned with Adams’ then-foe Thomas Jefferson, which seems to me to be somewhat more serious a threat to press freedom than just accusing them occasionally of “fake news.” Trump might foolishly gas on about the media being “the enemy of the people,” but Adams acted on it for three years. Just over a hundred years ago, Woodrow Wilson followed Adams’ lead in signing a new Sedition Act of 1918, which also used the cover of war to criminalize criticism of the government. While this one was enforced more on political dissenters rather than the media, especially Socialists, it could easily have applied to both. The Supreme Court even upheld this version of the Sedition Act in Abrams with a notable dissent by Oliver Wendell Holmes, but Congress thankfully repealed it the next year anyway. Those are just the legal attacks on press freedom, too. In between then and now, administrations used law enforcement rather than outright acts to achieve the same purpose. Barack Obama’s Department of Justice, for instance, sought James Rosen’s phone records to find his sources on national security reporting. Adam Schiff just did the same thing to John Solomon even without being president. How many reporters did the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover spy on and intimidate? And … Donald Trump vents on Twitter. He cancels the tradition of the daily White House press briefing. He’s hyperbolically angry at the press and uses inflammatory and ill-advised rhetoric about the media being “the enemy of the people.” All of that is fodder for legitimate criticism, but it’s simply absurd to claim that Trump is assaulting press freedom, let alone “engag[ing] in the most direct sustained assault” on it in history. Hyperbolic, short-sighted, and ignorant statements like this do far more to “delegitimize” the supposedly independent media than a thousand Trump tweets about “fake news” do. If Wallace is concerned about the way the public sees the media, he should recognize that the lack of confidence the public has in it long preceded Donald Trump — and might be one reason we have a President Donald Trump. Trump hasn’t delegitimized the media; media outlets have done a fine job at delegitimizing themselves. Wallace should spend his time exhorting his colleagues to quit crafting narratives and get back to reporting the news. And Wallace should really write a new speech while he’s at it. Did the Newseum know it was getting a rerun? | null | https://hotair.com/archives/2019/12/12/chris-wallace-trumps-worst-threat-press-freedom-history/ | Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:01:57 Z | 1,576,162,917 | 1,576,196,358 | politics | political dissent |
282,073 | labourlist--2019-10-14--“Nothing more than fool’s gold” – Corbyn on the Queen’s Speech | 2019-10-14T00:00:00 | labourlist | “Nothing more than fool’s gold” – Corbyn on the Queen’s Speech | Below is the full text of Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the Queen’s Speech. Mr Speaker, this year marks the anniversary the 70th anniversary of the 1949 Parliament Act, which asserted the primacy of this House over the House of Lords. And in this anniversary year the House has acquitted itself well in proving its worth. It is also the 50th anniversary of the 1969 Representation of the People Act, which extended the vote for anyone over the age of 18 years. As we meet today, we should commit to strengthening our democracy and the vital role of this democratic House in holding to account the Executive. By tradition, at the beginning of each parliamentary session we commemorate the Members of the House we have lost in the last year. Earlier this year we lost Paul Flynn – a fiercely independent, passionate, kind and principled member. I remember him reading out in this House the names of those who died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, two wars which he had opposed. He briefly served in my Shadow Cabinet, and I think the whole House was enlivened by his performances. He joked that he was there as part of a job creation scheme for octogenerians. He wasn’t. He was there because he was an excellent orator, campaigner and member of this House, as well as being an excellent representative of the people of Newport West, the constituency he served for 32 years. Mr Speaker, today’s proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address share a route into this place: both were local councillors prior to entering this House. And I pay tribute all those who put themselves forward to represent local communities as councillors, because without them our local democracy would be worse off. I was a little surprised to see that the Honourable member for North East Derbyshire had been asked by the Prime Minister to propose the motion today, given they’ve not always enjoyed the best of relationships. As we know, the Prime Minister has earned a reputation for enjoying life to the fullest. During his time as London Mayor I understand he became incandescent on learning that the Honourable Member – at that time a Westminster councillor – intended introducing a ‘night-life tax’. Thankfully, he was able to reassure the Prime Minister that the night-life tax only applied to car parking charges, and not other activities. Although on reflection, he may well have missed a revenue earning opportunity. I suspect it’s no coincidence the Honourable Member for North East Derbyshire has shown great independence of thought as a politician as he grew up in Chesterfield during the 1980s – a cradle of political dissent. Today, the Honourable member is again in danger of finding himself upbraided by the Prime Minister. This time as a member of the “nose-ringed, uncooperative crusties”. Indeed, he took his fight against fracking into the lion’s den at the 2018 Tory Party conference and predicted that his party’s support for fracking could see them lose seats. My late friend Tony Benn – the Honourable Member’s MP growing up – called one of his last diaries ‘Dare to be a Daniel’. I hope the Honourable Member continues to dare. Researching today’s seconder – the Honourable Member for Truro and Falmouth – I believe I have uncovered a secret Conservative project originating in Merton in the 1980s that led directly to Downing Street three decades later. Chief of “the Wimbledon Set”, as they became known, was the Right Honourable Member for Maidenhead. By her side stood her loyal lieutenants, the Honourable Members for Wimbledon, for Basingstoke, and of course for Truro and Falmouth. Today those who are part of the Wimbledon Set are described as competent and professional, which begs the question – how did the Right Honourable Member for Epsom and Ewell sneak into the Wimbledon Set? Mr Speaker, the House may not know this, but in 2013 the Honourable Member and I found ourselves in political agreement. I was happy to support her EDM to mark the anniversary of the death Emily Davidson and I think it’s worth the House hearing some of EDM 164: Mr Speaker, while I may be dubious of the company she keeps, the Honourable Member for Truro and Falmouth is more than deserving of the honour of seconding today’s loyal address. Mr Speaker, there has never been such a farce as a government with a majority of minus 45 and a 100% record of defeat in the Commons setting out a legislative agenda they know cannot be delivered in this parliament. So Mr Speaker, we may only be just weeks away from the first Queen’s Speech of a Labour government. And in that Queen’s Speech Labour will put forward the most radical and people-focused programme in modern times, a once-in-a-generation chance to rebuild and transform our country. It will let the people decide on Brexit, build an economy that works for all, rebuild public services that support everyone, tackle the climate emergency and reset our global role to one based on peace and human rights. Mr Speaker, this government has had three and a half years to get Brexit done and they’ve failed. The only legitimate way to sort Brexit now is to let the people decide with the final say. To pass this House, any deal needs to meet the needs of workers and businesses. That means including a new customs union, a close single market relationship and guarantees of workers’ rights, consumer standards and environmental protections. A Withdrawal Agreement Bill was announced, but we don’t yet know if the government has done a deal. What we are sure of is that this House has legislated against crashing out with No Deal and that the Prime Minister must comply with the law if a deal does not pass this House. The Queen’s Speech talked about the opportunities that arise from Brexit, but the government’s own figures suggest a Free Trade Agreement approach would cause a near 7% hit to the economy while a no deal crash out would cause a 10% hit. Those seem like opportunities we could live without. Mr Speaker, for many people the economy is fundamentally weak. Since 2010, there are more workers in poverty, more children in poverty, more pensioners in poverty. There are more families without a home to call their own and more people sleeping rough on our streets. Fewer people can afford to own their own home and wages are still lower than a decade ago. Productivity is falling and the economy contracted last month. At the weekend I was in Hastings where last year food banks distributed 87,453 meals and one in 7 people live in fuel poverty. There was nothing in this Queen’s Speech to address our stagnant economy. Nothing to address low pay and insecure work. Nothing to reverse rising levels of child poverty or pensioner poverty. So will the Prime Minister match Labour’s commitments to: scrap the benefit freeze, end the benefit cap, ditch the bedroom tax, scrap the two-child limit and the rape clause and end punitive sanctions? While we welcome the legislation to ensure employers pass on tips to their workers – something the Labour and trade union movement has long campaigned for – the government must go further and I would urge them to listen to the package of measures set out by my hon friend for North West Durham at the TUC this year. This speech was supposed to herald an end to austerity and a new vision. Instead, it barely begins to unpick the devastating cuts to public services. The NHS suffered the longest funding squeeze in its history, while life expectancy falls and infant mortality rises. Schools have had their budget cuts, class sizes have risen and headteachers are sending begging letters to parents. Police have lost over 20,000 officers while violent crime soars. NHS England has made clear that core treatment targets cannot be met with the funding settlement offered by the government. They cannot be trusted with the NHS. The government’s refusal to guarantee key standards lets down the 4.4 million patients on the waiting lists, all those waiting longer and longer in A&Es and the nearly 34,000 patients who waited over 62 days for cancer treatment last year. With 40,000 nurse vacancies this is an urgent need to restore the nurse bursary. But if he really wants to defend the NHS he needs to end privatisation so that our NHS is focused on making people better, not people on the make. A universal service free at the point of use. We don’t want just tinkering around the edges. We want to bin the Health and Social Care Act and truly end privatisation in our NHS. Will he support Labour’s plan to provide free prescriptions to people in England as has been done in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? And will he back Labour’s commitment to legislate for safe staffing levels in hospitals? In the last Queen’s Speech, in 2017, it stated “my government will reform mental health legislation and ensure that mental health is prioritised in the National Health Service in England”. Two years on, all we have are the same warm words. It is a similar story on social care. The 2017 Queen’s Speech promised “my ministers will work to improve social care and will bring forward proposals.” Today we have the same promise after two years of inaction and failure, with 87 people dying every day while they wait for social care. This Queen’s Speech is shockingly weak on education with no commitments on early years, on colleges or universities. The money announced for schools does not restore the funding lost since 2010. It is all very well promising extra police but the reason we don’t have enough police is because the Government cut 21,000 police and nearly 7,000 Police Community Support Officers. And if the party opposite want to talk about providing police with protections perhaps they can tell the police why they subjected them – and millions of other public sector workers – to cuts in their pay, pensions and terms and conditions. I know this government doesn’t have a great record of listening to judges but surely they are aware that judges already have the powers to ensure that the most serious offenders serve more than half of their sentence in jail. Prisons are severely overcrowded and there are 2,500 fewer prison officers in our prisons today than in 2010. The privatisation of the probation service was a shambolic and costly failure. I hope lessons have been learned and we’ll examine closely any proposals on rehabilitating offenders. I hope that alongside the tougher sentencing the government will also recognise that too many people are in prison on short sentences for non-violent and non-sexual offences. Our society would be better served by them being subject to community sentencing. And what will he do to address the appallingly low conviction rate for rape and other serious sexual offences? The dog-whistle rhetoric around foreign offenders, Mr Speaker is a rather ugly mask for the fact that by crashing out of the EU this Government risks losing some of the most effective measures in tackling cross-border crime. The European Arrest Warrant, participation in Eurojust and access to numerous databases. We will study the detail closely of the government’s proposals on rail reform but it is no good simply changing the way in which Train Operating Companies carry on extracting profit from our fragmented railway system. Only a Labour government will cap fares and ensure the railway is run for passengers not for profit. And there is nothing in this Queen’s Speech to reverse the devastating cuts to local bus services. Nine in 10 private blocks with Grenfell-style cladding still haven’t had it replaced. Not a single private block has been made safe since under this Prime Minister. Will he confirm today that he will set a hard deadline for all landlords to replace dangerous cladding; toughen sanctions against block owners that won’t do the work; fund the retrofitting of sprinklers in all high-rise social housing blocks; and restore the budget cuts from the fire service? And perhaps he can set out what measures there are to address this government’s abject failure on housing that has led to more people sleeping on our streets, more families in hostels and temporary accommodation and fewer people able to buy their own home. Labour will end no fault evictions, tackle the leasehold scandal and kick-start the largest council house building programme for a generation. The introduction of Pension dashboards is welcome, as is the legislation for CDC pension schemes which will help resolve the Royal Mail dispute. Sadly, Mr Speaker, these proposals do nothing to address the injustice done to women born in the 1950s. And this Queen’s Speech does nothing to guarantee the free TV license for over-75s. The government handed our Armed Forces a pay cut for seven years – and cuts to council budgets in England have made it far harder to deliver the Armed Forces Covenant – leaving our veterans, our personnel and their families all worse off. We will not allow this government to stifle democracy by making it harder for people to vote – there was only one instance of voter personation at the last election. 11 million in this country don’t have a passport or driving licence. There are huge risks in such legislation, which will disproportionately affect working class, ethnic minority and young voters. Freedom of movement has given opportunities to millions of British people to live, work and retire across Europe. And it has benefited our economy immensely, with EU workers playing a key role in sustaining many UK industries and public services. No responsible member would vote to rip that up, unless there was a proper plan in place. In the shadow of the Windrush scandal, the Settled Status scheme for EU citizens risks another round of wrongful denial of rights and shameful deportations. The government says they will be at the forefront of solving the most complex international security issues and global challenges, and yet they are playing precisely no role in stopping the horrors unfolding in Kurdish areas of Northern Syria, ending the war and humanitarian crisis in Yemen, or standing up for the rights of the Rohingya, the Uighurs, or the people of Palestine, Kashmir, Ecuador or Hong Kong. They are continuing to cosy up to Donald Trump and sitting idly by as he wrecks the world’s efforts to tackle climate change and nuclear proliferation. The crisis of our age is the climate emergency, as declared by this House in May, but there is no action announced in this Queen’s Speech. I pay tribute to the climate school strikers and to Extinction Rebellion. Sadly the government hasn’t listened. The Prime Minister derided them as “nose-ringed crusties”, although I note their number included a former Conservative MEP. So many people are concerned about bad air quality, the failure to invest in renewable energy, the pollution of our rivers and seas, the loss of biodiversity. Only government has the power and resource to tackle the climate emergency but is missing in inaction. It is Labour that will bring forward a Green New Deal to tackle the climate emergency. Mr Speaker, this legislative programme is a propaganda exercise that cannot disguise that this government has failed on Brexit for over three years. That they are barely beginning to undo the damage of a decade of cuts to our public services. That it does nothing for people struggling to make ends meet, does nothing to make our world a safer place, or tackle the climate emergency. The Prime Minister promised that this Queen’s Speech would dazzle us – on closer inspection it turns out to be nothing more than fool’s gold. | Jeremy Corbyn | https://labourlist.org/2019/10/nothing-more-than-fools-gold-corbyn-on-the-queens-speech/ | Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:33:20 +0000 | 1,571,078,000 | 1,571,093,345 | politics | political dissent |
287,682 | lewrockwell--2019-11-08--The Imperial Propaganda Machine: Notes From the Edge of the Narrative Matrix | 2019-11-08T00:00:00 | lewrockwell | The Imperial Propaganda Machine: Notes From the Edge of the Narrative Matrix | It’s important to avoid fake news, Russian media or conspiracy theorists. We must only trust those reputable news outlets who tell us that neoliberalism is working fine, that US foreign policy is perfectly sane, and that protests are only happening in Hong Kong and nowhere else. The difference between state media and western media is that in state media the government controls what information the public is given about what’s going on in the world in order to prevent political dissent, whereas in western media this is instead done by billionaires. Any attempt to understand the world which fails to take into account the fact that extremely powerful people are pouring massive amounts of money and resources into manipulating your understanding of the world will necessarily result in a distorted worldview. Whenever news media reports unsubstantiated assertions from anonymous sources in government agencies, just mentally insert “Here is something the government told us to tell you:” into the beginning of the report, because that’s all they’re doing. Russia and China haven’t become any more of a threat to you than they were three years ago, yet you think about them many times more often than you did back then. That’s propaganda at work, FYI. Woke: A Field Guide Fo... Caitlin Johnstone Best Price: $22.98 Buy New $23.56 All the establishment loyalists you argue with are ever really saying is, “No! The TV would NEVER lie to me!” Sometimes all I can do is stare in awe at the power and efficiency of the imperial propaganda machine. When I first started this gig in 2016 Assange had way more support, from Berners, Greens, Trumpers, all across the spectrum. Now a large amount of that support has been eroded. For Trumpers Assange is being extradited for his own good to bring down the Deep State. For liberals he’s a Russian asset. For leftists he’s a rapist and fascist enabler. There’s a narrative for everyone, no matter where you are on the political spectrum. It’s really impressive. I love alternative media, but we’re fucking idiots sometimes. You never see MSM doing our job for us, but we do their job for them all the time by attacking other alternative media figures, circulating CIA/CNN narratives about targeted nations and targeted individuals, etc. The only reason to ever do mainstream media’s work for them is if you’re looking for a job in MSM. If you actually want to participate in alternative media it’s your job to make things harder for establishment narrative managers, not easier. They get paid enough to do their own work. Dominant power structures are corrupt beyond the possibility of salvation and humanity is driving itself toward miriad cataclysmic disasters all at once, yet many are more worried about those who share their basic ideology but have slightly different opinions. This is stupid. There’s no separation between the personal struggle to free yourself from untruth and the collective struggle to free the world from untruth, in the same way there’s no separation between an antibody attacking an individual pathogen and the entire body recovering from a sickness. Anyone who wants Silicon Valley oligarchs to censor the flow of information in any way is a drooling idiot. MSM’s official position appears to be that there is no ideological difference whatsoever between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, other than the fact that you have permission to elect Warren but not Sanders. Apart from that, though, they’re exactly the same. There’s a difference between Democrats and Republicans, in the sense that there’s a difference between the jab and the cross in boxing. The jab is often used to set up the more damaging cross, but they’re both wielded by the same boxer, and they’re both punching you in the face. The “feud” between mainstream Republican pundits and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fits perfectly within the Overton window of establishment-approved debate, and can therefore be safely ignored. Remember when voters in 2016 were like “can we please have even one major candidate who doesn’t have something seriously wrong with them?”, and the entire US political system was all “LOL nope,” and then nobody burned that system to the ground and flushed it down the toilet? Good times. War is the worst thing in the world. It’s worse than economic injustice. It’s worse than the war on drugs. It’s worse than racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism. Those things are bad. War is worse. The priorities of leftists and progressives should reflect this, as should the priorities of anyone who claims to care about their fellow humans. Trump: I am ending wars! Neocons/liberal hawks: Oh no it sure is bad and horrible that this isolationist president is ending all the wars! Wars: [continue completely unabated] Imagine someone coming up to you with a money jar saying “Excuse me, we’re raising funds to build another military base in Somalia, would you care to make a donation?” No one would ever knowingly put money toward such an endeavor. Yet taxpayers do this unwittingly all the time. Nobody comes out of the womb demanding to go to war. Left unmolested it would never occur to a normal human brain that strangers on the other side of the planet need to have explosives dropped on them by overpriced airplanes. The problem isn’t democracy, it’s propaganda. Back when the wealthy had less wealth and ordinary citizens could support a family on a single income, the rich had a concept called “noblesse oblige” meaning their status came with obligations to society. Now the wealth gap is much greater, and the rich feel no obligation to anyone. Less contempt for imaginary “Putin apologists”, more contempt for actual billionaire apologists. No Place to Hide: Edwa... Glenn Greenwald Best Price: $2.00 Buy New $6.78 The narrative that Gabbard is preparing a third party run is revealing, in that there’s zero evidence for it whatsoever yet they keep bringing it up. It’s literally just something pundits started saying in an authoritative tone of voice, and it was magically transformed into accepted orthodoxy. It’s a great illustration of how effective the establishment narrative managers are; they can create the illusion of a fact out of thin air just by saying something over and over again in an assertive tone. Here’s a crazy thought: If “the troops” are constantly feeling the need to commit suicide after doing what they’ve been ordered to do while deployed, maybe what they’re doing over there isn’t so great and noble after all. It sure is cute how we’ve known for years that the US and its allies armed actual, literal terrorists in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, yet the only Syria controversy we’re ever allowed to acknowledge is whether there are an adequate number of US troops there. I’m still tripping on how we’ve been fed all these wildly different narratives about why the US needs a military presence in Syria, from humanitarianism to Kurds to ISIS to Iran to Russia to chemical weapons to oil, yet this isn’t immediately extremely suspicious to everyone. I mean, if some guy was constantly calling me up and giving me a whole range of wildly different reasons why he needs my bank account number, I’d immediately assume that what he actually wants is my bank account number, you know? So many of spiritual-type people’s highest values would work fine in a world without sociopaths. Forgiveness, humility, trust, seeing people’s basic innocence, etc, they work fine until you run into a manipulator with no empathy. In this world they require much more nuanced use. Things are getting stranger and stranger. Things getting stranger and stranger is what it looks like when long-fixed patterns begin to dissolve. For a species that has been on a trajectory toward self-destruction, patterns dissolving can only be a good thing. We’ll win this. 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 my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. | No Author | https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/no_author/the-imperial-propaganda-machine-notes-from-the-edge-of-the-narrative-matrix/ | Fri, 08 Nov 2019 04:01:00 +0000 | 1,573,203,660 | 1,573,220,006 | politics | political dissent |
307,146 | mcclatchydc--2019-12-10--Congress holds first hearing on Haiti in 20 years amid political instability | 2019-12-10T00:00:00 | mcclatchydc | Congress holds first hearing on Haiti in 20 years amid political instability | Minutes after House Democrats announced articles of impeachment on President Donald Trump on Tuesday, Rep. Frederica Wilson entered a meeting room in Washington and asked a group of Haitian activists about efforts to impeach their embattled president, Jovenel Moïse. “We live in the United States and we have corruption ... right in our White House just like you have corruption with your president,” said Wilson, D-Miami Gardens. “What has happened to the impeachment process in Haiti?” Emmanuela Douyon, an economist and activist with Petrochallenger and Nou Pap Dòmi anti-corruption grassroots movement, laid out a scenario that makes the allegations against Trump look minuscule in comparison. “They voted against [impeachment],” Douyon said of the Lower House of Deputies in the Haitian Parliament that is controlled by the executive. “Parliament members received money for their vote. There is a corrupt Parliament where the majority allies with the president and they are taking money from the president and their party to vote when he needed their support.” This was the same legislative body that jettisoned the prime minister in March, leaving Haiti without a legitimate government since. The House Foreign Affairs Committee held its first hearing on Haiti in 20 years amid ongoing political instability and widespread anti-government protests calling for Moïse to step down. Wilson, who is not a member of the committee but represents one of the largest Haitian communities in the United States, said she pressured the committee to hold the hearing. “We have basically put Haiti on the back burner for too long,” Wilson said. “There’s apathy in the United States, there’s apathy in Haiti. Now, we have to put Haiti in the conversation of this committee. I am the genesis of this committee hearing because I said you got to have a hearing on Haiti.” Wilson also organized a roundtable on Haiti with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in October, where prominent Haitian-American leaders said the U.S. should stop meddling in Haiti and Moïse should go. While subcommittee hearings in Congress usually draw one or two lawmakers, Tuesday’s hearing was attended by three Republicans and 11 Democrats. Four Democrats, Reps. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., and Wilson attended the hearing and asked questions even though they are not members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is rare. The lawmakers searched for a solution to the crisis, which deepened after last year’s ill-timed fuel hike in July, and in mid-September led to a countrywide lockdown that lasted for 12 weeks. Schools, businesses, banks and the court system were all shuttered. Businesses went bankrupt, and a hunger crisis ensued with roads still closed in some parts of the country. Waters, in particular, harshly criticized U.S. policy toward Haiti, arguing that Moïse is among a list of current and past government officials implicated in a corruption report on how $2 billion in savings from Venezuela’s Petrocaribe oil program was stolen, instead of invested to help the country’s poor after the devastating 2010 earthquake. The U.S., she said, “is holding up” Moïse’s government. “Our position in supporting this president is not a good position,” Waters said. “It is a failed position.” The five witnesses and audience, which included dozens of Haitian activists, agreed. There also was no representative of the Haitian government there to defend Moïse, who has dismissed corruption allegations and repeatedly said he is not resigning. Moïse has proposed the creation of a unity government but the opposition has rejected all calls to dialogue and negotiate on the formation of a new government. Pierre Esperance, the executive director of the Haitian National Human Rights Network, said Moïse uses armed gangs to combat political dissent. Esperance said the government’s actions have led to the deaths of 187 protesters since July 2018, with 42 of them shot execution-style. Additionally, 44 police officers and two journalists were killed this year. “These armed gangs bolster the political interests of their protectors by attacking the population, especially in neighborhoods known as strongholds of political opposition that support anti-government demonstrations,” Esperance said. “Armed gangs, with the protection of government authorities, have carried out five massacres over the course of President Moïse’s administration.” One of those massacres happened in the La Saline neighborhood in November 2018. Several members of Congress wanted to know if anyone, including two individuals appointed to their posts by Moïse, had been prosecuted. None has, Esperance answered. He also told committee members, when asked about perceptions of the U.S. in Haiti, that the embassy had until earlier this year given unconditional support to Moïse, and most recently had used pressure tactics against government opponents by canceling some of their visas. Esperance said the U.S. and other international actors need to give resources to bolster Haiti’s police force and judiciary to strengthen the rule of law. He said international efforts that focus exclusively on administering elections or giving out food won’t help Haiti in the long run, a critique of U.S. foreign aid efforts in the country. “This obsession with the electoral process, one man, one vote elections, has created a cottage industry of bogus parties that come up and that attract not the most civic-minded people to come and run,” said Leonie Hermantin, a Haitian American community activist who splits her time between Miami and Port-au-Prince. “The idea that you have elections and that is proof democracy is healthy in Haiti, is not really accurate.” Daniel Erikson, a former special adviser for Latin America under Vice President Joe Biden, said the State Department should form a comprehensive strategy for helping Haiti get out of its current crisis, which also includes a deepening economic malaise, by working with international partners like Canada, the European Union and the Organization of American States. “If the U.S. does not lead, no one else will step up to take our place,” Erickson said. “I believe the time is right to choose new approaches. As we turn to 2020...Haiti must be a more central role on the U.S. foreign policy agenda.” Erikson also said the U.S. should ensure that any foreign aid does not end up in the hands of Haiti’s newly remounted army or paramilitary groups and that Temporary Protected Status, a program that allows Haitians in the U.S. to temporarily live and work without the potential for deportation, should be extended past its 2021 end date. “What Haiti really needs is a functioning Haitian national police and judicial system,” Erikson said. He and all of the other speakers agreed that the solution is not the return of the United Nations’ blue-helmet peacekeeping force that recently ended its mission after 15 years. Officials from the State Department and USAID were not present at Tuesday’s hearing, and Wilson said she wants more hearings where Trump administration officials can explain how they plan to get international cooperation for stabilizing Haiti. “We need to get the State Department here so they can get international buy-in to what’s happening in Haiti,” Wilson said. “We can no longer pretend that Haiti does not exist and that Haiti is not in crisis. Haiti is in crisis. Haiti is just a couple of hundred miles from the U.S. border, specifically Florida.” | <p><span class="ng_byline_name">By Alex Daugherty</span></p> <p><span class="ng_byline_email"><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></span></p> | https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article238204744.html#storylink=rss | Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:24:06 EST | 1,576,013,046 | 1,576,025,796 | politics | political dissent |
309,562 | mercurynews--2019-01-16--An 87-year-olds obituary said Trump hastened her death A local paper wouldnt run it | 2019-01-16T00:00:00 | mercurynews | An 87-year-old’s obituary said Trump ‘hastened’ her death. A local paper wouldn’t run it. | **By Meagan Flynn | The Washington Post** Frances Irene Finley Williams felt the same way about dress codes at funerals as she felt about politics: strongly. So when she died just before Thanksgiving at the age of 87, her family thought they would make politics a part of her obituary too. It was only natural, said her daughter, Cathy Duff. Williams and her 92-year-old husband, Bruce, were the kind of couple who woke up with the Louisville Courier-Journal and USA Today and went to bed switching channels between CNN and the local news. She was a bridge-playing, churchgoing, Elvis Presley- and Willie Nelson-loving political junkie who “did not take gladly to fools,” a “very, very spirited woman” who sometimes said that her frustration about President Donald Trump was killing her – “contributing to her decline,” as Duff put it. She didn’t seem to be joking, Duff said in an interview with The Washington Post. So at the end of her mother’s obituary, just after the part about Williams’s passion for making family photo albums, Duff added this sentence: “Her passing was hastened by her continued frustration with the Trump administration.” “I just felt like, along with everything else that was in there, that was a vital part of her personality and something she expressed with me over the last few months – just like she expressed she felt strongly about a dress code for funerals,” Duffy told The Post. “So I felt it was important to put it in there. We never gave it any more thought than that.” At least not until the Courier-Journal declined to publish it: They would have to remove the Trump quip, they were told, or their $1,684 obituary wouldn’t run at all. Duff and her brother, Art Williams, were shocked. “We didn’t understand it,” Duff said. Now, more than two weeks after Williams’ memorial services, the Courier- Journal and Gannett, the paper’s owner, are apologizing following backlash on social media, which circulated after Duff’s brother made their ordeal public earlier this month. It was a “mistake” to refuse to publish the political sentence, Laurie Bolle, the director of sales for Gannett’s West Group, told the Courier-Journal in a column titled, “[Obit blaming Trump for hastening woman’s death should have been published](https://www.courier- journal.com/story/news/local/joseph-gerth/2019/01/15/louisville-woman-blames- trump-for-hastened-death-in-obituary/2551456002/).” “Mrs. Williams’ obituary should have published as it was presented to our obits team and as requested by the family,” Richard A. Green, the Courier- Journal’s editor, told the columnist. “In this political climate we now find ourselves, partisanship should have no role in deciding what gets included in an obituary that captures a loved one’s life – especially one as amazing as what Mrs. Williams led. I’m certain she is missed greatly by those who loved her. We send the family our deepest condolences and apologies.” Duff said she first learned their obit was rejected when she got a phone call from her brother on Dec. 24. The Cremation Society of Kentucky, which had been handling Williams’s obit, had received an email from a Gannett employee out of Wisconsin, who said the obit had been rejected because it contained “negative content.” “Per our policy, we are not able to publish the obituary as is due to the negative content within the obituary text,” said the email, which was provided to The Post. “You are more than welcome to remove the negative content so we may move forward with publishing if you wish.” Duff said she and her brother were too busy grieving and preparing for the services ― at which no one wore jeans or tennis shoes, as Williams requested – to argue about the Trump line. And so they simply agreed to remove it. On Jan. 5, however, they decided to make their displeasure known publicly. Art Williams wrote on Facebook: “I was, and still am, dumbfounded, surprised, but most of all disappointed and aghast that a once historically courageous American newspaper that exists by reason of freedom of speech would so trivially move to abate the free speech that it seems, when convenient, to hypocritically champion. And over a relatively innocuous sentence. … My mom would have been offended.” The comments on Duff and Williams’s Facebook pages poured in. “That’s disgraceful!” one woman wrote. “[Courier-Journal] decision makers should be ashamed and take a long leave of absence to discern what their jobs really are. Have we left the truth in the gutter completely?” “I am surprised they wouldn’t run that,” another woman said. “People who knew her would have understood and probably gotten a kick out of seeing it.” Williams said in another post Jan. 13 that he and his father were waiting for an apology. Duff said it came Tuesday. She said Green called her father, Bruce, to apologize and inform him that the Courier-Journal would run the obituary in full. Green could not be immediately reached late Tuesday to confirm. It’s far from the first time that obituaries have become a vessel for political dissent. Obituaries invoking Trump or, alternatively, Hillary Clinton, particularly blossomed during the 2016 presidential campaign, as the dead implored the living to vote for their favored candidates. “Jeffrey would ask that in lieu of flowers, please do not vote for Donald Trump,” the chiropractor Jeffrey Cohen’s obituary read in the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette. “His only regret is NOT being able to vote against Hillary Clinton in the next presidential election,” said one for E. Karl Kmentt in the Akron Beacon Journal. Others, according to their family, just said forget it. “Faced with the prospect of voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Mary Anne Noland of Richmond chose, instead, to pass into the eternal love of God on Sunday, May 15, 2016, at the age of 68,” began Noland’s Richmond Times- Dispatch obit. Duff said her intent with the line that the Trump administration had “hastened” her mother’s death was not necessarily meant to be funny, but to encapsulate the exasperation her mom truly felt. Her mother had been suffering from coronary artery disease, and so Duff moved to Louisville a year ago to help her father care for her. During the last year of her life, Duff said, she tried to pick at her mom’s brain to figure out why she seemed much more invested in politics than anyone else she knew. She told her daughter it was perhaps because she grew up in the Great Depression, experiencing and witnessing poverty that she felt could have been prevented, and also because her husband was a World War II veteran. A member of Daughters of the American Revolution, she was in love with the country, Duff said, and so she cared a great deal about who was in charge of it. “She just always, and consistently, kept saying, why don’t people see what’s going on?” Duff said. “She would shake her head and say, ‘I can’t believe the country has come to this.'” She would have hated to know about what Duff described as political censorship in her own obituary – but she might have been happy too, Duff said. “It’s getting people talking about something that was really important to her,” she said. | Washington Post | https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/16/an-87-year-olds-obituary-said-trump-hastened-her-death-a-local-paper-wouldnt-run-it/ | 2019-01-16 13:10:28+00:00 | 1,547,662,228 | 1,567,552,197 | politics | political dissent |
314,239 | mercurynews--2019-06-27--Facebooks Zuckerberg company evaluating deepfake video policy | 2019-06-27T00:00:00 | mercurynews | Facebook’s Zuckerberg: company ‘evaluating’ deepfake video policy | SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg says the company is evaluating how it should handle “deepfake” videos created with artificial intelligence and high-tech tools to yield false but realistic clips. In an interview at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado on Wednesday, Zuckerberg said it might make sense to treat such videos differently from other misinformation such as false news. Facebook has long held that it should not decide what is and isn’t true, leaving such calls instead to outside fact- checkers. But Zuckerberg says it’s worth asking whether deepfakes are a “completely different category” from regular false statements. He says developing a policy on these videos is “really important” as AI technology grows more sophisticated. Facebook, like other social media companies, does not have a specific policy against deepfakes, whose potential threat has emerged only in the last couple of years. Company executives have said in the past that it makes sense to look at them under the broader umbrella of false or misleading information. But Zuckerberg is signaling that this view might be changing, leaving open the possibility that Facebook might ban deepfakes altogether. Doing so, of course, could get complicated. Satire, art and political dissent could be swept up in any overly broad ban, creating more headaches from Facebook. Other false videos could still get a pass. For instance, the recent altered video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that made her sound like she was slurring her words does not meet the definition of a deepfake. | Barbara Ortutay, AP Technology Writer | https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/27/zuckerberg-says-company-evaluating-deepfake-video-policy/ | 2019-06-27 13:21:34+00:00 | 1,561,656,094 | 1,567,537,855 | politics | political dissent |
317,310 | mintpressnews--2019-04-17--CIA Docs Shows UK France and West Germany Wanted to Bring Operation Condor To Europe | 2019-04-17T00:00:00 | mintpressnews | CIA Docs Shows UK, France and West Germany Wanted to Bring “Operation Condor” To Europe | SANTIAGO, CHILE — A recently declassified CIA document has revealed that members of the intelligence agencies of France, the United Kingdom and West Germany discussed how to establish “an anti-subversive organization similar to [the CIA’s Operation] Condor” in their own countries. Described by the CIA as “a cooperative effort by the intelligence/security services of several South American countries to combat terrorism and subversion,” Operation Condor was a campaign of state terrorism originally planned by the CIA that targeted leftists, suspected leftists and their “sympathizers” and resulted in the forced disappearances, torture and brutal murders of an estimated 60,000 people, as well as the political imprisonment of around half a million people. Around half of the estimated murders occurred in Argentina. The document, released last Friday as part of a release of newly declassified U.S. government documents related to the U.S.-backed military dictatorship that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983, states that: The representatives from the three countries then stated that they felt that pooling “their intelligence resources in a cooperative organization such as Condor” would be an important way of combating the “subversive threat.” Notably, England at the time was already involved in an international “intelligence sharing” program known as ECHELON, a program between the “Five Eyes” intelligence pact between the U.K., the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand that continues in a different form today. The document, which was written in 1978, came two years after Operation Condor targeted left-wing Latin American exiles living in Europe. Several other documents in the recent release discuss a decision made by Condor member countries in May 1976 to train and send a military unit to “conduct physical attacks” against left-wing Latin American exiles and their supporters in France, in what was codenamed “Teseo.” Several Condor countries, aside from Brazil and Bolivia, were eager to participate and the training of the “Teseo” unit did occur, though the CIA was apparently unaware whether the unit was actually sent to France. European interest in bringing home a state-sponsored terror campaign may seem shocking, given Europe’s publicly stated concerns at the time regarding Condor member countries’ mind-boggling human rights abuses and state-sponsored murders. But it will hardly surprise those who have studied Operation Condor, as the operation itself was a Western invention that was imposed on Latin America through a series of military coups, which again were backed by Western governments. Operation Condor officially began in 1975, though CIA documents in this recent release suggest that the inter-country intelligence-sharing aspect had likely begun a year earlier in 1974. The countries involved — Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, and Bolivia — were all backed and supported by the U.S., which was also incidentally the largest weapons dealer to these government over this same time frame. During the latter portion of Operation Condor, one of the recently declassified documents claims that Israel took over key roles played by the U.S. in Operation Condor, including the “training of local personnel and sales of certain types of advanced military equipment,” despite the many innocent Jews murdered by several of the Condor dictatorships. Several of the Condor countries had seen their military dictatorships installed with U.S. government involvement, as was the case in Chile and Brazil, with the U.S. government suspected in other coups that preceded Operation Condor by only a few years, such as the 1971 coup in Bolivia and the 1973 coup in Uruguay. After the 1976 coup in Argentina — Argentina’s sixth and final coup of the 20th century — it too joined Operation Condor. The U.S. provided planning, training, funding and arms for Operation Condor, and European nations also provided a significant number of weapons. France — one of the countries interested in creating a Condor-style program for Europe — was noted in one of the recently declassified documents for its “excellent prospects for sales of jet aircraft and air defense systems” to Condor dictatorships; while West Germany, another country interested in a European Condor, “should be able to market missiles, ground force equipment and submarines.” U.S. and European intelligence agencies were well aware of what Condor dictatorships were doing with those weapons, as indicated by past and recent document releases that detail horrific descriptions of the torture and murder of those suspected of being left-wing and those suspected of sympathizing with the left, as well as those who opposed the neoliberal economic policies imposed by all of the U.S.-backed Condor dictatorships. Some of the more infamous tactics used by Condor nations had also been inspired by past European and U.S. war crimes. This includes the “death flights,” where victims were drugged, bound and placed in plastic body bags, and/or had their stomachs cut open before being thrown out of a plane or helicopter over the ocean. This tactic was said to have been inspired by the actions of French armed forces during the Algerian war and, according to the 2003 documentary The Death Squads: The French School, French intelligence had taught these and other methods to Argentine military officials during the dictatorship. Notably, much of the recent coverage of Operation Condor and the CIA releases has sought to whitewash the program’s horrific legacy, with The Guardian describing Operation Condor as “a secret programme in which the dictatorships of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador conspired to kidnap and assassinate members of leftwing guerrilla groups in each other’s territories.” This, of course, implies that those targeted were guerilla members and thus combatants. However, many — and one could convincingly argue the majority — of those killed, tortured and imprisoned were not members of guerilla groups, as there are thousands of documented cases of college students, musicians, writers, journalists, priests and nuns, pregnant women, teachers, indigenous leaders, union members and others who were subject to the extreme prejudice of Operation Condor despite not being combatants in any capacity. The Guardian also dramatically downplayed the program’s death toll, claiming that “the conspiracy led to the deaths of at least 100 people in Argentina,” while the actual figure is around 30,000. The Guardian also failed to mention the intimate role of the U.S. and other Western nations in facilitating and arming the program. Such poor reporting is offensive to those who lost their lives and to their families, many of which have never stopped looking for their lost loved ones. Many of those families, such as Argentina’s “Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo,” have spent the last several decades looking for the estimated 500 children and babies separated from their disappeared and murdered parents and given to dictatorship-supporting families. In a clear testament to how the effects of Operation Condor are still felt today, one of those babies — now over 40 years old — was identified on April 9 and is set to be reunited with her father, who survived the dictatorship and has spent the last several decades looking for his lost daughter. The mother was kidnapped while pregnant, allowed to give birth to the baby and killed immediately afterwards. The very idea that European countries wanted to bring such a horrific terror campaign to their continent to target “subversives” should serve as a cautionary tale to Europeans who trust their government’s professed interest in promoting democracy and human rights, all while exporting terror overseas. Top photo | Former Argentina’s president Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla, left, talks with Paraguay’s dictator Gen. Alfredo Stroessner. Videla, led the military dictatorship and the so-called Dirty War against political dissents between1976-83, more than 12,000 people died or disappeared, the vast majority have never been found or identified. Eduardo Di Baia | AP Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism. | Whitney Webb | https://www.mintpressnews.com/declassified-cia-docs-uk-france-and-west-germany-wanted-to-bring-operation-condor-to-europe/257541/ | 2019-04-17 18:57:47+00:00 | 1,555,541,867 | 1,567,542,645 | politics | political dissent |
317,573 | mintpressnews--2019-10-09--Strip Searches and Worse: Heba al-Labadi Among Palestinians Tortured in Israeli Prisons | 2019-10-09T00:00:00 | mintpressnews | Strip Searches and Worse: Heba al-Labadi Among Palestinians Tortured in Israeli Prisons | On August 20, Heba Ahmed al-Labadi fell into the dark hole of the Israeli legal system, joining 413 Palestinian prisoners who are currently held in so-called administrative detention. On September 26, Heba and seven other prisoners declared a hunger strike to protest their unlawful detention and horrific conditions in Israeli prisons. Among the prisoners is Ahmed Ghannam, 42, from the village of Dura, near Hebron, who launched his hunger strike on July 14. Administrative detention is Israel’s go-to legal proceeding when it simply wants to mute the voices of Palestinian political activists, but lacks any concrete evidence that can be presented in an open, military court. Not that Israel’s military courts are an example of fairness and transparency. Indeed, when it comes to Palestinians, the entire Israeli judicial system is skewed. But administrative detention is a whole new level of injustice. The current practice of administrative detention dates back to the 1945 Defense (Emergency) Regulations issued by the colonial British authorities in Palestine to quell Palestinian political dissent. Israel amended the regulations in 1979, renaming them to the Israeli Law on Authority in States of Emergency. The revised law was used to indefinitely incarcerate thousands of Palestinian political activists during the Palestinian Uprising of 1987. On any given day, there are hundreds of Palestinians who are held under the unlawful practice. The procedure denies the detainees any due process and fails to produce an iota of evidence to as why the prisoner – who is often subjected to severe and relentless torture – is being held in the first place. Heba, a Jordanian citizen, was detained at the al-Karameh crossing (Allenby Bridge) on her way from Jordan to the West Bank to attend a wedding in the Palestinian city of Nablus. According to the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network Samidoun, Heba was first held at the Israeli intelligence detention center in Petah Tikva, where she was physically abused and tortured. Torture in Israel was permissible for many years. In 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court banned torture. However, in 2019, the court explicitly clarified that “interrogational torture is lawful in certain circumstances in Israel’s legal system”. Either way, little has changed in practice before or after the Israeli court’s “clarification”. Of the dozens of Palestinian and Arab prisoners I interviewed in recent months for a soon-to-be-published volume on the history of the Palestinian prison experience, every single one of them underwent a prolonged process of torture during the initial interrogation, that often extended for months. If their experiences differed, it was only in the extent and duration of the torture. This applies to administrative detainees as much as it applies to so-called “security prisoners”. Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Bis, a Palestinian woman from the Jablaiya refugee camp in Gaza, told me about the years she was held in Israeli jails. “I was tortured for years inside the Ramleh prison’s infamous ‘cell nine’, a torture chamber they designated for people like me,” she said. Heba is now lost in that very system, one that has no remorse and faces no accountability, neither in Israel itself nor to international institutions whose duty is to challenge this kind of flagrant violation of humanitarian laws. While Israel’s mistreatment of all Palestinian prisoners applies equally regardless of faction, ideology or age, the gender of the prisoner matters insofar as the type of torture or humiliation used. Many of the female prisoners I spoke with explained how the type of mistreatment they experienced in Israeli prisons seemed often to involve sexual degradation and abuse. One involves having female prisoners strip naked before Israeli male interrogators and remaining in that position during the entire duration of the torturous interrogation, that may last hours. Khadija Khweis, from the town of Al-Tour, adjacent to the Old City of Occupied East Jerusalem, was imprisoned by Israel 18 times, for a period ranging from several days to several weeks. She told me that “on the first day of my arrival at the prison, the guards stripped me completely naked”. Heba and all Palestinian prisoners experience humiliation and abuse on a daily basis. Their stories should not be reduced to an occasional news item or a social media post but should become the raison d’être of all solidarity efforts aimed at exposing Israel, its fraudulent judicial system and kangaroo courts. The struggle of Palestinian prisoners epitomizes the struggle of all Palestinians. Their imprisonment is a stark representation of the collective imprisonment of the Palestinian people – those living under occupation and apartheid in the West Bank and those under occupation and siege in Gaza. Israel should be held accountable for all of this. Rights groups and the international community should pressure Israel to release Heba al-Labadi and all of her comrades, unlawfully held in Israeli prisons. Feature photo | A photo of Heba al-Labadi from her Twitter profile Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. His last book is ‘The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story’ (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is ‘These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons’ (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Baroud has a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net. | Ramzy Baroud | https://www.mintpressnews.com/heba-al-labadi-torture-administrative-detention-israel/262238/ | Wed, 09 Oct 2019 19:35:42 +0000 | 1,570,664,142 | 1,570,659,096 | politics | political dissent |
318,152 | motherjones--2019-03-28--How Q-Anon Hijacked the White House Petition Site to Push the Next Pizzagate | 2019-03-28T00:00:00 | motherjones | How Q-Anon Hijacked the White House Petition Site to Push the Next Pizzagate | Visitors seeking the most popular entries on the White House’s official online petition site will come across topics that fall within the natural political discourse, like government ethics, abortion, and net neutrality. But it takes just a few clicks to find some startling appeals, including one calling on the president to deploy troops to Los Angeles’s Getty Museum of Art: “We demand that our Marine Corp be called to OCCUPY THE GETTY, access the elevator to the bunker, and immediately free our children and return them to the surface. Do not allow these monsters to use underground bunkers, under the pretense of ‘continuity of Government’, to rape and eat our children in honor of their Satanic beliefs.” If the allegation seems like the kind of harebrained theory known to circulate in social media conspiracy circles, that’s because it is. But thanks to a coordinated campaign by followers of the so-called “Q-Anon” movement, a group of conspiracists who analyze anonymous posts from someone claiming to be a high government official calling himself “Q,” it now also appears in the searchable index of the “We The People” petition site hosted by the Trump administration. The site features several other conspiracy-related petitions echoing—and spreading—ideas prominent in Q-Anon, as shared by believers on YouTube groups and on Facebook. While the Getty petition has only just topped 1,100 signatures, according to metrics from BuzzSumo, the petition itself has ricocheted around social media, receiving over 1,600 likes and shares on Facebook in less than a month. YouTube videos about the petition have over 6,000 cumulative views. This is the ninth time a petition to invade the Getty has been introduced by the same person, and it’s likely, as with the ones that came before, it will fail to meet the threshold of 100,000 signatures that the Obama administration, which launched the site, set to trigger some form of White House. But the social reach of the petition demonstrates the platform’s potential to be weaponized by fringe actors seeking to legitimize their causes by associating them with an official government website. (A Getty museum spokesperson declined to comment on the conspiracy theory, citing “security concerns.”) It’s not just Q-Anon that uses the site to bolster conspiracy theories. Other popular petitions have called for the White House to intervene in vaccination requirements for children; one, which reached over 70,000 signatures before its voting period expired, promoted Children’s Health Defense, which propagates medically dubious research about the purported health risks of vaccinations. In the fall, the security company New Knowledge issued a report to the Senate intelligence committee revealing that the Internet Research Agency, a Russian disinformation workshop, not only shared but created Whitehouse.gov petitions on topics including gun laws and banning Hillary Clinton from running for president. Trolling of the White House petition website didn’t begin in the Trump-era. Almost immediately after the project’s 2011 rollout, the platform became a playground for pranksters’ petitions pleading for President Obama to build a Death Star, or designate a Nicolas Cage movie as the official film of the United States. The zaniest, including one demanding the deportation of popstar Justin Bieber, were met with a polite rebuff from the administration. It also emerged as a place to express political dissent; after Obama’s 2012 re-election, the site was filled with calls for secession and birther conspiracy theorists. According to Travis View, a Q-Anon researcher, the Q movement’s appropriation of White House petitions traces back to an alleged post by “Q” on the online forum 8chan in August of 2018 that shared a link to a petition calling for the federal government to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization. As reported by Politico, the petition was first posted a year earlier by a “well-known pro-Trump troll” following conflict between Antifa and white supremacists during the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. (The same troll made a similar attempt to get Black Lives Matter categorized as a terrorist group in 2016. After the petition topped 100,000 signatures, the Obama White House responded by saying it was not involved in categorizing terrorist groups and couldn’t respond to the request.) While the Trump administration completely ignored the site for most of his early tenure, after relaunching the platform in early 2018, the administration has responded to a select few petitions, including the one calling for Antifa to be designated as a terrorist group. View tells Mother Jones that White House petitions are attractive to Q-Anon conspiracy theorists because they fit perfectly into the “slacktivism” the group thinks will bring political change. “This is a sort of an extension of their general political philosophy, which is if they get enough people together they can have an effect on the internet that can bring about real change,” he says. “It’s the same sort of impulse as to why they encourage a particular hashtag.” The White House did not respond to questions about its use of the platform, whether it was aware of its role in spreading conspiracy theories, or if it plans to respond to a petition with nearly 200,000 signatures demanding George Soros—the liberal philanthropist of Jewish heritage who is a frequent target of online conspiracists—be declared a terrorist. To Q-Anon believers, there’s another allure to the petition website: the platform’s very existence is taken as proof that purported liberal fears that Trump “is a dictator” are bunk. Perhaps inevitably, some online conspiracists have launched conspiracies about the site itself. One YouTuber suggested that the government had tampered with a Pizzagate-related petition, reasoning the number of signatures was “much lower” compared to online interest in the conspiracy theory that Democrats ran a child sex ring out of Comet Ping Pong, a Washington, DC pizzeria. While conspiracies like those about the Getty might seem bizarre and easily dismissed to many people, they can egg on real-life violence. In 2016, DC police arrested a man who fired a semi-automatic rifle inside of Comet Ping Pong; a subsequent arson attempt took place in January. Last year, Soros was mailed a pipe-bomb by an extremist who was radicalized online. | Tonya Riley | https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/03/q-anon-white-house-petition/ | 2019-03-28 10:01:49+00:00 | 1,553,781,709 | 1,567,544,838 | politics | political dissent |
330,773 | nationalreview--2019-04-17--Is This Bank Chasing Away Conservatives | 2019-04-17T00:00:00 | nationalreview | Is This Bank Chasing Away Conservatives? | I have been a Chase Bank customer for years. Who knows how much longer it’ll be? Will the company’s thought police come for me next? How about you? If you are a non-leftist who does business with the financial giant owned by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., you need to ask questions and get answers. On Tuesday, investigative journalist James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas team released a disturbing new video on the runaround that Chase officials gave Texas conservative entrepreneur Enrique Tarrio about his canceled account. Big business may very well be enabling America’s very own version of the Chinese social-credit system in which political dissent is flagged, shunned, punished, and eradicated. Tarrio is a young, peaceful, Afro-Cuban freethinker and chairman of the Proud Boys organization. In February 2019, the Texas Trump supporter received a letter from Chase Bank informing him that “after careful consideration,” the financial institution could “no longer support” his banking account. The notice followed a hit piece against minorities who support the president by The Daily Beast, a reliable echo chamber for the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center smear machine. Tarrio was subsequently kicked off Chase’s payment processor, which he used to sell patriotic and pro-Trump T-shirts. Next, he was deplatformed from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Airbnb, FirstData, Square, Stripe, and PayPal before losing his bank accounts. When I asked on Twitter in February why we can’t have just one financial institution that doesn’t cave to social-justice warriors, the official Chase Twitter account tweeted me back: “Hi Michelle, this article is inaccurate. We did not close his personal account. We do not close accounts based on political affiliation.” I pointed out that Chase’s letter clearly stated that the company had closed his account. “So if not for political reasons,” I asked, “why, ‘after careful consideration,’ did you close his account?” The social-media manager of Chase’s corporate Twitter account, previously so eager to spill the tea, replied: “For privacy reasons, we can’t say more.” Thanks to Project Veritas, we now know more. Undercover audio and video exposed how: Others who received Chase shutdown notices so far in 2019: conservative Rebel Media contributor Martina Markota, anti-sharia and pro-borders investigative journalist Laura Loomer, and U.S. Army combat vet and vocal Trump supporter Joe Biggs. Were Markota’s, Loomer’s, and Biggs’s removals “clerical” errors or unfounded, or were they based on an ideological litmus test disguised as a “moral character” assessment? How exactly is J.P. Morgan Chase’s $500,000 donation last year to the SPLC left-wing operatives being put to use? Why did the company embrace a known defamation racket whose stated mission is to “destroy” its political enemies on the right? What comment does Chase have now that SPLC’s top leaders have been purged amid internal accusations of intolerance and discrimination within the walls of the notorious Poverty Palace? Does Chase keep tabs on high-profile conservative customers’ political speech on social-media platforms? Is Chase operating from the same playbook as Paypal, which is booting off conservatives in consultation with the SPLC? One of its most recent victims: Luke Rohlfing, a young reporter for BigLeaguePolitics.com, who had exposed how the payment processor was allowing Open Borders Inc. heavyweight Pueblo Sin Fronteras to raise money for illegal-immigrant caravans conspiring to break our immigration laws — even though Paypal’s own terms of service state clearly that users may not engage in any activities that “violate any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation.” Tarrio warns of the speech-squelching pattern emerging across Silicon Valley and on Wall Street: “First we get silenced on social media, then Paypal, then I get debanked. It’s a very dangerous trend.” He is not alone. Former Toronto mayoral candidate and social-media commentator Faith Goldy told me: “To date I’ve been banned from: PayPal, Patreon, GoFundMe, Airbnb, Facebook, and Instagram. I’ve committed no crime! My only fault is loving my country and quoting government statistics to a camera from my kitchen table. The nature of big-tech censorship is imperialistic, and these Silicon Valley nerds won’t stop until every freethinker is snuffed or scared into submission.” As for Chase Bank, I sent all my questions to chief communications officer Patricia Wexler, who challenged the authenticity of one of the employees recorded by Veritas (O’Keefe showed proof of the Chase New York media relations number dialed and had audio of the employee identifying himself as a Chase rep) and ignored the substance of the report. Evasion and denial are surefire ways to lose business. Is it Chase Bank or Chase Away Bank? Inquiring customers would like to know. | Michelle Malkin | https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/chase-bank-conservative-customers/ | 2019-04-17 10:30:56+00:00 | 1,555,511,456 | 1,567,542,656 | politics | political dissent |
330,809 | nationalreview--2019-04-19--Beyonces iHomecomingi Fakes Black Militancy | 2019-04-19T00:00:00 | nationalreview | Beyoncé’s <i>Homecoming</i> Fakes Black Militancy | Julia Hart’s Fast Color gives a clearer — and life-affirming — depiction of contemporary black experience. Look at Beyoncé on the cover of her new album, Homecoming: Her manicured fingers with rings on the left hand are holding on to her Afrocentric kufi. To keep it from being blown away by the winds of fashion? Or does she simply have a headache? Beyoncé’s latest career move helped me make sense of the movie Fast Color, in which a biracial woman from the Midwest, Ruth (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), works through her drug addiction and psychological ordeal and is drawn home to assess her complicated feelings and mysterious, natural gifts. A government scientist searching to dissect Ruth claims that “this woman can affect the energy of the earth.” Ruth’s superhero characteristics belong to metaphysical sci-fi: She sees colors in the atmosphere and can “rearrange” the sky, turning clouds into aurora borealis–style rainbows. These metaphors for power are comparable to the cultural effect Beyoncé stirs just by releasing new music — and her command of our cultural institutions when she confoundingly gestures toward politics in a Super Bowl tribute to Black Panther militancy or in her Lemonade album’s pandering to the idea of black female agency. At first, it’s difficult to grasp exactly what writer-director Julia Hart is after in Fast Color’s story of a young, single mother who abandoned her child and wandered through the indifferent world, only to come back and confront her unspecified trauma. Ruth suffers disabling fits that make the space around her quake. (“She can cause tectonic plates to shift that never moved before.”) Hart’s conceit deals with recent female disorientation — some agony or dissatisfaction like what led several young black women to concoct the #MeToo and #BlackGirlMagic movements. Ruth (whose biblical namesake stood for abiding loyalty and devotion) returns to her drought-stricken birthplace and accepts familial obligation to her steadfast mother Bo (Lorraine Toussaint) and her pre-teen daughter Lila (Saniyya Sidney). Each female represents an evolution of black American experience: dark-skinned Bo, light-skinned Ruth, and frizzy-hair beige-fleshed Lila. Their shared special gifts are ominous and perplexing, but as the link between generations, Ruth is key to their self-esteem and survival. Fast Color’s narrative of a parched world in spiritual crisis works like the extraterrestrial plot of Will Smith’s widely misunderstood After Earth. But when Ruth finds “Germfree Adolescents” on the jukebox in a Midwestern bar, the film’s weirdness finally takes emotional shape — it wells up just like the song’s opening synthesized strains. By bringing lead singer Poly Styrene’s eccentric musical and political wit into Ruth’s already mysterious saga, Hart interprets the millennial black girl’s plight in her own, fresh way — as universal. In Fast Color, contemporary black experience — now confused by Jordan Peele–Steve McQueen political exploitation — finds clarity through British punk’s more genuine sense of alarm. Hart doesn’t need Peele’s banal cultural connection to N.W.A. when, instead, the band X-Ray Spex cheekily articulates female punk rebellion that is not merely predicated on racial dissent. Hart’s sociopolitical empathy, her use of these racial archetypes, is ambiguous (Mother Toussaint strikes a few too many noble poses). But her fascination with the depth of family relations comes across musically more than visually. Filmgoers familiar with analog music should recognize that Ruth’s passing cultural heritage on to her daughter is a genuine all-American cultural ritual. This recalls Jeff Nichols’ sci-fi, country-western, family-movie amalgam Midnight Special, but rather than using folk music, Hart reaches out through Ruth’s idiosyncratic record collection. She introduces Lila to Nina Simone’s Silk & Soul, The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, and X-Ray Spex’s Germfree Adolescents album. X-Ray Spex is a significant choice because the group produced the most hair-raising of all anti-consumerist — not anti-capitalist — pop records, an inspiration for Lesley Woods’s eroticized cultural critique in The Au Pairs. Poly Styrene (born Marianne Joan Elliott-Said to a biracial British family) broke past her day’s postracial clichés. Her background, subtly embodied by Mbatha-Raw’s Ruth, substantiates Hart’s story. This very American drama is also what academics call diasporic. The song “Germfree Adolescence” is a dreamier-sounding record than most X-Ray Spex (“The Day the World Turned Day-Glo” might have caused audiences to jump out of their seats and dance). This tune, Ruth’s favorite, matches the contemplative quality of Simone’s eschatological “New World Coming” favored by Bo (“You gotta like Nina Simone. That’s a rule”). They are A and B sides expressing Hart’s sci-fi dystopia. Ruth’s playlist (Simone’s ethnic defiance, Hill’s hip-hop-era independence, and British punk) is more than just eclectic; it sketches a sensibility. Sensibility is what’s missing from Beyoncé’s recent “political” act. That Homecoming portrait evokes Nina Simone’s Afro garb but without the commitment — and without Poly Styrene’s daring. Beyoncé’s affectation is based on a skewed sense of the cultural heritage that one feels in Fast Color — the self-conscious weight of Simone and Paul Robeson as commercially exploitable, “political” race totems. This heritage weighs on Beyoncé’s self-conscious art production like the moment when the heroine of David Lean’s Madeleine holds her head and complains of tension, “The pain makes me stupid.” Beyoncé’s glamour pose shows an effortful, sullen sensuality, far different from Mbatha-Raw’s troubled innocence. I had described Mbatha-Raw’s American film debut in Larry Crowne as “a Jonathan Demme cupid — transcending politics,” which is also the way Hart casts her in Fast Color. This film’s good intentions and ultimate optimism show a white liberal attempt at empathy whereas Beyoncé fakes Afrocentric militancy as a sales tactic. On Homecoming, her rendition of “Lift Every Voice and Sing (the Black National Anthem)” is Vogue magazine Negritude. Fast Color’s invocation of X-Ray Spex comes out of the blue, yet it never traps ethnic experience in platitudes. The oddball storyline is a life-affirming alternative to the obtuse Get Out and Us. And after Democratic congressmen assaulted Candace Owens, a black female political dissenter who advocates black independent thinking, at a congressional hearing last week, Ruth’s fear-flight-fate scenario makes Fast Color seem more poli-sci than sci-fi. | Armond White | https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/fast-color-movie-life-affirming-depiction-black-experience/ | 2019-04-19 10:30:55+00:00 | 1,555,684,255 | 1,567,542,396 | politics | political dissent |
333,511 | nationalreview--2019-12-05--Presidential Misconduct: Some Historical Perspective | 2019-12-05T00:00:00 | nationalreview | Presidential Misconduct: Some Historical Perspective | If you think Trump’s behavior is the worst in American history, you might be insane. This week, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee trotted out a trio of dispassionate legal experts to explain why the impeachment of Donald Trump was justified. They were there to bring a veneer of gravitas and erudition to what’s been, until now, a highly partisan affair. But however smart people such as Michael Gerhardt, distinguished professor of constitutional law at University of North Carolina, might be, they aren’t immune from peddling partisan absurdities. Once Gerhardt argued that Trump’s conduct was “worse than the misconduct of any prior president,” we no longer had any intellectual obligation to take him seriously on the topic. Because while I’m certainly not a distinguished professor, I am very confident that history began before 2016. Which means that, even if I concede Gerhardt’s framing of Trump’s actions — bribery, extortion, etc. — I can rattle off at least a dozen instances of presidential misconduct that are both morally and constitutionally “worse” than Trump’s blundering attempt to launch a self-serving Ukrainian investigation into his rival’s shady son. Let’s ignore for a moment that American presidents have owned their fellow human beings, and focus instead on the fact that in 1942, the president of the United States signed an executive order that allowed him to unilaterally intern around 120,000 Americans citizens of Japanese descent. Not only was the policy deliberately racist, it amounted to a full-bore attack on about half the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold. Such an attack was a specialty of FDR’s, despite the all the hagiographies written about his imperial presidency. Woodrow Wilson — who regularly said things like, “a Negro’s place is in the corn field” — didn’t merely re-segregate the civil service, personally firing more than a dozen supervisors for the sin of being black; he first pushed for, and then oversaw the enactment of, the Sedition Act. Wilson threw dissenters and political adversaries into prison, instructed the postmaster to refuse delivery of literature he deemed unpatriotic, and a created an unconstitutional civilian police force that targeted Americans for political dissent. So, all of what Wilson did was “worse.” Sorry to say, but despite their great achievements, both John Adams and Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the latter without any congressional approval. Surely, deep down, even those who act as if Russian social-media ads can topple the republic believe that denying citizens their fundamental rights of due process is a more serious offense than President Trump’s rhetoric and actions? We can go on and on. Andrew Jackson ignored courts and laws and used his power to ethnically cleanse lands that he also sometimes happened to have a financial interest in. Teddy Roosevelt threatened American citizens with military intervention and abused his power in one way or another every day of his presidency. A reckless John Kennedy probably shared a mistress with a leading Chicago mobster Sam Giancana, whom he met in the White House, setting himself up for blackmail or worse. Nixon may have lost his job after obstructing an investigation into freelance GOP spying on his political opponents, but Lyndon Johnson skipped any pretense, and just asked the FBI and CIA to spy for him. CIA officials, illegally operating inside the United States, spied on the Goldwater campaign in 1964 and brought Johnson information he used to undermine his opponents at every turn. That’s “worse.” Johnson also lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, escalating the Vietnam War, and then kept lying about the war until he left office. I won’t even bother to catalogue the instance of other presidents misleading the public — either though lies of commission or lies of omission — in their efforts to precipitate or extend military conflicts, costing thousands of American lives. All of this misconduct is in every conceivable way “worse” than Trump’s actions. Bill Clinton couldn’t go a month without some shady and humiliating scandal. Now, maybe, Gerhardt doesn’t view incidents that weren’t investigated, prosecuted, or contemporaneously illegal as “misconduct.” That would be unfortunate. But even if so, referring to Trump’s actions as “worse than the misconduct of any prior president” would be terminally ahistorical. Another Democratic expert, Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, actually drew applause for a canned line about the Constitution’s prohibition on titles of nobility: “While the President can name his son Barron,” she said, “he can’t make him a baron.” Karlan’s line might have induced only some eye-rolling from me, if I hadn’t known that she was also a Barack Obama donor. Barack Obama. The same president who ignored Congress and created laws by fiat. The man who ignored laws when they were inconvenient, and then ignored courts that told him to stop doing it. The man who ignored congressional subpoenas after his administration put 2,000 weapons into the hands of narco-traffickers (and an Islamic terrorist), leading to the murder of at least one American. More than once, Obama spied on the press. He ordered law enforcement to back off a terrorist organization that was engaged in criminal behavior in the United States, so that he could make a deal with Iran and bolster his political agenda. More than any modern president, Obama was rebuked by the Supreme Court, often 9–0. To watch a supporter of the previous president — a president who abused his executive power in unprecedented ways — playacting as a Madisonian purist was intolerable. Of course, to argue, “sure, he’s bad, but, hey, there were worse presidents than Donald Trump!” is a terrible defense. Indeed, it is no defense at all. Impeachment should be decided on the facts of the case, and nothing else besides. But this isn’t a case in favor of Trump; it’s a plea for people to resist the compulsion to say insane things because they dislike this president. There is plenty to criticize without embracing hyperbole or losing all sense of historical perspective. | David Harsanyi | https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-hearings-presidential-misconduct-historical-perspective/ | Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:30:31 +0000 | 1,575,563,431 | 1,575,548,033 | politics | political dissent |
333,561 | nationalreview--2019-12-09--Reflections on the ‘Revolution’ of 1989 | 2019-12-09T00:00:00 | nationalreview | Reflections on the ‘Revolution’ of 1989 | Its roots go back two centuries. Can we learn from this history in shaping the years ahead? Robert Conquest, the great tabulator and eulogist of Communism’s victims, wrote that “over the past century the human race has survived experiences that, to put it mildly, should have been instructive.” The passage of time, and its attrition in mortality and memory, wear down our ability to learn from those experiences. I am a member of the generation that was just old enough to experience the final decade of the Cold War. I remember watching the fall of the Berlin Wall on a console TV as a kid in rural Texas and thinking how brave those young Germans were. When we think of the legacy of 1989, that’s what we think of first: the people. The human beings who escaped the banality and brutality of totalitarianism and lived to see a new day. These last, living remnants of the last homicidal creed of the 20th century. People like Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Milan Kundera. It is of course natural that we would think of the human face of 1989 first and most because it bore out most vividly the costs of Communism and the triumphs of liberation from it. 1989 as bookend to 1789 For this reason, the events of 1989 are chiefly remembered for their political effects. Collectivist systems that had ruled the lives, pocketbooks, and thoughts of 100 million people for half a century were suddenly gone. The euphoria that this produced was probably the greatest moment of spontaneous societal upheaval in Europe since the revolutions of 1848. Thus 1989 is often talked about as a revolution. This is somewhat misleading. However momentous the changes of 1989 may have been in human terms, in constitutional terms they embodied the restoration of a Western legal and civic order to lands from which it had been uprooted. This had taken the form most recently of the constitutional republics created at Versailles, whose democratically elected governments had been subverted by Stalin to install his so-called “people’s democracies.” But the roots of ordered liberty in Central Europe go much deeper. Germans, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians could all look back to ancient constitutional traditions. Western culture and political civilization had thrived for millennia in these land before the arrival of Stalin’s tanks. In this sense, 1989 was a restoration. It marked the undoing of an earlier revolution whose proximate origins lay in 1917 in St. Petersburg but whose deeper source lay exactly two centuries earlier than 1989, with the onset of the French Revolution. This was an altogether different lineage of revolution than that which we Americans are accustomed to talking about in our own revolution. Drawing a distinction between these two moments — 1776 and 1789 — is not a minor or pedantic thing; it is fundamental to understanding the proper legacy of 1989 in our own time. The years 1776 and 1789 were antithetical in the objects they sought and in the means they employed. The object of 1776 was the preservation of the accumulated rights of Englishmen — rights that were grounded in natural law and had been recognized by custom and prescription but suspended by an innovating king: rights of petition and assembly, right to redress of grievances in Parliament rather than the King in Council. Violence was a tool of last resort for the revolutionaries of 1776. They took up arms reluctantly and waged limited war for limited objects — the rights of specific people in a specific place. By contrast, the object of 1789 was the dismantling of public order in favor of abstract concepts. Those concepts were: Liberty in its most permissive form, as a license to reject all constraints of society, convention, or law; and equality in its most radically leveling form — not, as Edmund Burke noted, “the true moral equality of mankind,” but “that monstrous fiction” of assured happiness and station without regard to rights, merit, or industry. The tool of choice was terror, savagely and indiscriminately applied: terror to shock, cull, and cow, to clear the way for experiments on “natural” man, as Rousseau had envisioned him. In short, utopia. It is in the quest for utopia that we see the roots not only of Bolshevism but of its ideological cousin, National Socialism, and the various other cognate isms of the 20th century. All these creeds shared a preoccupation with the perfectibility of man, whether by mean of class struggle or by soil and blood. 1989 was the bookend to 1789. It brought to a close, at least in Europe, the two centuries of violent utopianism that had been set loose in France and spread to Russia and on to Asia and Latin America. If, as Churchill wrote, the act of sending Lenin by train into Russia had been like sending a plague bacillus by sealed truck, then 1989 was the moment at which this bacillus, having been quarantined, finally ran its course. A tally of its victims would probably exceed 100 million. The political legacy of 1989 must therefore be understood not only institutionally, in the change it brought to systems of government, but in the lives of those humans who were spared the continuing effects of this bacillus. How many people are alive today who would otherwise have suffered at the hands of the secret police or been shot while trying to swim the Morava River at night, or bludgeoned to death in street protests in Warsaw or Prague? How many free elections have been held that otherwise would have not occurred, how many businesses have been founded and flourished that otherwise would have not existed, how many people have never known censorship or the dull monotony of standing in a bread line? 1989 as fulfillment of 1979 For this reason, we must think of the legacy of 1989 not only in political but in moral terms. Bolshevism followed in the footsteps of the French Reign of Terror by waging war on the human spirit. It attacked traditional faith with a zeal that exceeded its hatred of any other social force or institution. Lenin once commented to the Russian novelist Maxim Gorky: “Every religious idea, every idea of God, even flirting with the idea of God, is unutterable vileness.” He used the full apparatus of state terror to snuff out this “vileness”: torture, execution, deportation, forced labor. Why? Because Communism itself was a secular faith, built around the shrine of reason. It could brook no competitors for the allegiance of souls. Anything already on the slate had to be removed, if necessary by force. But I think there is another reason. Soviet Communism was evil. Whatever noble ideals many today may wish to impute to the origins of Marxism, it was quickly twisted into a quest for power that subordinated human life to perverted ends. It saw in churches and synagogues and the human conscience a “salt and light” that was simply hateful to it, ideologically and spiritually. And yet communities of faith remained alive throughout the Communist era. It was to these persecuted remnants that John Paul II addressed his famous speech in Warsaw in 1979, when he said that faith “cannot be kept out of the history of man in any part of the globe, at any longitude or latitude of geography.” And that to attempt to do so is to commit “an act against man.” What John Paul II was describing was a force greater than Communism, greater than history itself. When he called on Poles to keep alive the seed of faith — in “churches, universities, libraries, in prayer, service to the sick, and even in the act of suffering” — he was knowingly and implicitly hitting at the very taproot of Soviet power. He was also answering the countless voices within the West itself who were apologists for Communism, who had idolized its ideology and trivialized its crimes. It was this moral clarity that laid the foundation for Reagan to later say that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire.” The moral component to this fight, which had so often been missing before, presented a challenge to the Soviet state every bit as lethal as the military buildup that Reagan would eventually undertake to bring about its demise. The moral legacy of 1989 is that it was the fulfillment of 1979. The “seed of faith” that John Paul II described had never been fully uprooted. Faith triumphed not only in the sense that it fostered allegiances that, by their very nature, were in opposition to the state, but in the deeper sense that light prevailed over darkness in high places. How many people today, across the lands of the former Communist bloc, have been able to worship, pray, think, and dissent freely, to experience the joy of a Christmas mass or Passover, to develop free consciences that otherwise would have been suppressed? How would the world look different if those thoughts and prayers and poems had never occurred? In this, too, we see a restoration: A return to the heart of Europe of the moral civilization that had existed for millennia and in which Communism had always been a transient and alien presence. 1989 as remedy to 1871 Finally, there is the geopolitical legacy of 1989. We are accustomed to thinking of it as the end of a half-century Cold War, which of course it was. It brought a happier, second settling to the question of how that half of Europe that American, British, and French armies didn’t fully reach after Normandy would be governed. But it was something more than that. What 1989 made possible was a durable solution to the problem that had made those armies at Normandy necessary to begin with. That organizing problem of Europe was the German Question. For centuries, order in Europe had been maintained through a local balance of power. When any one power grew too strong, the others would form a coalition to prevent it from achieving hegemony. Two things made this possible. One was the fact that political power at the center of Europe was divided. The old Holy Roman Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire were federative structures built on mixed constitutions. They were defensive in nature and prevented the military resources of Europe’s industrially rich heartland from being organized for offensive purposes. The second ingredient was British sea power. Any time a continental state threatened to achieve domination, Britain could throw its weight in the scales and restore the balance. It was this combination that had defeated Philip II, Louis XIV, and Napoleon. With the unification of Germany in 1871, this old balance broke down completely. The history of the 20th century is the history of efforts to restore that balance and sustainably address the German Question. We came up with three answers to that question, in the post-war settlements of 1919, 1945, and 1989. The first of these, at Versailles in 1919, tried to solve the problem by creating a tier of independent democratic states in the space between Germany and Russia. German observers at the time called these countries Saisonstaaten — seasonal states, that enjoyed a moment of life but were militarily indefensible. Having helped to midwife these states into existence, America retreated from European affairs. The resulting security vacuums created the conditions for World War II. A generation later, at Yalta in 1945, we attempted to solve the German question not by buffers but by partition. We divided Germany and Europe into two armed camps. This formula succeeded better than that of Versailles for one reason: America stayed in Europe and built permanent military bases. We founded NATO and encouraged the recovery and unification of Europe to oppose Communism. The post-1945 order avoided the security vacuums that had come after 1919. But the stability it brought was fragile and came at a steep cost in escalatory standoffs, proxy wars, and the freedom of half of Germany and all of the independent Central European states we had created in 1919. In summary, 1919 brought freedom without stability, and 1945 brought a kind of stability without freedom. The achievement of 1989 was that it brought both stability and freedom for the entire European continent. It was the first European order since the events of 1871 to allow a unified, free Germany to exist alongside independent neighbors within a stable balance of power and federating Europe. Here too we see elements of restoration. The events of 1989 restored to Europe the territorial and legal attributes of a Western system of states that it had possessed in prior centuries. This is important to remember, not least because it exposes the fiction, still repeated in Kremlin propaganda today, that most if not all of the European territories from which the Soviet forces decamped after 1989 had historically been part of a Russian sphere of influence. That is not the case. In both civilizational and geopolitical terms, these countries were returning home to a Europe they had never willingly left. The former captive nations of Central Europe have now outlived their interwar predecessors by a decade. The world has gone for 75 years without great-power war — an astonishing record that exceeds in length the long peace that followed the Congress of Vienna. Where do things stand now? None of this was the result of the blind structural forces of Marxist theory. The legacies of 1989 that I have described came about because of specific actions taken by specific men and women: strategists, diplomats, soldiers, dissidents, poets, clergy. • The political legacy is the result of a diligent preservation, over many generations, of the Western civic order of divided government, ordered liberty, and free enterprise. • The moral legacy arose from the conviction that the West is a civilizational and cultural, as opposed to merely material, force in the world, and from an unwillingness to see the human spirit subjugated by collectivism. • The geopolitical legacy is the by-product of a long-term strategy that organized Western society, economy, and alliances for protracted struggle. Today’s generation is the beneficiary of all these legacies. The past 30 years have been a time of great prosperity and security: the spread of free systems of government; long stretches of economic growth; no great-power war; more freedom and wealth for more people than at any time in human history. This is a blessing, but peace breeds apathy. That seems to be especially true of democracies. Churchill said of Britain after the First World War, “We were so glutted with victory that in our folly we threw it away.” The modern West was also glutted with victory after 1989. We didn’t repeat the mistakes of Versailles. But there is no shortage of folly that has taken hold in the Western world in the last 30 years. There was the geopolitical folly of thinking that history ended when Communism did. After 1989, America faced no peer competitors and had seemingly limitless resources. This encouraged the view that we were entering a world in which history in any meaningful sense was over, and that geopolitics had therefore ended, perhaps permanently. There is the political folly of thinking that, in such a setting, statism in some form should be a model for organizing Western society. The proven formula of ordered liberty rooted in accumulated freedoms and divided government is no longer sufficient; we need a paternalistic state to realize man’s potential. You see this mentality, in both its nationalist and progressive forms, appearing across the Western world. Given the well-documented failures and ravages of the isms of the 20th century, it’s astonishing that these ideas could again be in vogue, as if the idea behind it were right and only the past execution was flawed. And there is the moral folly that a just society can be built without the cultivation of civic virtue among its citizens. The mediating institutions that de Tocqueville saw as the basis for democracy — things such as the family, friends, church, business, civil society — are deeply eroded. And in their place, a fragmenting of the body politic into antagonistic groups, and causes that clamor for the favors of an interventionist state. None of these things is particularly new. What is noteworthy, I think, is that they grew more pronounced in the greenhouse-like conditions of the post–Cold War era, in which there was no external threat to focus and discipline our ways of thinking. But that is changing. Today it is obvious that history did not end in 1989. Russia did not go the way we expected after Communism’s collapse, of accepting liberal institutions and reconciling itself to the West’s rules. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia is a militarily sophisticated and politically extroverted power capable of invading neighbors and projecting power into further regions. China did not integrate into Western institutions in the way we expected. It abused the West’s openness to build up its military and seek the things that empires throughout history have sought: resources, territory, and prestige. China’s defense budget has increased 750 percent in the past decade. It’s emerging as full-spectrum peer competitor with a technological and economic potential that the Soviets could never have dreamed of. The challenge from these states is not just geopolitical, it’s also ideological. It is true that neither of them extols a universal ideology in the way the Soviet Union did. But both are led by authoritarian regimes that see in “state capitalism” a hybrid model that harnesses many of the attributes of market growth to political repression and control. Putin’s government is a brutal kleptocracy under which human rights have suffered more than at any time since Brezhnev signed the Helsinki Final Act. The Chinese government has not grown less repressive in the period since Tiananmen; it engages in the systematic repression of political dissent and ethnic and religious minorities — as we are witnessing among the Uyghurs and in Hong Kong. The Russian and Chinese models are attractive to many countries around the world. In the wake of the Arab Spring, Putin has provided political and material support to strongmen across the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America on the premise that the Western model of democracy and markets has failed. In Central and Eastern Europe, both China and Russia have used corruption to make deep inroads into the politics and economies of many of the very countries that we worked for decades to free from Moscow. Similar patterns are playing out in the Western Balkans, the Caucasus, and the Eastern Mediterranean. It is evident that we are in the early stages of what is likely to be a protracted struggle for the 21st century. The moment is, perhaps, a little like the late 1940s, when it first became obvious to people like George Marshall and Konrad Adenauer that we were entering a long competition that would not be resolved quickly. That generation responded by formulating long-term strategies to contain Soviet power and organize the combined economic, political, and moral energies of the West behind a shared goal. I see reasons to be optimistic that the West will eventually prove itself equal to today’s challenge as well. There is a growing recognition that great-power competition is back. And a greater willingness to take that competition seriously and match our resources to new priorities, as we see in the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy. We have finally begun to confront head-on the threat that Communist China poses to Western security. That begins in the economic realm, by preventing Beijing’s use of extractive trade policies to gain long-term technological and national-security advantages against us. In parallel, we have begun to shift our defense planning and investment to deal with big-power competition, and are at long last beginning to look at the future of innovation through the lens of strategic competition. But as in the time of Adenauer and Marshall, our success will ultimately depend on how effective we are at unifying Western economies and societies behind a shared goal. Our chief diplomatic task must be to strengthen alliances, which from antiquity have been the West’s chief competitive advantage against authoritarian rivals. At the same time we have to see that a superficial political unity like that of recent years that is not undergirded by material strength will not lead to stronger alliances. We will not be able to face Russia and China without a more equitable sharing of benefits and burdens between America and Europe than we have become accustomed to in the post-1989 era, but also a willingness to compete much more vigorously for positive influence in those parts of Europe and Asia that are most vulnerable to our rivals. The West would not have succeeded in the contests of the 20th century had our peoples not seen themselves as part of a something worth defending. That mentality is badly in need of renewed cultivation today. As François Revel once observed, “democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.” Today our young people are routinely told that the West is uniquely iniquitous among the world’s civilizations and the source of history’s wrongs. It should therefore not surprise us when our young people denigrate Washington and Jefferson while idolizing Lenin and Mao, or when our politicians, corporations, and entertainers struggle to find a moral basis upon which to denounce even the most heinous of crimes committed by our rivals. In both America and Europe, we need to find a renewed sense of civic duty built around the recognition that the West as a political civilization is under threat and worth defending. And in the United States, the seat of Western power and ideals, we must work at remaining an e pluribus unum and not descend into the competing antagonisms of an ex uno plures. Editor’s Note: This article is adapted from an address the author delivered to the Triumph of Liberty Conference of the Victims of Communism Foundation on November 8, 2019. | A. Wess Mitchell | https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/revolution-of-1989-fall-berlin-wall-reflections/ | Mon, 09 Dec 2019 11:30:09 +0000 | 1,575,909,009 | 1,575,893,787 | politics | political dissent |
335,484 | naturalnews--2019-04-09--Wicked wicked Wikipedia The corruption and collapse of the legendary peoples encyclopedia | 2019-04-09T00:00:00 | naturalnews | Wicked, wicked Wikipedia: The corruption and collapse of the legendary people's encyclopedia | (Natural News) It is time to take a serious, critical look at Wikipedia and its mission. Is it everything it purports to be as an objective encyclopedic source of knowledge or just another anti-democratic social media dynasty resorting to the censorship and suppression of unorthodox medical science, social criticism and political dissent contrary to its founder’s rigid ideological beliefs? With over 5.6 million articles totaling 45 million pages, Wikipedia offers an enormous amount of information, and the majority of it is recognizably accurate. Over 30 million people are registered as editors for the site, but the number of active editors fluctuates around 130,000 and is decreasing steadily. On the other hand, entries on contemporary issues that elicit controversy and debate, often when commercial interests and public policies are at stake, have become opportunities for editors to post propaganda, gossip, launch character assassinations, add flagrant misinformation and untruths, and delete truthful data to spin and strengthen specific ideologies, beliefs, and conflicts of interest contrary to the encyclopedia’s rules. Today all major media, Left and Right, as well as the larger Silicon Valley firms that support it, employ news and commentary that serve as weapons for mass public ignorance. It is common for people’s reputations to be destroyed. Conservatives and liberals alike claim the other disseminates fake news and each attempts to demonize and censor the other regardless of the accuracy or relevancy of what is being reported. There are still many investigative journalists with deep integrity and a commitment to expose the truth, such as the late Robert Parry from Consortium News, Chris Hedges and Robert Scheer at Truthdig, Bruce Dixon and Glen Ford at the Black Agenda Report, Henry Giroux and William River Pitts at Truthout and others who have since had their sites blocked by Google and Facebook. But these are only several of hundreds of other online outlets and news blogs that have been banned and left without any recourse to address grievances. There is no arbitration. And this trend is increasing at lightning speed. Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verified Organic Emergency Survival Bucket provides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store. For over a decade we have been reviewing hundreds of articles on a daily basis about medicine and health, climate change and the environment, geopolitics and culture. We apply a strong litmus test to determine accuracy and trustworthiness. Consistently we discover that the public is being misled by special interest groups on both sides of the political spectrum. The Left and Right control large segments of the media through advertising or direct ownership. Billions of dollars are spent annually on lobbyists, consultants, think tanks and foundations, public relations firms, and astroturf groups. And behind these entities are even more powerful organizations such as federal intelligence and health agencies, the Business Roundtable, the Atlantic Council, the mega-internet firms, and of course the pharmaceutical industry. Control of the media and the internet, to silence important voices, denies the public an opportunity to gaze upon the larger picture. For the powerful, it is preferable for the public to see only a small sliver of reality in order to keep citizens in check. For example, in the past, it was not the federal CDC, FDA or the National Cancer Institute that initiated efforts to warm the public about the risks of smoking or to avoid exposure to asbestos. Instead it was from people of conscience, such as whistleblowers, insiders and independent scientists and journalists, who alerted Americans and spoke in opposition to the corporations determined to keep the health risks hidden away in the dark. It was an insider Daniel Ellsberg who brought the Pentagon Papers to public attention, and without Edward Snowden we would not know the full extent of the government’s surveillance state. Mainstream media of its own volition would have remained silent about it. After many hundreds of hours of investigative research into Wikipedia, a shocking story is being uncovered. Throughout the Wikimedia Foundation’s organizational structure, and reaching into the editorial hierarchy of its open-sourced encyclopedia, are multiple layers of deception, dangerous ideologies, extreme biases, and conflicts of interests. The site has built a wall harboring a cesspool of unprofessional and undefinable editors to obfuscate the truth and slander people and entire professions. In short, a kind of deep state is now acting with authority to control Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has repeatedly shown his personal intolerance towards topics he disagrees with, particularly non-conventional and alternative medicine (cite inline or below) and whatever else that does not fit into his picture of the reality or whatever he decides is phony or “fake news.” More recently, Wales mission has been to fight fake news.[1] As we demonstrate below, Wales also presumes the prevailing pharmaceutical drug paradigm and the Skeptics support of the Science-Based Medicine ideology is science’s final word for determining the diagnosis and treatment of disease; all other medical modalities outside Big Pharma’s purview is fair game for ridicule, incrimination and ultimately censorship. Censorship is exclusion from public discourse and debate. Institutions that hold and maintain power are always the least welcoming of contrarian and dissenting voices; therefore the powerful make every effort to define the parameters of debate and select the participants worthy in its eyes. In its wake, censorship silences important stories, enormous bodies of research, science and expertise necessary to sustain democratic integrity. The public is left impoverished for it is denied invaluable knowledge, even information that can be life-saving. Democracy is steadily being threatened by Silicon Valley, including the San Francisco-based Wikimedia Foundation, which holds the gatekeeper’s keys for allowing or obscuring the free-flow of reliable knowledge and commentary to the public. In concert with Google, Facebook, Twitter and other major internet firms promoting the large media conglomerates, the Foundation has entered the frenzy to censor and denigrate individuals, medical disciplines, and political voices threatening the dominant citadels of power and hegemony. And Wikipedia editors have been undermining entire fields of knowledge and wisdom for over a decade unbeknownst to the vast majority of its users. In February 2017, the British tabloid The Daily Mail, the UK’s second large daily newspaper reaching over 4.5 million readers and surpassing the New York Times as the world’s most visited news site on the internet, was banned by Wikipedia as an unreliable news source. Jimmy Wales decided the paper was a distributor of “fake news.” Speaking on CNBC, Wales accused the Daily Mail of “mastering the art.. of running stories that simply aren’t true.” Founded in 1896, the paper publishes editions in Scotland, Ireland, Continental Europe and North Africa. On seven occasions since 1995 it has earned the prestigious British Press’ “National Newspaper of the Year” Award for breaking noteworthy stories. It is worth noting that Google’s artificial intelligence laboratory, DeepMind Technologies, relies upon the Daily Mail’s extensive archives as one of its two primary sources to “teach” its computers “to read” and acquire “verbal reasoning.” Wales’ decision to ban the Mail sets a dangerous precedent that should delegitimize any Wikimedia claims of fairness and objectivity. According to Wikipedia’s own platform, it is the responsibility of editors to undertake fact-checking before referencing any source (cite below or inline). The banning of news sources is in short an egregious cop out that will only accelerate the current trend of censorship to favor the powerful who hold sway over what the public can know and what should be denied. The initiator behind the Daily Mail ban is a 35-year old regular Wikipedia editor and British misfit named Michael Cockram, who goes by the pseudonym Hillbillyholiday (perhaps taken from a Massachusetts musical band by the same name). Only a tiny fraction (under 1%) of Wikipedia’s administrators voted in favor of including the Mail on its blacklist. At the time of the controversy, when not editing for Wikipedia, Cochram spent his time on his personal Facebook page that was found to be filled with obscenities, sexism, and racist and Islamophobic remarks. In his first posts in the Wikipedia discussions arguing about the ban, he indicated Wales would approve of the decision. No doubt, the Mail, sometimes described as the UK’s equivalent to Fox News, is not without its controversies. Many of its stories are outright silly. It has been caught and charged with poor journalism and for reporting misleading and spun stories; however, this is becoming endemic in most mainstream corporate media, including the New York Times which promoted the Bush-Cheney lie about Sadaam Hussain’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. Or there was the Washington Post’s false claim that Russian hackers penetrated the nation’s electrical grid. All the major networks and news outlets were completely wrong about the charitable White Helmets’ operations in Syria. The group has now been confirmed conclusively by independent Western journalists on the ground in Syria and testimonies of residents living in the vicinity of the Helmets’ activities, to serve as a propaganda operation behind the US-supported anti-Assad extremists associated with terrorists groups such as al-Nusra and al-Qaeda But nobody would call the Washington Post a fake newspaper although it upsets the Right because it definitely leans heavily towards Democrat positions. Nor can Fox News qualify as a “fake news” source for its full embrace of the Right. Truth and lies are found throughout both sides of the political spectrum. Nevertheless, on occasion the Daily Mail publishes noteworthy news not found in liberal-leaning sites. There is reason to believe that Wales’s banning the Mail is an act of personal revenge given the paper’s stories challenging Wikipedia’s reliability and labeling Wales as a liberal insider with the intention to destroy conservatism. For example, the Mail published a story about research coming out of Campbell University about the widespread inaccuracy of medical information on Wikipedia’s 20,000-plus health-related pages. It is feasible to regard the Mail’s article as a public service to warn readers not to rely on Wikipedia for high quality medical research nor to attempt to self-diagnose themselves based upon Wikipedia’s misinformation. In 2017, the paper reported on a study by Oxford Internet Institute noting that algorithmic bots have been used for over a decade on Wikipedia pages to “enforce bans, check spelling, links and import content.” This includes the undoing of manual and robotic edits made to Wiki pages. And in 2014 the Mail instructed all of its writers and reporters to never rely on Wikipedia as a single source. Sites that can properly be described as “fake news” are actually sources for disinformation campaigns. In this context, specific subjects covered by Wikipedia fall more in line with this definition than the Times or Post, or even the Daily Mail for that matter. Wales refuses to take personal responsibility for the gross disinformation, covert marketing, and editorial censorship that plagues Wikipedia. Rather, he consistently hides behind the ruse of the encyclopedia being an open invitation for anyone to edit content, or at least attempt to do so, and reaffirms his belief that truth will prevail through the infighting between Wikipedia editors. He consistently reassures critics that he is aware of the problems and that Wikipedia’s editorial process is not perfect. However, the fundamental corruption on the site resides within the administration of content, which is not based upon any expertise whatsoever in a topic under review, but on seniority based upon how many successful edits a person has made. It is not uncommon to find Skeptic sites praising Wales’s embrace of Skepticism and acknowledging him as one of their own. The sites Skeptical Science and Skeptools portray Wales in glowing terms for his attack against energy psychology. “Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales this week” reports Skeptools, “sent a clear signal to skeptics who edit the user-created encyclopedia – he agrees with our focus on science and good evidence.” After giving undue applause to the success of Susan Gerbic’s Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia, the article continues, ” Wales makes clear what I have been saying all along – the rules of evidence on Wikipedia are pro-skeptic and pro-science. If you are pushing an idea that science rejects, Wikipedia will reject it too…. Paranormalists and pseudoscientists take note: skeptics are not bullying you off Wikipedia. We are only enforcing the rules of evidence as clearly stated on the service. If you cannot provide adequate evidence for your ideas, they will not be accepted. So says Jimmy Wales, so say we all.” The hubris in this statement is obvious. The author knows the Skeptic movement has fully hijacked the encyclopedia. He speaks as someone who is in control and serves as a gatekeeper to rule over any discourse over what should be labeled as “pseudoscience.” In an earlier report, we noted how Wikipedia vilifies homeopathy outright: The Wiki page states that homeopathy “….is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific. Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition; large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, indicating that any positive effects that follow treatment are only due to the placebo effect, normal recovery from illness, or regression toward the mean…. Outside of the alternative medicine community, scientists have long considered homeopathy a sham or a pseudoscience, and the mainstream medical community regards it as quackery. There is an overall absence of sound statistical evidence of therapeutic efficacy, which is consistent with the lack of any biologically plausible pharmacological agent or mechanism.” Back in 2013, a study out of Rutgers University discovered that homeopathy and Jesus were the two most controversial pages on Wikipedia the enflamed the greatest debate. The study was reviewed by the Washington Post. A question. Are these biases solely those of Skeptics who commandeer the Wikipedia’s homeopathic page, or are Skeptics taking directions from Jimmy Wales or at least being given his green light? Back in 2013, Wales composed a letter to his readers on his Quora page based upon his experience at a London pharmacy where he was offered the popular homeopathic remedy Oscillococcinium for a sore throat and cough. Besides writing that Oscillococcinum “is a complete hoax product,” Wales reveals his support for flu vaccines, his utter contempt for homeopathy, and offers his services to prevent its use: “What I want to know is this: why is this legal? Or, if it is not legal, then what can be done about it? … In The Guardian article, “Take-up of flu jab drops” it was reported that the percentage of high-risk elderly people in the UK receiving the vaccine was just under 50%. How many of the other 50% chose not to take it because they believe this hoax remedy will protect them? … My understanding is that the legal situation in the UK is particularly bad. Homeopathic remedies of no value whatsoever are legally marketed as cures for specific diseases. Who should I talk to about this in order to encourage the creation of a campaign to stop this? This is not my primary area of interest and so I am not the right person to lead it myself. But I would like to help.” And Wales did help. And he gave plenty of it. Controlling the fifth most popular website on the internet, Wikipedia has been a boon for the Skeptic movement and its propaganda machine to disseminate its radical rationalist interpretation of science and demonize all alternative medicine. Guerrilla Skeptics’ Susan Gerbic replied to Wales’ offer: “Jimmy you have already done more than anyone could possibly dream that can be done. You created the most amazing resource in the world. I mean that, not only in English but in every language possible. The English homeopathy page alone gets over 140K views EACH MONTH. That is a lot of people being educated about homeopathy. Thank you. Allowing us editors to ‘do our job’ and keep these articles honest and correctly cited is enough. I can’t imagine what else you can do, my brain is teeny tiny compared to your mighty brain, if you come up with something please oh please let us in on it, we want to help.” Thank you Susan for blowing Jimmy’s cover. In a video of a lecture Gerbic presented at a Guerrilla Skeptic workshop, she informs participants about her team’s success in frustrating other Wikipedia editors who oppose their tactics and subsequently removed themselves as editors. There has been growing dissatisfaction and frustration among Wikipedia’s volunteer editorial base who are dedicated to the Foundation’s mission to bring free knowledge to the world. Dissent is turning more vocal and going public. Blogs and articles critical of Wikipedia’s adverse behavior and disruptive culture increase. Brian Britt, an assistant professor of journalism at South Dakota State University calculates that 77% of Wikipedia’s content is now composed by only one percent of its editors—the vast majority being men—who have achieved editorial seniority.[12] Out of disgust, editors are leaving Wikipedia in greater numbers, largely due to senior administrators’ rampant marginalization, backbiting and prejudices against editors who challenge them. As of 2015, the number of core active editors declined by 40%.[13] The opinion of many former Wikipedia devotees is that the encyclopedia is collapsing into a chaos of psychobabble. Earlier in the year we had conversations with Wikipedia editor Rome Viharo who has been documenting his unsettling experiences on the encyclopedia for several years. On his blog Wikipedia, We Have a Problem, Viharo writes: “A number of skeptic activists on Wikipedia believe that only they are qualified to edit a large swath of topics and biographies on Wikipedia, and they seek to purge other editors from those articles or Wikipedia itself. Skeptic activists take this very seriously and treat Wikipedia like a battleground for their activism, where online harassment, slander, bullying, character assassination, and public shaming are all used as tactics to control editing permissions on the world’s largest repository of knowledge.”[14] Ergo the question: who does this one percent of editors represent? Who is capable of spending many “unpaid” hours daily to edit Wikipedia pages? What conflicts of interest do they have, and are they using Wikipedia as a public relations platform to disseminate propaganda favoring commercial, partisan and ideological biases and to attack opponents? We have a very serious problem here that is in direct violation of Wikipedia’s written adn posted rules and ethics and everything Wales projects publicly to the world about himself and his project. Wales’ letter is a confession of motive and intention. It violates Wales’ belief that truth can be reached from the distillation of volunteer editors debating a topic. Not only does the encyclopedia exclude any published clinical evidence supporting homeopathy’s efficacy for treating certain illnesses, it makes every effort to discredit its leading advocates including the late Dr. Peter Fisher, Queen Elizabeth II’s personal homeopathic physician. For the record, a Cochrane review of Oscillococcinum trials concluded that the remedy did not prevent the onset of flu; however four other trials “suggested that Oscillococcinum relieved flu symptoms at 48 hours.” Another statistical review of the published literature conducted by Sloan Kettering Cancer Center concluded that the same homeopathic preparation “probably reduces the duration of illness in patients presenting influenza symptoms.” This information is blocked from being posted on Wikipedia’s page for “Oscillococcinum.” Wales is steeped in Skeptic philosophy and has been an invaluable enabler of the movement. Richard Dawkins, the modern founder of the New Atheism and a god-king among Skeptics, attended Wikipedia’s tenth anniversary celebration; Wales was photographed alongside his hero. During a 2007 TED talk, Dawkins presents his case that only atheists can serve as the intelligentsia necessary to preserve civilization and continue its march towards progress. He scornfully made the call for “militant atheists” to become more aggressive in the fight against superstition. As an aside, Skeptics protect Dawkin’s Wikipedia biography which is shiny white and makes no mention that felon Jeffrey Skilling, former CEO of Enron, received his inspiration from Dawkin’s book The Selfish Gene, a book possibly responsible for the social Darwinism that has caused enormous damage to citizens at the mercy of mega-corporations and their elite executives. Susan Gerbic, with the support of her Skeptic guru James Randi, took up Dawkins’ call to arms by co-founding Skeptic Guerrillas on Wikipedia. And apparently Wales has too. In her video noted above, Gerbic goes on to brag about her team’s success in “drastically” changing Wikipedia’s page on homeopathy and inserting the word “quackery.” She also goes on to share her success in using Wikipedia to increase the visits on external Skeptic homepages, primarily the James Randi Educational Foundation she is affiliated with. Elsewhere in her training lecture, she makes a Freudian slip, you can “change the rul (rules)…. er… pages.” Bending the rules may include redefining reliable references, such as including the Skeptics main journal, Skeptical Inquirer, which is not peer-reviewed and represents only a tiny fraction America’s readership. It is reasonable to assert that Gerbic received Wales’ nod of approval for her accomplishments. Gerbic’s work has received the highest praises from the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and Center for Inquiry — the leading starships of the Skeptic movement. She was elected as a Center for Inquiry fellow to join other leading Skeptics such as Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse, Carl Sagan, Michael Mann among others. This network of Skeptic associations, along with the fringe Science Based Medicine organization, now serve as an influential deep state operating freely and without impunity on Wikipedia. Given Wales close association with the Skeptic mission, we need to ask ourselves about the sincerity of Wales’ incessant rhetoric about democracy, freedom of information and net neutrality, and his espousal of “positive defiance.” As we have shown, he does not feel this way about medicine and health, nor about long-standing news outlets that disagree with his left-leaning Libertarian ideology. His claims of Wikipedia’s neutrality is a facade. Wikipedia’s page describing its Arbitration Committee on Pseudoscience sets forth principles and criteria to determine what can be properly labeled as a “pseudoscience” on Wikipedia entries. The “scientific focus” of articles are expected to “reflect current mainstream scientific consensus,” however no further definition is provided. A “neutral point of view” is also required, which means “fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy… and legitimate scientific disagreement.” This would include non-conventional therapies that now have volumes of peer-reviewed research published in medical journals throughout the world. Skeptics repeatedly violate this rule. Only astrology is listed in the Arbitration rules as an example of what can properly be called a pseudoscience on a Wiki page. With respect to “questionable science,” if a theory, for example acupuncture or Chiropractic, has a substantial following, although some would allege it to be a pseudoscience, it should not be characterized as such. And finally, under “alternative theoretical formulations,” if a theory has a following “within the scientific community” then it must not be labeled a pseudoscience because it is “part of the scientific process.” Therefore, the many non-conventional modalities of medical practice that are now recognized and incorporated in medical school curriculums, hospitals and now being researched at prominent conventional medical institutions, cannot be framed in derogatory terms. Based upon this criteria, a living person who practices or follows any medical system that is not qualified as a pseudoscience should not be referred to as a quack or in Jimmy Wales’ terms a “lunatic charlatan.” Speaking at the 2016 MindRush conference hosted by Business Today in India, Wales’ lecture was entitled “Why Positive Deviance Works.” Briefly, positive deviance is the idea that behavioral and social change can successfully be created by a small community of individuals who deviate from social norms of practice. The premise is that a small group can arrive at better outcomes than the majority of its peers. Since its inception in the 1970s, positive deviance has been successful in many practical instances, such as finding solutions to improve public health in poorer communities; however, as a principle it is an unstable, impractical and terrible model to apply to content on Wikipedia. What we have been describing above is a very small contingent of individuals, who are unquestionably deviant from modern scientific norms, who have been given direct permission and received inspiration and license from Jimmy Wales to capture Wikipedia’s pages on natural and alternative health to dramatically distort the debate their favor. Instead of following Wikipedia’s rules of the jungle to magically produce objectivity and truth out of conflicting analysis, argument, and conversation, a tiny group of Skeptics have been granted permission to impose its own solutions for how Wiki pages should be reframed and according to their own unpopular ideological beliefs. None of the many non-conventional medical disciplines disparaged by Skeptic activists accurately qualify as pseudoscience based upon Wikipedia’s arbitration criteria. On the other hand, Skeptics have moved the boundaries and evidence clearly shows Wales condones this. “The prime goal of censorship is to promote ignorance,” writes American author Felice Picano. Skeptics habitually misinterpret, misrepresent or censor all valid scientific research that might give support to non-conventional medical practices. Often, Skeptics’ edits are utterly absurd. In their attacks on Orthomolecular Medicine, based upon the work of two-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling to support the evidence that optimal nutrition, including supplementation and mega-vitamin therapy, can prevent disease, Skeptics describe this alternative medical theory as “faddism and as quackery.” An editor attempting to add a sentence had it immediately deleted because it would have lent support to orthomolecular theory. He wrote, “Diseases that are accepted by conventional medicine to be the result of vitamin or other nutrient deficiencies are: scurvy, pellagra, beriberi, rickets, tetany, osteoporosis, goiter, Keshan disease and iron deficiency anemia.” This sentence would find agreement with every allopathic medical physician. Yet if you go to the individual Wikipedia pages for each of these illnesses listed, you will find direct references to the specific vitamin or mineral deficiency as a primary cause. Seemingly, Skeptics have yet to get around to flatten these pages with their nonsense. And in the case of Wikipedia this means banning expert editorial opposition, real scholarship and permitting vicious attacks by corporations, organizations and groups—notably the apostles of the scientific Skepticism movement—to infiltrate the encyclopedia to disparage and condemn individuals and provable facts that challenge commercial positioning, and their unwarranted influence and control over a narrowly defined criteria of scientific dogma. Even people challenging misinformation posted on their personal Wikipedia pages must spend many months or years to diligently have it changed or risk being banned for attempting to do so. For all of Wales’ Libertarian accolades and unwavering belief in reductionist science and technology as the driving engine of his Randian or Objectivist ideas of progress[2], it is censorship that hinders real scientific and medical progress. The primary leaders and spokespersons for the Skepticism movement such as Quackwatch founder Stephen Barrett and Science Based Medicine’s Steven Novella and David Gorski have pristine Wikipedia biographies. Criticisms, conflicts of interest and controversies are not permitted to be added. Editors attempting to bring a realistic balance to these people’s lives can be quickly banned. The Skeptic groups with whom Wales has aligned himself and handed over managerial editorial rights run roughshod over matters pertaining to the full spectrum of available healthcare, especially non-conventional practices. They act blatantly with malice of forethought. In a letter posted online to Dr. Deepak Chopra, biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake opines: “… Wikimedia skeptics are the self-appointed frontier guards of science, a job for which they think they need no credentials except their fervor….. it is easy to be a media skeptic. You get the last word. You can say what you like. You don’t have to spend years doing actual research. And you yourself can remain immune from criticism, because those you criticize have no right to reply.”[7] The Wikipedia entries for Drs. Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra have been repeatedly victimized by radicalized Skeptics for many years. Although both have impeccable credentials and are visionaries in their own right, their positions on consciousness, mind-body medicine and psychology have been anathema for Skeptics’ materialistic and reductionist beliefs. Earlier, Dr. Sheldrake’s TED Talk lecture had been censored on the best of atheist Skeptics PZ Meyer and the new darling of the radical Skeptic movement Prof. Sean Carroll at Cal Tech. Coming to Sheldrake’s and Chopra’s assistance, Wikipedia editor Rome Viharo attempted to edit their Wikipedia pages on their behalf as case studies to provide decisive evidence for how Skeptic activists maintain control over entire entries.[8] Skeptic crusaders act with premeditative intent to falsely discredit all and everything that conflict with their 19th century Cartesian view of a mechanistic reality. Without any clinical nor medical experience or expertise, many Skeptics such as the recruited medical illiterates and trolls in Susan Gerbic’s and Tim Farley’s Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia (recently renamed to About Time) have free reign over Wiki pages pertaining to research into the paranormal and potentially life-saving drugless therapies for relieving and reversing disease. Chiropractic, acupuncture, naturopathy, homeopathy and energy medicine are all criticized as pseudoscientific and quackery on Wikipedia. The Guerrilla Skeptics and Jimmy Wales are excellent examples of what Marcoen Cabbolet at Vrije University in Brussels calls pseudoskpticism or “bogus skepticism.” Pseudoskepticism was first coined in 1987 by Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist at Eastern Michigan University, himself an ardent Skeptic who founded the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. A year later he turned against the organization he founded for gross unscientific behavior and for having been usurped by virulent Skeptics speaking against subjects they either had no professional background and expertise or for improperly weighing the scientific evidence of questionable claims.[9] Pseudoskepticism has no intention to discover truth; rather it is based solely upon efforts to disparagingly discredit opponents and medical and scientific research it regards offensive. Cabbolet identifies several “tell-tale signs” for identifying pseudoskeptics; each sign is prominently recognizable on Wikipedia pages devoted to non-conventional and natural medicine as well as the biographies of many of its leading practitioners and advocates: ? Ad hominem attacks as a rhetorical strategy to marginalize others and label them as charlatans, quacks, crackpots, etc. ? Vitriolic tones or the use of belittling phrases and pejoratives. Often such attacks border on being libelous. ? Non-specific comments that indicate pseudoskeptics have made little or no effort to understand either the research or the professional credentials of a person being discredited. ? Absence of proof or what Cabbolet describes as “one of the most shameful ways to attack someone else’s work is to put forward outright fabrications.” One common Wikipedia reference to discredit alternative or natural health claims it denounces is to state “there is insufficient scientific proof.” Yet more often than not it is the case that there are hundreds and sometimes thousands of scientific studies supporting non-conventional medical claims and therapeutic achievements. ? False metaphors in order to draw associations between the person, discipline or theory being criticized with something known to be factually untrue. ? Targeting the mass media or making efforts to distribute pseudoskeptic attacks on someone or a discipline to the wider public. Since Wikipedia is today the fifth most popular website on the internet, it has served as a perfect forum for Wales’ pseudoskeptic friends to reach out to a larger audience and disseminate biased, misleading propaganda. Moreover, and far worse, Skeptics, wittingly or not, service the pharmaceutical industry’s commercial interests more effectively and at no advertising costs.[10] There is no evidence that Wales, who has no notable scientific background, and certainly none in medicine, has stopped to question Skepticism’s extremism and its worship of reductionism. In a reply to a petition to withhold donations to Wikipedia posted by the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology on Change.org, Wales replied to the Association’s president, Debby Vajda, he wrote: “No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn’t.” Those of us who investigate the Skeptics immediately took note of Wales’ use of expression “lunatic charlatans” that is commonly found on pseudoskeptic screeds to disparage practitioners of alternative medicine. In return Vajda provided 51 peer-reviewed articles and studies, 18 which were randomized controlled studies, appearing in professional journals, including the American Psychological Association, the Journal of Clinical Psychology, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, Psychotherapy Theory Research and Practice and others showing positive statistical results outside the range of chance. But none of this made any difference for having the Wikipedia pages changed. Pseudoskeptism is not only a perversion of healthy skepticism but it diminishes the entire legacy of scientific integrity and inquiry. For example, Skeptics’ use of tabloid journalism on Wikipedia also fervently attacks and ridicules those who reject the atmospheric and geologic evidence confirming anthropogenic climate change. Jimmy Wales has a low tolerance for climate change deniers. Forbes magazine ran an article, “Wikipedia Censors Global Warming Skeptics,” noting that “global warming is a pet hobby of founder Jimmy Wales.”[11] Nevertheless, as the underdog facing a gargantuan body of scientific literature indicating that humanity is in fact altering the climate and contributing to global warming, it is up to climate change opponents to demonstrate their case scientifically, with convincing statistical and/or measurable evidence, and to accurately refute the evidence showing otherwise. Although we believe this will be an insurmountable task for the tiny faction of scientists opposing anthropogenic climate change to accomplish, the debate should be accommodated and offered on Wikipedia. Censorship and contempt will never win over those who need to be convinced about the defects in their beliefs. Dissent has always been a healthy component of scientific progress. Without opposition to dominant theories and the prevailing paradigm, science would be nothing more than an orthodox and dogmatic way of knowing. Yet science, and in particular the soft sciences such as medicine and psychology, also operate in the realms of power, economics and politics. Consequently, medical battles over truth are in fact reflections of power struggles, with the Skeptics’ dominant power creating an inhospitable environment for discussion and debate and unwilling to accommodate contrarian ideas that also provide sound, reputable evidence. Being registered as a non-profit organization and relying heavily upon tens of thousands of volunteers rather than paid employees to orchestrate and manage the encyclopedia’s content, Wikipedia has so far succeeded to escape the scrutiny and public condemnation it deserves. Its method of censorship is more subtle, covert, than the widespread censorship tactics used by Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter in cooperation with US intelligence agencies. All the problems Wikipedia faces and discussed above can simply be blamed on difficulties in administering tens of thousands of unpaid volunteer editors rather than there being a systemic fault within Wales’ Foundation. Wikipedia should be properly understood both as a large public relations behemoth as well as an open-source encyclopedia. Unlike the Encyclopedia Britannica, which relies upon highly learned experts and scholars in chosen fields, Wikipedia accommodates numerous amateurs and even “know nothings” about subjects they are responsible to manage. It is unnecessary for an editor to reveal his or her real name, education level or professional background in order to climb the Wiki ladder to a senior administrator position. Many senior editors keep their real identifies and affiliations hidden and only use anonymous names. Editors can even pretend to hold doctoral degrees or disguise themselves as medical professionals. The deep fundamental flaws and failures in Wikipedia’s structural base have been noted repeatedly by frustrated editors and observers since its founding. And the site continues to degenerate parallel with its growing worldwide popularity and deepening pockets of large donations. Some of the larger donors remain hidden or anonymous. New York Times best-selling human rights author Edwin Black best described the dangers Wikipedia poses for social progress in his article “Wikipedia: The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge” published on the History News Network: “…. Wikipedia, the constantly changing knowledge base created a global free-for-all of anonymous users, now stands as the leading force for dumbing down the world of knowledge. If Wikipedia’s almost unstoppable momentum continues, critics say, it threatens to quickly reverse centuries of progress… In its place would be a constant cacophony of fact and falsity that Wikipedia critics call a “law of the jungle.”[16] All of this may appear innocent on the surface or from a particular perspective of tolerance. However, on the matter of health and medicine, Wikipedia’s editorial apparatus may lean towards criminal behavior. Wikipedia bans upwards to 1,000 IP addresses daily.[17] Even senior editors have been forced off the site for erratic, belligerent and condescending behavior that might be clinically diagnosed as a mental disturbance. Sadly, enormous damage was already done before Wikipedia administrators get around to take firm action to remove the functionally deranged. Providing wrong medical information and ignoring accurate facts can be life-threatening for those who refer to Wikipedia for reliable knowledge. It is not simply ironic that Wikipedia Skeptics, who control and edit the site’s healthcare pages have no clinical or professional medical education or experience, it is pathological. Jimmy Wales has opened the doors for the creation of a nefarious culture to pervert the entire discipline of objective medical science can easily be conveyed by means of an analogy. Imagine you are a medical student and the medical college drags in a passerby off the street to teach a class. He refuses to identify himself and calls himself “Anonymous” or gives a silly fictitious name. He begins his lecture by stating, “Let me tell you right off. I have no experience in medicine. I have never attended medical school nor have I received any higher learning in molecular biology, genetics, physiology nor any other curriculum associated with human anatomy and the etiology of disease. I have never worked in a research laboratory nor have I ever diagnosed or treated anybody. I only live in my mom’s basement and spend my days surfing the internet and editing Wikipedia pages. Nevertheless, Jimmy Wales has given me permission to join you today so I can teach you everything you need to know about medicine. And you cannot challenge anything I say. If you attempt to correct me, I will have you immediately removed from class. Perhaps indefinitely.” “First and foremost — and burn this disingenuous rule deeply into your brains — at no point in your medical practice are you permitted to use any kind of complementary and alternative medical modality. You are not permitted to use nutritional therapy, acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine, homeopathy, or Chinese and Ayurveda medicine. Meditation, prayer, body-mind and energy medicine and massage are nonsense and therefore also forbidden. Not only should you never use any of these non-conventional medical therapies in your practice, neither should you ever seek scientific information on the National Institutes of Health’s PubMed database, the world’s largest repository of peer-reviewed medical research, to learn about any of these fake, pseudoscientific practices. Just believe me. I am here to tell you that no research supporting this quackery exists. So save yourself the time and effort because Jimmy wants you to know the gospel truth. And Wales should certainly know because he doesn’t have any medical credentials either. Pretend this doesn’t exist and if you do come upon research supporting any natural medical practice or find people who promote it, know it is false and those who advocate for this chicanery are “lunatic charlatans,” to quote Wales. Report them to their state medical boards because they are delusional.” As this street person is about to exit the lecture hall, a student raises her hand and blurts out, “Anonymous, I am confused. Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) now publish their own peer-reviewed medical journals. These natural practices you condemn are included in curriculums in most medical schools today. Many hospitals and clinics offer acupuncture to relieve pain, recommend natural diets, supplements and herbs. Nurses are being trained in mind-body energy techniques, and the value in meditation to reduce stress in cancer patients is now commonplace. There are tens of thousands of studies supporting all of these non-conventional medical therapies and theories and patients are increasingly turning to these modalities because conventional pharmaceutical drug-based medicine is failing. So what is the basis for your scholarship?” Anonymous replies, “Barely any of us in the Skeptic movement have an academic background in medicine. We don’t read the medical literature. We only need to rely on the reason of our common sense in order to determine whether a treatment is ‘plausibly’ effective or not. Our personal opinions are more important than all the medical literature in the world. Besides, Jimmy Wales supports us and that is all we need to demand your attention and obedience.” To keep people dumb downed and ignorant, all that is necessary is to recruit under-educated Skeptics, such as Susan Gerbic and even Jimmy Wales for that matter, who are oblivious about molecular biology or quantum uncertainty and put them on a soapbox. In a sermon to her militant Skeptics, Gerbic reveals that her recruits do not require any professional expertise or knowledge in a field in order to edit Wikipedia pages. She writes, “Pick your topic, psychics, vaccines, cryptozoology or whatever gets your heart rate going. You can work with the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia team (we train) or hundreds of other ways to take care of these issues. Quit bitching in your beer, rolling your eyes and DO SOMETHING!” Knowing that these are the very same people controlling Wikipedia’s articles on non-conventional medicine and the biographies of natural health’s advocates, how can any information on these pages be regarded as trustworthy and not be severely compromised? It remains to be investigated whether Skeptics may be engaging in racketeering activities on behalf of private corporate interests. For certain, Skeptical positions regarding health are fully aligned with pharmaceutical interests and the most orthodox of medical practice. But Skeptics are not limited to backing conventional medicine. Gerbic’s guerrilla efforts also target the debate over the benefits and potential health risks of genetically modified crops or GMOs. Skeptics give their full weight in support of GMOs and the agricultural chemical industry. Wikipedia continues to argue that “there is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.” The entry makes no reference to French molecular biologist Gilles-Eric Seralini study first published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, and later in Environmental Sciences Europe, which reproduced Monsanto’s own studies to prove that rats fed with genetically modified Roundup Ready corn had a dramatic increase in tumors and shorter lifespans. Since GMO crops are heavily laced with glyphosate or Roundup, and other pesticides, there is also no reference to the August 2018 California court ruling that glyphosate-based weed-killers cause cancer. The sole purpose of GMO crops is to spray more chemical toxins. Monsanto was ordered to pay $289 million for its cover-up of this fact. For Wikipedia’s entry for Dr. Seralini’s biography there is far more emphasis on referencing criticism of his research. The actual results of his groundbreaking research are not mentioned. This is a case example of how Skeptics revert knowledge to align with and shield corporate interests by denying the readers the truths that could protect them. There is a direct relationship between agricultural scientists shilling for Monsanto, the major Skeptic organizations and Gerbic’s activists on Wikipedia. Kevin Folta, chairman of the department of horticultural sciences at the University of Florida, received his fellowship from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry alongside Susan Gerbic. In 2015, a Freedom of Information Act submitted by the California organization US Right to Know caught Folta shilling for Monsanto and the agricultural industry. An article in Nature confirmed the details. In 2016, Gerbic interviewed Folta for the Center of Inquiry. The discussion confirmed that the Guerrilla Skeptics are also active on editing Wikipedia’s GMO pages. Unfortunately, medical students, and even clinical physicians, rely heavily upon Wikipedia as a major source of healthcare information. An article published by the American Psychiatric Association headlined, “Is Wikipedia taking over textbooks in medical student education.” Upwards to 70% now refer to Wikipedia for medical information. In a study published in the May 2014 issue of the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, researchers at Campbell University in North Carolina conducted an analysis of references on Wikipedia for ten of the most costly disease conditions (ie., coronary artery disease, lung cancer, depressive disorder, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes, back pain and hyperlipidemia). The study randomly selected medical professionals to conduct the reviews. The results found statistically significant inconsistencies and discordance between Wikipedia’s cited resources and the corresponding peer-reviewed medical literature. The study concluded that “physicians and medical students who currently use Wikipedia as a medical reference should be discouraged from doing so because of the potential for errors.” The consequences of the Campbell study become more onerous in light of an even more disturbing study jointly conducted by Katholieke University in Belgium and Washington University School of Medicine and published in the Journal of the American Medical Information Association. Online statistical analysis revealed that Wikipedia ranked among the first ten results in upwards to 85% of search engine keyword queries concerning health issues including life-threatening diseases. On Google alone, where Wikipedia has been bestowed favored status, it reached first place on 40% of occasions and 68% of the time among the top five. In other words, Wikipedia health entries were likely viewed more regularly than all other legitimate professional medical online resources, including the federal health agencies, MedlinePlus, Medscape, the Mayo Clinic, KidsHealth and WebMD.[18] No doubt Wales is proud of this achievement; it generates more traffic and hopefully more $5 and $10 donations. Although primarily devoted to conventional medicine, sites such as the prestigious Mayo Clinic (ranked in the top five for 20.8% of searches), WebMD (6% of times in the top five) and Medicinenet also provide beneficial and accurate information and advice about integrative and alternative medicine, naturopathic herbal and Chinese medicines, acupuncture and the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. No user visiting Wikipedia would ever gain access to such accurate information because Jimmy Wales has assured its visitors that non-conventional medicine will remain marginalized, falsified and worse, demonized. In an interview with TechCrunch.com, Wikipedia’s Chief Revenue Officer, Lisa Gruwell, acknowledged the Wikimedia Foundation’s relationship with Google is the best among the tech giants and “partnerships” exist between them. Although the actual details of these “partnerships” are sketchy, during the 2017-2018 fiscal year Google donated over $1 million. Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, the liberal Tides Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and Omidyar Network Fund are other top donors.[19] Many people use Wikipedia to self-diagnose themselves and seek medical solutions for illnesses they either have or imagine they have. Due to the vast inaccuracies in Wikipedia’s health pages, people are surely misdiagnosing themselves. This can be catastrophic, particularly for serious life-threatening diseases that might be ignored after referring to a Wikipedia article full of errors. In 2012, a British company Balance Activ conducted a survey of 1,000 women who were referring to “Dr. Google” to determine the cause of various symptoms they were experiencing. Twenty-five percent of the women were misdiagnosing themselves and treating themselves improperly. By turning Inquisitional power over to Skeptics, Wales is paving the way for a new round of witch hunts and perhaps future legal trials against alternative and natural physicians. In the 1960s and 1970s, the American Medical Association’s Committee on Quackery made efforts to accuse and jail chiropractic doctors for fraud until a federal court found that the AMA engaged in a conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1986. Throughout the 1990s, Stephen Barrett’s National Council Against Health Fraud took up the same mantle under the banner of Quackwatch to continue the persecution of non-conventional medical disciplines in courtrooms.[20] Wales turning Wikipedia’s health pages over to the Skeptics undoubtedly delights the pharmaceutical industrial complex, and the small faction of radicalized Science-Based Medicine doctors, such as Drs. Steven Novella, David Gorski, Harriet Hall, Paul Offit who are frequently cited as reliable sources by Wikipedia’s Skeptic editors. Aside from Offit, none are notable researchers or practitioners in their fields of specialty. Although contemporary Skeptics’ strategies differ from the Quackbusters’ costly efforts to press legal charges against alternative health practitioners in the courts, their motives and goals are unchanged. Skeptics continue to rely upon the large Quackbuster database to reference condemnations against every discipline of non-conventional medicine and biographical character assassinations. Editorial fact-checking is completely absent. Yet it serves as a primary resource for Skeptics to go on the offensive. And Wikipedia continues to permit Barrett’s disreputable database to serve as a legitimate primary source for Wikipedia citations to destroy the careers of honest alternative health practitioners and advocates as well as visionary scientists and physicians who are looking outside the box of medicine’s orthodoxy to find new and safer ways to treat illnesses. Wales has proven himself to be another public enemy to health and well-being. And despite everything Wales has to say, Wikipedia has evolved in his image and now incorporates his biases and prejudices. And the encyclopedia is now a propaganda arm for Wales’ favoritisms, intolerance, and animosities. The power of propaganda, according to Chomsky, “generates an irrational loyalty to an otherwise meaningless community [such as the Wikipedia community] that serves as a training ground for subordination to power and immature chauvinism.”[21] For all practical purposes Jimmy Wales is rabidly pro-corporate and a shallow thinker who adheres to and provides support to the irrational doctrines of pseudoskepticism. He has allowed his encyclopedia to deny the legitimacy to tens of thousands of health professionals practicing in the alternative fields of chiropractic, Chinese medicine, acupuncture, naturopathy, the nutritional sciences, homeopathy and other healing modalities. In some cases lives and careers have been destroyed by cretins skilled in the art of defamation. Yet if conventional medicine were to be such a savior, there would be no need for alternative medical treatments. If there was convincing scientific proof that the average American diet kept us healthy, trim and mentally fit, there would be no need for vegan diets or to purchase only organic produce. If our water, air and soil were truly clean, we would not be facing a growing epidemic of environmentally caused illnesses because our federal agencies would be advocates for health. Rather Wikipedia is an enabler for the worst conventional medicine has to offer and Wales intends to keep the public in the dark to prevent people from awakening to this fact. The late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington observed that the wielders of power must keep a population in the dark. However, when people are exposed to the sunlight, power begins to evaporate. Throughout our series of over a dozen articles we have been unveiling the dark side of Jimmy Wales and his Wikimedia Foundation, the encyclopedia’s condemnation of non-conventional medicine, radicalized Skepticism, and the cult of Science Based Medicine. We will continue to do so because Wales does not deserve your dollar. | News Editors | http://www.naturalnews.com/2019-04-09-wicked-wicked-wikipedia-the-corruption-and-collapse-of-the-legendary-peoples-encyclopedia.html | 2019-04-09 09:47:42+00:00 | 1,554,817,662 | 1,567,543,453 | politics | political dissent |
356,822 | newswars--2019-09-24--Leftist Lady Shames Hong Kong Protesters for Valuing Freedom More Than Safety | 2019-09-24T00:00:00 | newswars | Leftist Lady Shames Hong Kong Protesters for Valuing ‘Freedom More Than Safety’ | An obnoxious woman lectured Hong Kong protesters for daring to prioritize freedom over safety in their fight against Communist China. “What a waste of time for everybody,” the woman sneers at several protesters. “You should be enjoying your Sunday. Is this okay? Is this respectful?” “Find me one case where violence led to a good solution!” she cries. Clearly, this woman has never heard of the Revolutionary War. “You guys value freedom more than safety,” she continued, not realizing that’s exactly how free societies should operate. This woman simply doesn’t realize the stakes for the Hong Kong protesters, who are pushing back against Communist Chinese oppression in the form of social credit scores, extradition for political dissent, and other police state policies. As Benjamin Franklin once aptly said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Infowars reporters Savanah Hernandez and Greg Reese are in Hong Kong covering the latest protest developments against the ChiComs. | Jamie White | https://www.newswars.com/leftist-lady-shames-hong-kong-protesters-for-valuing-freedom-more-than-safety/ | 2019-09-24 17:23:20+00:00 | 1,569,360,200 | 1,570,222,357 | politics | political dissent |
361,731 | newsweek--2019-02-02--Newt Gingrich Huawei Charges Are More Than An Indictment China Is Threatening Our National Securit | 2019-02-02T00:00:00 | newsweek | Newt Gingrich: Huawei Charges Are More Than An Indictment, China Is Threatening Our National Security | OPINION | The recent federal indictments of Chinese telecom giant Huawei and its affiliates lay out a frightening story of a foreign company illicitly manipulating and exploiting loopholes in the American business system. The first indictment, filed in the Eastern District of New York, outlines 13 charges related to bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and obstruction of justice. During Monday’s press conference about the indictments, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker clearly described Huawei’s lies about its affiliations with an Iranian subsidiary, Skycom, which misled banks into conducting business that is illegal under US law. As Whitaker pointed out, Huawei has been allegedly deceiving and conducting illicit activities against the US government and global financial institutions for at least a decade, and this behavior “goes all the way to the top of the company.” The second indictment was filed in Washington and details 10 charges related to theft of trade secrets, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice. This indictment describes how Huawei relentlessly attempted to steal the technology behind T-Mobile’s robot mobile phone testing system, Tappy. In this case, Huawei actually created an employee bonus program for those who engaged in stealing valuable and confidential information from their competitors. These allegations are serious and alarming. Circumventing US sanctions against Iran—whose government chants “Death to America” and supports terrorist activities—undermines our national security interests. Engaging in activities that add to the estimated $225 billion to $600 billion that is lost every year to China through intellectual property theft is an attack on our economic interests. As I describe in my upcoming book, Trump vs. China: Facing and Fighting America’s Biggest Threat, in order to comprehend the significance of these charges—and the substantial risks that Huawei’s alleged crimes pose to America’s national security and economic interests—we must look at the bigger picture. Huawei was founded in 1987 by a former officer of the People’s Liberation Army—the Chinese Communist Party’s military arm. Since then, the company has become the world’s largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer—and the second largest smartphone maker. Huawei has benefitted greatly from China’s subjectively discriminatory business policies and has raised significant security concerns among US government officials. In a hearing last February, intelligence officials, including the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the director of national intelligence, all agreed that they would not advise private American citizens to buy Huawei devices or services. This week, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that America’s national security and economic security are threatened by “the immense influence that the Chinese government holds over Chinese corporations like Huawei.” According to Wray, “the potential for any company beholden to a foreign government, especially one that doesn’t share our values, to burrow into the American telecommunications market,” would allow “the foreign government the capacity to maliciously modify or steal information, to conduct undetected espionage or exert pressure or control.” It is also important to consider the worldwide rollout of 5G telecommunications infrastructure and Huawei’s current leading position in the development of this new revolutionary technology. A company exhibiting this type of illicit behavior and generating the level of concern that it has within the U.S. intelligence community should not be setting the global standards for the world’s telecommunications industry. Yet, Huawei is currently testing in, has memorandums of understanding with, or is a confirmed network or vendor for at least 80 countries around the world. The reality is, whoever controls 5G ultimately controls the future. The emergence of this technology will be the cornerstone of the world’s advanced operational capabilities. It will be the key to connected infrastructure, autonomous vehicles, high tech factories, worldwide commerce, aircraft, and even our personal devices. This technology facilitates the ability to control critical infrastructure on a massive scale—which poses extraordinary security risks. It is not in the United States’ interest to have this emerging industry controlled by a foreign company or government which has already raised substantial security concerns. Lastly, the emergence of 5G and these new connective capabilities will result in a massive influx of data. Already, China has a strict set of laws which force companies to cooperate with government surveillance initiatives. FBI Director Wray asserted that China’s cybersecurity law mandates that “Chinese companies, like Huawei, are required to provide essentially access upon demand [to the Chinese government] with little to no process to challenge that.” The Wall Street Journal reported that companies are “required to help China’s government hunt down criminal suspects and silence political dissent.” So, imagine for a moment what could happen if companies, such as Huawei, operating in an increasingly surveillance-based state were allowed to dictate the rollout of the world’s global 5G network. What would it mean for Americans overseas, including our military men and women, intelligence operatives, diplomats, tourists, and students? What would happen if the United States did not press charges and allowed Huawei to continue on with their seemingly illegal activities in pursuit of profit and power? The combined 23 charges in these indictments have made it clear that Huawei has threatened America’s national security and economic interests through illegal means. Our justice system has to fully investigate and prosecute these allegations. But the fight won’t end there. Huawei is only one company that is closely connected to China’s communist government—which is fundamentally different from our own. Many others are currently positioning themselves to control the future of our technological world using unethical methods. This is how America must start thinking about the challenge that the Communist Party of China poses to our national interests—this is not an isolated event. It is a part of a collective strategy where China’s government utilizes all available tools to advance its own agenda. Therefore, the indictments against Huawei represent more than just the beginning of a legal trial. The United States has sent a bold message to Huawei, China, and to the world. It should continue to do so—especially with China. Any attempt to cheat to advance an agenda that undermines our American values, security, or interests must not be tolerated. America must not idly watch as a company or government attempts to manipulate, control, and exploit American businesses and citizens for profit and power. We must continue to actively promote and stand for a world order that is based on freedom, fairness, and honesty. | null | https://www.newsweek.com/newt-gingrich-huawei-indictment-china-us-1315840?utm_source=Public&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution | 2019-02-02 17:31:02+00:00 | 1,549,146,662 | 1,567,549,814 | politics | political dissent |
383,132 | npr--2019-01-11--Pompeos Cairo Speech Is Met With Skepticism About Trump Policies | 2019-01-11T00:00:00 | npr | Pompeo's Cairo Speech Is Met With Skepticism About Trump Policies | Pompeo's Cairo Speech Is Met With Skepticism About Trump Policies Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's speech Thursday at the American University in Cairo struck out at the Obama administration's policies in the Middle East. "In falsely seeing ourselves as a force for what ails the Middle East, we were timid about asserting ourselves when the times – and our partners – demanded it," Pompeo said. He didn't refer to Obama by name. But he called out a speech by "another American" in the same city in 2009 – an address that was a hallmark of the early years of the Obama presidency. His harsh comments on the past administration prompted critiques of the Trump administration's strategy for the region. Among the critics was Gerald Feierstein, U.S. Ambassador to Yemen during the Obama administration. "Two years into the Trump administration, people are less interested in what they think was wrong about a speech Barack Obama made in Cairo 10 years ago and more interested in what the Trump administration is doing," Feierstein told NPR. "And on that score what they would have heard in the speech today is a lot of empty rhetoric." Pompeo asserted that President Trump had "unleashed the fury of the U.S. military not once, but twice" after Bashar Assad used chemical weapons on his people. "And he is willing to do it again." He contrasted that to Obama's decision not to make a military response after Assad used chemical weapons – even though Obama had threatened that such an action would cross a red line and would be punished. Obama said Congress should authorize any military intervention, and that didn't happen. "We condemned (Assad's) actions," Pompeo said Thursday. "But in our hesitation to wield power, we did nothing." Pompeo said the previous administration "grossly underestimated the tenacity and the viciousness of radical Islamism," which he said allowed ISIS to grow in Syria and Iraq. But Pompeo used the speech to try to counter criticism that the U.S. decision to withdraw its 2,200 troops from Syria could lead to an ISIS resurgence. "This isn't a change of mission," Pompeo said. Instead, he said, the U.S. will use diplomacy and work with allies to finish dismantling ISIS and "to expel every last Iranian boot" from Syria. "He said we're going to continue to push back against Assad and that we're ready to re-engage if Assad uses chemical weapons, but clearly the administration's position now seems to be to give Assad a clear path to victory," Feierstein said. "What he's saying is ... good enough, but it doesn't seem to comport with what we're seeing on the ground." John Hannah, senior counselor at the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said he thought Pompeo had a challenging mission in Cairo. "He was attempting to reassure an audience that has been entirely confused and I think in some ways demoralized by the president's announcement in December that he was withdrawing all troops from Syria," Hannah said. "I think he did about as well as he could." A major focus of Pompeo's speech was Iran. He lamented that the U.S. under Obama was silent as the "Ayatollahs and their henchmen murdered, jailed and intimidated freedom-loving Iranians off the streets." He said Trump has "reversed our willful blindness" to the danger of Iran and withdrawn from the "failed nuclear deal." Trita Parsi, author of Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy, said he thought Pompeo was wrong to celebrate withdrawing from the deal, brokered by Obama, that lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran agreeing to curb its nuclear program. "The only time the United States in the last 40 years actually have managed to change a key Iranian policy in a significant way has actually been through the multilateral diplomacy that led to the nuclear deal," he said. "None of the sanctions, none of the pressure, none of the coercion, sabotage, cyberwarfare in any way shape or form have achieved anything even remotely close." Still, Parsi said, Obama did not do enough to solidify that 2015 deal and protect it from future attempts to dismantle it. Last year President Trump announced the U.S. would withdraw from the deal. Washington has also pressured other signatories of the deal to suspend business dealings with Iran or face consequences in the U.S. Parsi said he was surprised that Pompeo was quick to criticize Iran but quiet about the excesses of allies like Saudi Arabia. For example, U.S. intelligence officials believe the Saudi crown prince was involved in the killing of a journalist in the country's consulate in Istanbul. "The silence on Saudi Arabia, the silence on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, further cements the impression that when the Trump administration talks about human rights, it simply is not serious," Parsi said. In Cairo, Pompeo praised Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi for his "efforts to promote religious freedom. ... I was happy to see our citizens, wrongly convicted of improperly operating NGOs here, finally acquitted." Long Island University political scientist Dalia Fahmy said Pompeo glossed over Sissi's imprisonment of thousands of political dissenters, which the U.S. State Department has reported. "You would think as the head of our State Department he would talk about human rights in Egypt," said Fahmy, author of the forthcoming book, The Rise and Fall of The Muslim Brotherhood and the Future of Political Islam. "What it tells Arab leaders is that this is an administration that does not take democracy seriously." Hannah of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies read Pompeo's comments differently. "I do think the Secretary in his speech in Cairo did clearly speak to the issue of what's happening internally in Egypt," Hannah said. "I think he did so in a relatively soft way but the point will be taken, I think, by Egyptians, that America is concerned when NGO workers get locked up unfairly." Regarding Yemen, Pompeo declared, the U.S. has helped coalition partners "take the lead in preventing an Iranian expansion that would be disastrous for world trade and regional security." The U.S. has supported a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen for three years, beginning with Obama. NPR's Greg Myre reported the American help was aimed at evicting the Iran-backed Houthi rebels who have taken over key parts of Yemen. Half of Yemen's population faces starvation as a result of the war, and members of Congress have pressed the White House to end U.S. support for the Saudis. Pompeo said the U.S. has supported United Nations-led talks to bring peace to Yemen. Omar began her term this month as one of the first two Muslim women House members. She said recalibrating the U.S. position in the Middle East is a priority. "I'm really interested, once we deal with the current issue of reopening the government, in making sure we're holding Saudi Arabia accountable, that we are really putting our foot down in our involvement with the Saudi-led Yemen war," said Omar. Responses from the Middle East were mixed. The United Arab Emirates welcomed the speech. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash wrote on Twitter, "Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's speech ... is important in supporting regional stability and identifying the dangers faced by the region." Israelis, too, saw the speech as favorable. Pompeo mentioned Israel more than a dozen times, and in each instance asserted the U.S. priority on maintaining its ally's security. Dore Gold, former director general of Israel's foreign ministry, said Pompeo's "critique of Iranian expansionism was very important for Israel." But in a statement, senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat criticized the general theme of the speech — that America has been a force for good in the Middle East. "After President Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, dropped the refugee issue from the table, closed the American consulate in Jerusalem and PLO office in Washington, D.C., declared settlements legal, cut all aid to Palestinians, including to Unrwa and East Jerusalem hospitals, define Israel's war crimes against Palestinians as self defense, threaten all nations that vote in favor of Palestine in the UN, or any other international agency, Secretary Pompeo concludes that the U.S. is a force of good in the region and will make peace between Palestinians and Israelis. Mr. Pompeo, do you see the word 'stupid' on the Arabs' foreheads?" NPR Jerusalem Correspondent Daniel Estrin, NPR Diplomatic Correspondent Michele Kelemen and producer Lama Al-Arian contributed to this report. | Daniella Cheslow | https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/684100962/pompeos-cairo-speech-is-met-with-skepticism-about-trump-policies?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news | 2019-01-11 03:12:59+00:00 | 1,547,194,379 | 1,567,552,981 | politics | political dissent |
384,376 | npr--2019-03-13--Saudi Kingdom Tries To Prevent More Women From Fleeing | 2019-03-13T00:00:00 | npr | Saudi Kingdom Tries To Prevent More Women From Fleeing | Saudi Kingdom Tries To Prevent More Women From Fleeing After an 18-year-old Saudi woman, who said she feared death if deported to Saudi Arabia, arrived in Canada, she directed some of her first public comments back home. Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun encouraged other women to flee family abuse and the oppressive controls imposed on them by the conservative kingdom. She has just showed them how to do it. Alqunun was offered asylum in Canada in January after she barricaded herself in a Bangkok hotel room, from where she mounted a sophisticated social media campaign that sparked international headlines and sympathy. But in Saudi Arabia, Alqunun's successful escape from a prominent family spurred harsh media attacks and a social media narrative accusing Western nations of using Saudi women to undermine the kingdom. Still, the domestic campaign is unlikely to deter other young women from fleeing the kingdom, say activists who are in touch with women planning to run. The high-profile story is "going to set off copycat scenarios," says Bessma Momani, a Middle East specialist at Canada's University of Waterloo. "I think women will feel more emboldened." She explains that Alqunun's story has provided a virtual road map for others and revealed a network of groups willing to work out logistics and offer escape strategies. "Rahaf's story showed there is a quasi-organized group that is willing to help," Momani says. Alqunun's asylum in Canada comes as Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, often referred to as MBS, portrays himself as the leader who is steering the country toward a more secular modernity. Movie theaters have reopened. Saudi women can now drive cars and attend sports events. The kingdom says it has made it easier for women to enter the workplace. "Any way you slice it, MBS has done more change than anyone in the last 50 years," says Ali Shihabi, who heads the Arabia Foundation, a pro-Saudi think tank in Washington, D.C. Reform is "an art rather than a science," he says, "and being an art, there are going to be mistakes. He can't let the snowball get too big." The crown prince is also behind a harsh crackdown on political dissent. That includes jailing more than a dozen women's rights activists who were vocally pushing for an end to Saudi Arabia's guardianship system, which allows male relatives to control most aspects of a woman's life. "When MBS came, he made it clear: 'You either listen to me, or you go to jail,' " says Yasmine Farouk, a visiting scholar in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "He is that much of a dictator that he is able to impose measures that other kings were too scared to impose on society. We are talking about a regime that wants to do everything under its control." But the growing number of Saudis seeking refuge abroad undermines Prince Mohammed's international image as a leader bringing new personal freedoms to the kingdom, says 30-year-old Samah Damanhoori. She was granted asylum in the United States last year after she accused her family of abuse and declared she was no longer a Muslim. "OK, we are going to let you drive — happy now? Stop running away," she says, to explain her views on reforms introduced by Prince Mohammed. "But more women are running away. We have to do that to get them full rights." In Saudi Arabia, men wield vast powers over women. The guardianship system gives male relatives control over women's travel, education, medical treatment and marriage. An app called Absher allows Saudi men to specify when and where a woman can travel. The service includes a message alert when a woman uses her passport at an airport or a border crossing. Fleeing even an abusive home is a crime. If caught, a woman can be jailed or housed in a government-run shelter until her guardian permits her release. Alqunun's success was a "huge shake," Damanhoori says, because she comes from a prominent family, the daughter of a powerful governor. "The more powerful the family, the harder for a woman to escape, because of family connections. But she made it." Alqunun's family status may explain why the Saudi government has ramped up a campaign to stem the flow. In recent weeks, the General Department for Counter Extremism released an online video as a warning. The animated message compares women who flee the country to young men who join terrorist groups — and blames a vast international conspiracy that it says is aiming to damage the kingdom's image through its youth. "Everyone who tried to escape, they compare her with ISIS — it's horrible," complains Damanhoori. "This is not going to end," says Hala Aldosari, a Saudi activist and writer based in New York. "It will get worse." Aldosari says the government blames "agents of the West" and "women activists" as the culprits of the alleged global plot to destabilize Saudi Arabia, "rather than the grievance of the women." She says the common denominator among those trying to flee is that they are "women who come from controlling or abusive families" and who believe that running is the only way to survive. The rise of social media has opened a window for people to compare Saudi women's rights with women's rights in other Gulf nations. "Saudi women are now more aware of the restriction they live with, and they take higher risks to escape," Aldosari says. Reliable statistics in Saudi Arabia on these escapes are hard to find. Some families don't report a missing daughter for fear of social stigma in a society where a family's honor is tied to the behavior of women. Figures on Saudi asylum-seekers abroad, however, are known to have increased. Saudis made 815 asylum claims worldwide in 2017, compared with 195 in 2012, according to the latest tallies published in the United Nations Refugee Agency's database. Their destinations include the U.S., Canada, Germany, Sweden, the U.K. and Australia. In 2011, Manal al-Sharif was jailed for nine days in Saudi Arabia for protesting driving restrictions. Her activism cost her the custody of her son, she says. Now she is living in self-imposed exile in Sydney. "These proclaimed reforms are just refurbishing a huge cage," al-Sharif says of the changes in Saudi Arabia. "We can't run a country when half of it is depending on the other half." But inside the kingdom, the crown prince is largely viewed as trying to change that equation, says Farouk at Carnegie. "It really is a paradox. It's the strong man who is able to impose reforms without being afraid of the consequences." But Saudi officials know the consequences of the continued flight of women. That undermines the international message that Saudi Arabia is modernizing and that Prince Mohammed has opened a new era of freedoms. Alqunun's father, who is a governor, released a statement in January saying that the family had disowned the runaway and calling her "the mentally unstable daughter who has displayed insulting and disgraceful behavior." That prompted the 18-year-old to drop her family name, she told reporters. Her father reportedly denied physically abusing her or trying to force her into marriage, according to The Associated Press. So far, Farouk says, the domestic response, even among women, is to condemn Alqunun's escape as reckless. "They don't care," Farouk says. "Things have changed in their daily life: They can drive to work, they can go to concerts, play sports. As long as their daily life has been made easier, why care about politics?" But there is still a limit to personal freedoms. "They will care when they try to contest a policy at work," she says. "They will be jailed or interrogated, or their fathers will have to get them out of the police station. They will care, but it will take time." | Deborah Amos | https://www.npr.org/2019/03/13/701570312/saudi-kingdom-tries-to-prevent-more-women-from-fleeing?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news | 2019-03-13 17:36:11+00:00 | 1,552,512,971 | 1,567,546,474 | politics | political dissent |
386,036 | npr--2019-06-30--Trump And Kim Meeting The Start Of A Deal Or Just Some Nice Pics And Pageantry | 2019-06-30T00:00:00 | npr | Trump And Kim Meeting: The Start Of A Deal Or 'Just Some Nice Pics And Pageantry?' | Trump And Kim Meeting: The Start Of A Deal Or 'Just Some Nice Pics And Pageantry?' It is too soon to tell whether the much-hyped meeting between President Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un on Sunday will be remembered as a televised spectacle or the start of a breakthrough in talks with the nuclear-armed country. But Trump did become the first sitting American president to venture into North Korea. "I was proud to step over the line," Trump told Kim about crossing the demarcation line at the Demilitarized Zone that separates the two Koreas. "It is a great day for the world." The celebratory mood seemed a long way from the insults and bellicose rhetoric the two leaders have previously engaged in, a hostile dynamic that has cooled down over the course of what Trump has described as a burgeoning friendship between Trump and Kim. Whether the symbolism of stepping into North Korea carries with it the promise of change, or little more than dramatic optics, remains the subject of debate among Korea experts and other observers. "This is about looking good," said Wendy Sherman, who was the policy coordinator for North Korea during the Clinton administration, in an interview with NPR. Sherman said the real question is what happened during the 50 minutes Trump and Kim had a closed-door chat. "Is there a real negotiating track that has begun?" she asked. "Did the president give anything up in those 50 minutes? Is there any there there?" To Sue Mi Terry, senior fellow for Korea at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, one detail of the meeting jumped out: Trump hinted that U.S. economic sanctions on North Korea could perhaps be lifted during negotiations, rather than at the conclusion of a deal to denuclearize, which was the administration's previous position. It signaled a possible a departure from the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign against the country. "President Trump is looking for a deal, and potentially, now that working-level negotiations are to resume, there is a deal to be had," Terry said. In announcing that the U.S. will resume talks with the North, President Trump told reporters, "We're not looking for speed. We're looking to get it right." Trump said economic sanctions on the country would remain in place, but he hinted that the administration could ease the pressure, saying that "during the negotiation things can happen." Other experts said Trump is misguided in believing that a supposedly impromptu face-to-face with Kim would result in an arms control agreement, something decades of careful and calculated negotiations with senior U.S. policy leaders has not been able to achieve. "It's only 'historic' if it leads to denuke negotiations, a verifiable agreement and a peace treaty," said Victor Cha, Georgetown University professor and senior adviser of the National Committee on North Korea. "Otherwise it's just some nice pics and pageantry." Cha said he worried the meet-and-greet at the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone, the president's third face-to-face meeting with Kim, legitimizes a regime that has been criticized for human rights violations against women, political dissenters and other at-risk groups. Surrendering all their weapons is not a likely scenario, said Cha, who was the top Korea adviser in the George W. Bush administration. "The North Koreans have demonstrated over the past 25 to 30 years that they're not willing to part with all of their nuclear weapons," Cha said in an interview with NPR. "They're willing to freeze some of their capability, but they're not willing to give up all of their weapons because it's the only thing they have that makes them secure in the world today." Cha noted that when he helped reach a deal with the North, in 2005, when the country initially agreed to freeze some of its weapons programs, the plan collapsed when American officials attempted to verify its nuclear capacity. "We can't really do full denuclearization until they admit to having certain things," he said. "Until that happens, a deal is not going to look credible." While Trump's first two meetings with Kim failed to produce an agreement to eliminate North Korea's nuclear arsenal, Pyongyang has paused nuclear testing and returned the remains of American soldiers killed in the Korean War. That said, just last month North Korea had been testing short-range ballistic missiles. Trump has viewed a truce with North Korea resulting in the surrendering of nuclear weapons as a key foreign policy goal, and his insistence on in-person gatherings with the authoritarian leader has been unorthodox. The president's Singapore meeting with Kim in June 2018 marked the first time a sitting American president met with the country's head of state since a cease-fire was signed in 1953 ending the Korean War. Critics of Trump say his past career as a television star is fueling his prioritizing of high-profile meetings with world leaders, but with North Korea, they say, the tactic has not yielded much more than handshakes and wide grins. Former Obama adviser Ben Rhodes said a meeting was never sought with Kim during the eight years of the Obama administration. "Foreign policy isn't reality television," he said. "It's reality." Rhodes went on: "Photo ops don't get rid of nuclear weapons, carefully negotiated agreements do." Sherman said she supports the summits with Kim, seeing them as an unconventional path that could prove fruitful, though she said there appears to be some important missing pieces. "You try something novel and different when you have a plan, a strategy, a team to follow through, you know what your next five moves are going to be," Sherman said. For North Korea, Trump's meetings are providing a public relations boost to a country that has traditionally been isolated from the global stage, she said. "They are a country that is a true dictatorship, cut off from most of the rest of the world," Sherman said. "They don't have enough arable land to feed their own people, so they go through times of real famine and malnutrition of their people. There are no human rights." Terry said one beneficiary of the Sunday get-together between Trump and Kim is President Moon Jae-in of South Korea. "The economy is not doing well in South Korea, and President Moon has staked his entire legitimacy, his legacy, on a deal with North Korea," Terry said. "South Koreans in general want engagement with North Korea." Terry cautioned, however, that a victory should not be claimed just yet. "Of course, we are still a very, very long way from a complete verifiable, irreversible denuclearization," she said. In Washington on Sunday, praise and skepticism from lawmakers fell along partisan lines. "President Trump just made history," wrote House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who said even those who dislike Trump "are going to have to give him credit for resetting the stage and bringing North Korea to the table." Meanwhile, several Democratic presidential candidates condemned the Trump-Kim gathering, including former Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Biden's campaign put out a statement accusing Trump of "coddling" dictators "at the expense of American national security." Warren tweeted that Trump "shouldn't be squandering American influence on photo ops and exchanging love letters with a ruthless dictator," saying the president should instead be dealing with North Korea through "principled diplomacy." Speaking on ABC News, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was more muted, saying he has "no problem" with Trump's meeting with Kim, but said "we need to move forward diplomatically and not just have photo opportunities." | Bobby Allyn | https://www.npr.org/2019/06/30/737429007/trump-and-kim-meeting-the-start-of-a-deal-or-just-some-nice-pics-and-pageantry?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news | 2019-06-30 19:07:19+00:00 | 1,561,936,039 | 1,567,537,514 | politics | political dissent |
401,469 | palmerreport--2019-06-21--Donald Trump goes to hell | 2019-06-21T00:00:00 | palmerreport | Donald Trump goes to hell | On January 20, 2017, Christian televangelist and pastor Paula White delivered an invocation at Donald Trump’s inauguration. White focused her remarks on praising God and country, only mentioning Trump in a customary call for prayer. She then appealed to God to “bestow upon our President the wisdom necessary to lead this great nation, the grace to unify us, and the strength to stand for what is honorable and right in your sight.” Nearly two and a half years later, Trump has hit a trifecta of failure in the wisdom, grace, and strength departments. So, what does White say now? Having informally served as Trump’s spiritual advisor while leading a White House evangelical advisory council, White returned to the stage Monday night to help kick off Trump’s reelection campaign in Orlando, Florida. Although this was a political event, White’s speech was over-the-top in tone and substance. As a religious leader, White could have used her platform to spread a positive message, encouraging Trump supporters to keep believing yet be tolerant of others who disagree. She could have praised Trump for what she believes are accomplishments and say there is more to achieve in a second term. She could have then closed with an inspiring message such as, “With God by your side, we can achieve anything. Together, we will work hard, keep the faith, and get Trump reelected in 2020!” White did none of these things. After quickly praising God and country, her speech went off the rails. Quoting from Psalm 2, White asked, “Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain, the kings of the Earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed,” referring to Trump. White then belligerently framed Trump’s unnamed opponents as essentially being the enemies of God while calling for an end to free speech and political dissent in this country: “So, right now let every demonic network that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it be broken, let it be torn down in the name of Jesus.” When a spiritual advisor to the President of the United States weaponizes religion for partisan purposes, it speaks volumes as to the dark and desperate path the candidate believes he must take to win reelection. White’s performance is also a sign of how much things have changed in the Republican Party since its first President took office. Just before the Civil War began, President Abraham Lincoln spoke to the South about secession in his first inaugural address: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” Lincoln went on to become one of our nation’s most respected Presidents. Trump seems to be living on a prayer. | Ron Leshnower | https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/hell-donald-trump-goes-to/18807/ | 2019-06-21 00:08:55+00:00 | 1,561,090,135 | 1,567,538,488 | politics | political dissent |
404,572 | pamelagellerreport--2019-12-03--Geller Report on #GivingTuesday | 2019-12-03T00:00:00 | pamelagellerreport | Geller Report on #GivingTuesday | After 16 years of daily solid, groundbreaking reporting at The Geller Report and endless harassment by the left/islamic axis, the stakes could not be higher. The enemedia is at WAR with us. They lie, cheat, steal. It’s a coup against America and our freedoms. On Giving Tuesday, please remember us in your year-end giving. We never stop no matter what the personal cost. Get the news the media censors Everyone must be informed to be prepared for what’s coming. We hope that, if you are not yet a contributor, you will join the ranks of those who make a financial contribution to The Geller Report. so that it can expand its coverage in this critical election year. Your support of the Geller Report is the difference between winning and losing this fight. There are only a handful of us left standing up to the left-wing army of disinformationalists in the war of ideas. Without fighters, patriots, and brave Americans like you, who understand what is at stake, the war would all be lost. Make no mistake, this is a war. The war is in the information battle space and all the bullets, bombs, and the bloodshed comes as a result of what happens in this war. It is the Geller Report and a handful of other courageous websites who are bringing the fight to the enemy. On every front, whether it is legal, political, etc., we are there. Because of our devotion to our convictions and principles, we are the target for the worst campaign of personal destruction, libel, and defamation. And you know what? We say, bring it on. We need your support. We are in the fight for our very lives – our freedoms. It is crucial that you remain informed in this war. Websites like Geller Report are being scrubbed and silenced from social media to keep YOU from knowing what’s actually happening. The only response to their fake news is real news. As the leftist machine, in collusion with social media giants, works furiously to shut down political dissent, our reportage and exclusive news coverage on Geller Report is the last line of defense to left wing authoritarianism. We cannot do it without your support. Major social media platforms such as Google, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube have created the new town square, having become the primary portals through which Americans receive news today. On these platform, the Left has a monopoly. The social media giants are moving actively to erase and hide any viewpoint or person that does not conform to the “progressive” values for which they stand. This has resulted in massive losses of readership and revenue for conservative sites, and endangers the very freedom of our Republic by allowing only one point of view to be aired. The social media corporations today hold more power over the public discourse than any totalitarian regime ever held. They do not just target voices with whom they disagree, but they make sure that those voices are unable to sustain themselves. Uninformed is unarmed in the war of ideas. with everyone in your sphere of influence. Your name, email or info is never sold. Ever. The Truth Must be Told Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more. Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible. Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too. Please contribute to our ground-breaking work here. Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best. | Pamela Geller | https://gellerreport.com/2019/12/giving-tuesday.html/ | Tue, 03 Dec 2019 01:00:15 +0000 | 1,575,352,815 | 1,575,374,797 | politics | political dissent |
406,190 | pbs--2019-05-11--US-China relations near new low amid trade battle | 2019-05-11T00:00:00 | pbs | U.S.-China relations near new low amid trade battle | WASHINGTON — The U.S. and China have gone through rough patches before. The American public recoiled — and the U.S. government imposed sanctions — after the People’s Liberation Army slaughtered hundreds of civilians in the streets of Beijing in June 1989, crushing the Tiananmen Square protests. Ordinary Chinese were outraged 10 years later when the Americans bombed China’s embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, rejecting the U.S. insistence that it was an accident. And tensions crackled when China detained an American Navy flight crew following the midair collision of a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter in 2001. “With the large number of issues we have with China, I wouldn’t rank the trade issues so high… And I’m an economist.” – David Dollar, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution But U.S.-Chinese relations may be testing a new low. “The United States and China are on a collision course,” the Asia Society concluded in an assessment of the two countries’ relations in February. “The foundations of goodwill that took decades to build are rapidly breaking down.” Likewise, Michael Swaine of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace declared in January that “the U.S.-China relationship is confronting its most daunting challenge in the 40 years since the normalization of relations. Current trends portend steadily worsening relations over the long haul.” The world’s two biggest economies are engaged in the bitterest trade war since the 1930s. President Donald Trump more than doubled import taxes on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods Friday — the same day that U.S. and Chinese negotiators ended their 11th round of trade talks without reaching an agreement. After the Chinese left town, the U.S. announced plans to target the $300 billion in Chinese goods that don’t already face tariffs. But the widening divide between Washington and Beijing goes beyond trade. China is engaging in a massive military buildup. It is flexing its maritime muscle, claiming ownership of the South China Sea and disregarding the territorial claims of its neighbors and a 2016 ruling by the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. It is cracking down on political dissent in its ostensibly autonomous region of Hong Kong. And it is turning up pressure on Taiwan, an island that enjoys de facto political independence but which Beijing views as a renegade province that must one day reunite with the motherland. Under President Xi Jinping, who took office in 2012, the Communist Party has grown increasingly repressive. In the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region in western China, it has detained up to 2 million minority Muslims and forced them to undergo reeducation. Xi himself has overturned a four-decade tradition of collective leadership in Beijing and essentially established himself as president for life. VIDEO “With the large number of issues we have with China, I wouldn’t rank the trade issues so high,” said David Dollar, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former official at the World Bank and U.S. Treasury. “And I’m an economist.” The developments are a bracing rebuke to the optimists in America who assumed that China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization would lead Beijing to embrace economic and perhaps political openness, that China would become more like world’s industrialized democracies. “Many countries, the U.S. being one of the prime players, gave China pretty much a bye for a number of years during the honeymoon period right after its entrance in the WTO,” said Michael Wessel, a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a congressionally appointed watchdog. The financial crisis and ensuing 2007-2009 Great Recession helped change the way the countries viewed themselves and each other. Suddenly, the United States looked less like the world’s invincible lone superpower and more like a deeply divided nation that had to struggle to meet the challenge of the deepest economic downturn in seven decades. China’s response was sharp contrast: It quickly enacted a massive stimulus campaign that super-charged economic growth and helped pull the entire world economy out of the ditch. Newly confident, China began to expand its ambitions. After Xi took office, Beijing announced an initiative called Made in China 2025 designed to make Chinese companies world leaders in advanced fields like robotics and artificial intelligence. But the U.S. says China is trying to meet its aspirations by cheating — stealing trade secrets, forcing foreign companies to hand over technology, subsidizing its own firms and burying in red tape foreign competitors that want to compete in the Chinese market. Those allegations are at the heart of the yearlong trade dispute that has rattled financial markets and cast a cloud over the prospects for world economic growth. In the ongoing trade talks, the U.S. is insisting that China change its ways and agree to let the United States check and enforce compliance. **[READ NEXT: Chaotic scenes at Hong Kong legislature over extradition law](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/chaotic-scenes-at-hong-kong- legislature-over-extradition-law)** Andrew Nathan, a China specialist at Columbia University, said the Chinese would be perfectly willing to buy more American products and put a dent in America’s trade deficit with China, a record $379 billion last year. But abandoning their grander economic vision is another matter. China’s chief envoy to this week’s talks, Vice Premier Liu He, told reporters before leaving Washington that “we will make no concessions on matters of principle.” Chinese state TV quoted Liu as saying there was consensus in many areas and the differences were “crucial ones.” But he also said he believed the two countries would manage to cooperate for the sake of all. “For the Chinese, the bottom line is, they can accept no effective limitation on their race to the technological summit,” Nathan said. “If you want them to bury the Made in China 2025 program, they will never stop that program, but they can stop talking about it. If you want them to stop the PLA from industrial espionage, they can make the PLA do it more secretly. … If you want them to stop ‘coerced technology transfer,’ they can change the language of the relevant rules so that the same thing happens in a less blatant manner.” The two countries have very different views of the sources of their troubles. “Many American opinion makers are starting to see China as a rising power seeking to unfairly undercut America’s economic prosperity, threaten its security, and challenge its values,” the Asia Society declared, “while their Chinese counterparts are starting to see the United States as a declining power seeking to prolong its dominance by unfairly containing China’s rise.” | Zeke Miller, Associated Press | https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/us-china-relations-near-new-low-amid-trade-battle | 2019-05-11 17:03:53+00:00 | 1,557,608,633 | 1,567,540,818 | politics | political dissent |
435,169 | rawstory--2019-01-15--This is the real importance of Trumps rambling historically ignorant Afghanistan remarks | 2019-01-15T00:00:00 | rawstory | This is the real importance of Trump’s rambling, historically ignorant Afghanistan remarks | Once again, the President put his factually-challenged relationship with the past on public display. In a January 3rd Cabinet meeting, Trump offered a tour de force with a fanciful alternative history of Afghanistan. According to him, the Soviets invaded in late 1979 because of cross-border terror attacks. The subsequent decade-long war, the President insisted, bankrupted the USSR and led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trump clearly had no idea what he was talking about. If the past is a foreign country, then in Trump’s parlance, he is an illegal immigrant trespassing upon it. To briefly correct the President’s (mis)understanding of Afghan history: The Soviet Union invaded the country on December 26, 1979, ostensibly to support a friendly communist government under threat from a domestic insurgency provoked by unpopular reforms and the violent suppression of political dissent. Fearing the collapse of an allied regime on its southern border, the Soviets replaced the Afghan communist leadership with a more moderate and pliable cadre. Though initially planning for a swift withdrawal, Soviet forces soon found themselves sucked into a quagmire which proved impossible to escape. Over the next decade, they deployed roughly 100,000 troops, losing 15,000 of them, in a bloody counter-insurgency against the so-called mujahideen– American supported ‘freedom fighters’. The war forced over 7 million to flee as refugees, created an unknown number of internally displaced persons, and killed, maimed and wounded an untold number of Afghans. The Soviet war ended with the Geneva Accords in 1988, allowing the USSR to feign ‘peace with honor’ which covered an ignominious retreat. The United States and its allies immediately denounced the Soviet invasion, which made Afghanistan a battleground in the increasingly hot Cold War. American policy-makers saw the potential of turning Afghanistan into the Soviet Vietnam. Beginning with the Carter administration, and significantly ramped up under Reagan, the US secretly funneled $3 billion to the Afghan mujahideen. By bleeding the soft underbelly of the beast, American Cold Warriors hoped to strike a mortal wound to the evil empire. Following the end of the Cold War, some conservative commentators characterized the Soviet defeat as a consequence of Reagan’s tough stance which forced them to spend an incessant, and unsustainable amount on defense. These analysts contend that the Afghan war, along with the cost of Soviet military aid to Central America and the US deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe, bankrupted the Soviet Union and led to its collapse. It was this interpretation of history which Trump’s stream of consciousness soliloquy rather clumsily tipped his hat to. Nevertheless, the President’s alternative history almost immediately earned him a scathing rebuke from a no-less august stalwart of the right than the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. The Journal’s willingness to take him to task for a position loosely held by many on the American right over the years is notable. Doubly so for a publication which has repeatedly proven reticent to fact-check the man. Yet the Journal’s response is a non-sequitur. What has been lost in the consternation provoked by the President’s remarks is the fundamental question which remains unanswered – namely, what the hell is the US doing in Afghanistan? Though he got his facts wrong – Trump does not seem to care about them anyway, and is thus the bullshitter-in-chief in the Harry Frankfurt sense – the essence of his question is correct. The US has lacked a clear policy on and purpose in Afghanistan since the early 2000s, making the President’s rambling, historically uninformed remarks something of a bullshit-savant moment. Now entering its eighteenth year and one of the costliest wars in American history, the President has reportedly grown frustrated with a continuing conflict which he seemingly does not understand. While his ignorance provides fodder for detractors and evokes the concern of the national security establishment, it also allows him to ask basic questions regarding the purpose of that war which have long been considered settled within Washington circles of power. The President’s ignorance of Afghanistan, though extreme, is far from unique amongst the American policy establishment. Such ignorance is the consequence of a larger failing of American policy in the country – the lack of a clear publicly pronounced purpose and end-goal for the continued American presence in Afghanistan. Despite nearly two decades of war in the country, American policy is largely driven by a noxious combination of inertia and sunk costs. A large part of the problem is that America’s civilian political leadership long ago abdicated its war-fighting responsibilities regarding Afghanistan. It is the role of civilian elected officials to formulate, articulate and communicate the fundamental purpose of an armed conflict and to direct the military and security apparatus of the government to execute that vision. But this has not been the case with Afghanistan. Since the quick victory over the Taliban in 2001, America’s political attentions quickly wandered elsewhere, most importantly Iraq. This meant that the Afghan war has largely been farmed out to the generals to fight a war whose aims and purpose they have not been instructed in. The military has thus continued to do what the military knows best – fight a war. It is no wonder then this conflict goes on, with no end in sight. What the hell is the US doing in Afghanistan? The President clearly does not know. But this is the central question. The one the President himself, along with the other elected officials of the US Government, needs to answer. It is neither the responsibility nor the place of the US military leadership to do so. In his bullshit-savant moment, Trump has set himself a challenge. Sadly, it is one he has demonstrated little interest in or ability to rise to. Benjamin Hopkins is the Director of the Sigur Center for Asian Studies and an Associate Professor of History and International Affairs at the George Washington University. Dr. Hopkins is a specialist in modern South Asian history, in particular that of Afghanistan, as well as British imperialism. His first book, The Making of Modern Afghanistan, examined the efforts of the British East India Company to construct an Afghan state in the early part of the nineteenth century and provides a corrective to the history of the so-called ‘Great Game.’ His second book, Fragments of the Afghan Frontier, co-authored with anthropologist Magnus Marsden, pairs a complex historical narrative with rich ethnographic detail to conceptualize the Afghan frontier as a collection of discrete fragments which create continually evolving collage of meaning. He has additionally co-edited Beyond Swat: History, Society and Economy along the Afghanistan-Pakistan Frontier with Magnus Marsden. | History News Network | https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/real-importance-trumps-rambling-historically-ignorant-afghanistan-remarks/ | 2019-01-15 14:35:27+00:00 | 1,547,580,927 | 1,567,552,436 | politics | political dissent |
468,887 | rferl--2019-04-10--Trump Discusses Iran Human Rights In Phone Call With Saudi Crown Prince | 2019-04-10T00:00:00 | rferl | Trump Discusses Iran, Human Rights In Phone Call With Saudi Crown Prince | U.S. President Donald Trump has spoken with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a telephone call that the White House says focused on Riyadh's role in Middle East stability, maintaining pressure on Iran, and the importance of human rights issues. The White House said Trump and the crown prince discussed ways of "maintaining maximum pressure against Iran." Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition battling Iranian-backed Huthi fighters in Yemen. But Saudi Arabia is facing rising pressure over its handling of the war in Yemen and moves to quell political dissent, including the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the prosecution of women's rights activists. Both Republican and Democratic U.S. lawmakers have called on the White House to harden its stance toward Saudi Arabia after Khashoggi was killed at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. U.S. intelligence officials have said they think the crown prince ordered Khashoggi's killing -- a claim that Saudi officials deny. Trump has said the U.S. partnership with Saudi Arabia is important for the U.S. economy and maintaining stability in the Middle East. The U.S. State Department on April 9 publicly designated 16 people for their role in Khashoggi's death and said they and their families would be barred from entering the United States. The list includes Saud al-Qahtani, a former aide to the crown prince, and Maher Mutreb, who was part of the crown prince's entourage on trips outside of Saudi Arabia. Washington on April 8 also designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a "foreign terrorist organization" in a move that drew an angry reaction from Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the following day. | null | https://www.rferl.org/a/trump-discusses-iran-human-rights-in-phone-call-with-saudi-crown-prince/29872096.html | 2019-04-10 05:52:49+00:00 | 1,554,889,969 | 1,567,543,360 | politics | political dissent |
470,263 | rferl--2019-08-12--Georgian Opposition Television To Be Sold By New Owner | 2019-08-12T00:00:00 | rferl | Georgian Opposition Television To Be Sold By New Owner | TBILISI -- The new owner of Georgia's main opposition television company, Rustavi-2, has announced his intention to sell it. Kabir Khalvashi's decision to sell the channel was posted on Rustavi's website on August 12. In a separate statement, Khalvashi said Rustavi-2 was in a "catastrophic" financial situation because of its debts and he couldn't "pull the company out of a deep crisis." Khalvashi blamed former director Nika Gvaramia for the financial crisis faced by the station. Khalvashi's announcement comes less than a month after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld a March 2017 verdict by Georgia's Supreme Court on restoring the ownership of Rustavi-2 to previous owner Khalvashi, who is seen as close to the current government. Following the ECHR ruling, Georgia's Public Registry transferred the ownership of Rustavi-2 to Khalvashi, who immediately fired Gvaramia. Critics say Khalvashi's move is an attempt by the government to stifle political dissent in the media ahead of parliamentary polls scheduled for next year. Also on August 12, Ia Kitsmarishvili, the widow of Rustavi-2 co-founder Erosi Kitsmarishvili, filed a case in court requesting 30 percent of the company's shares. Rustavi-2's other co-founders, Davit Dvali and Jarji Akimidze, said on August 12 that Khalvashi's announcement is meant to complicate the legal battle over the ownership of the media outlet. Dvali and Akimidze also said Khalvashi wants to make sure the channel will come under the control of someone close to the leader of the ruling Georgian Dream party, tycoon Bidzina Ivanishvili. | null | https://www.rferl.org/a/georgia-opposition-television-to-be-sold-by-new-owner/30106181.html | 2019-08-12 16:31:00+00:00 | 1,565,641,860 | 1,567,534,372 | politics | political dissent |
471,663 | rferl--2019-11-26--Number Of Young Russians Who Want To Emigrate Hits Highest Level In Decade | 2019-11-26T00:00:00 | rferl | Number Of Young Russians Who Want To Emigrate Hits Highest Level In Decade | A majority of young Russians want to leave the country, according to a new opinion poll, the highest number in a decade. The survey by the independent Russian pollster Levada Center, released on November 26, found that more than half of Russians between the ages of 18 and 24 want to leave for other countries, while 21 percent of respondents from all age groups said they would like to emigrate. The next age group that was most interested in emigrating was 25 to 39 at 30 percent, the poll showed. Russia's sluggish economic growth, which has prompted President Vladimir Putin to order his government to find ways to jump-start the economy, and a summer of pro-democracy protests have posed some of the biggest challenges the president has faced during his two decades in power. The poll reflected those issues, with respondents citing anxiety for their children's future and the economic situation as the main two reasons for considering emigration. The country's political situation and the search for better medical service were also cited as reasons to leave. The results for the 18 to 24 age group were up markedly from a similar poll in 2014, when 20 percent said they would like to leave. Since then, the number has been gradually rising, especially during the May-September period this year, when political dissent reached a crescendo with a series of protests that saw hundreds arrested amid heavy-handed tactics by police. The protests were sparked by the refusal of election officials to allow a large number of opposition figures from running in September municipal elections in Moscow and elsewhere. Fifty-six percent of those who indicated that they want to leave the country say Russia is moving in the "wrong direction" and that they are "ashamed over what is happening in the country." Of those who consider emigration as a path, 73 percent said they didn't approve of Putin's policies, while 39 percent said they were ready to participate in political events in Russia. | null | https://www.rferl.org/a/number-of-young-russians-who-want-to-emigrate-hits-highest-level-in-decade/30292951.html | Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:35:24 +0000 | 1,574,786,124 | 1,574,771,598 | politics | political dissent |
471,716 | rferl--2019-12-02--One In Five Russians 'Willing To Participate In Political Protests' | 2019-12-02T00:00:00 | rferl | One In Five Russians 'Willing To Participate In Political Protests' | One in five Russians are willing to take part in mass political demonstrations, a new poll shows, in a sign of continued discontent with the country’s leaders after a summer marked by demonstrations. The poll by the Levada Center, released on December 2, showed 19 percent of respondents were ready to personally participate in political protests, while 29 percent said they considered it a possibility. Almost one-third of the 1,610 people surveyed said they would protest against economic conditions. The results were in line with previous surveys by Levada. Russia's sluggish economic growth, which has prompted President Vladimir Putin to order his government to find ways to jump-start the economy, and a summer of pro-democracy protests have posed some of the biggest challenges the president has faced during his two decades in power. Political dissent reached a crescendo in July and August with a series of protests that saw hundreds arrested amid heavy-handed tactics by police. The protests were sparked by the refusal of election officials to allow a large number of opposition figures from running in September municipal elections in Moscow and elsewhere. | null | https://www.rferl.org/a/one-in-five-russians-willing-to-participate-in-political-protests-/30303179.html | Mon, 02 Dec 2019 12:06:02 +0000 | 1,575,306,362 | 1,575,311,565 | politics | political dissent |
472,192 | rferl--2019-12-30--Top U.S. Diplomat Pompeo To Make Swing Through Ex-Soviet States, Cyprus | 2019-12-30T00:00:00 | rferl | Top U.S. Diplomat Pompeo To Make Swing Through Ex-Soviet States, Cyprus | U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will meet with the leaders of four former Soviet republics and Cyprus during an upcoming five-day tour aimed in part at demonstrating Washington's support for the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of states bordering Russia. A State Department spokesman announced details of the January 3-7 trip in a statement on December 30. All five stops on the tour -- which will include Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan -- are countries where Moscow has wielded considerable historical or economic leverage. Nearly all are also key energy exporters or integral to current or planned energy supply routes. Pompeo's first planned stop is Kyiv on January 3, where he is expected to meet with President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and other senior Ukrainian officials, as well as to discuss human rights, reforms, and investment with community leaders and to honor victims of Ukraine's five-year war with Russia-backed separatists. The top U.S. diplomat will "reaffirm U.S. support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity," the State Department said. U.S. and other Western sanctions and recent contracts to supply military equipment, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, are key to Kyiv's efforts to repel the Russia-backed separatists who control swaths of eastern Ukraine. But Washington's relations with Kyiv have also been at the center of a whiste-blower complaint and congressional impeachment targeting U.S. President Donald Trump over a White House withholding of aid and his telephone request in July that Zelenskiy do "a favor" and investigate a debunked election-meddline lead and a Trump political rival, Joe Biden. Trump mentioned Pompeo as a possible go-between during that conversation, according to White House notes that were released to the public. Trump mentioned Pompeo as a possible go-between during that conversation, according to White House notes that were released to the public. Critics have accused the Trump administration of holding critical support for an ally at war with Russia for personal political gain. Pompeo will then travel to Minsk, the Belarusan capital, to meet on January 4 with a president who's openly mocked critics' characterization of him as "Europe's last dictator," longtime leader Alyaksandr Lukashenka. The stop will be the most senior by a U.S. official to Belarus this century, and the first high-level U.S. trip there since then-national-security adviser John Bolton in August. Pompeo should "underscore the U.S. commitment to a sovereign, independent, stable, and prosperous Belarus, and affirm our desire to normalize relations to move our bilateral relationship forward," the State Department said. The visit comes amid weeks of smallish protests in the restrictive country of 9.5 million over ongoing talks on closer political and economic relations with Russia. Belarus's reliance on Russia for fuel and subsidies to its heavily state-controlled economy is already high, and a 1999 treaty was supposed to create a unified state. Moscow has eyed Lukashenka's sporadic overtures toward the West warily, and Russian officials have recently pressed Minsk to deepen military and economic ties. Putin's critics have speculated that the Russian president could try to use the implementation the 20-year-old treaty with Belarus to expand his authority and to duck a Russian constitutional term limit that would force his exit in 2024. After Minsk, Pompeo will head to Central Asia, where he will visit Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, two predominantly Muslim former Soviet republics that Moscow regards as close partners in the areas of energy and security. In the Kazakh capital, Nur-Sultan, Pompeo will meet with the shortest-tenured of the region's presidents, Qasym-Zhomart Toqaev, and influential ex-President Nursultan Nazarbaev, along with other officials, on January 5. A country of 19 million with vast gas and oil reserves, Kazakhstan is Central Asia's largest economy. It has been heavily criticized for its rights record and strictures on political dissent and the media, but Nazarbaev's abrupt resignation and handover to a protege this year was seen as a mild break with more authoritarian patterns in the region. However, a crackdown on recent anti-government protests demanding political reform and curbs on Nazarbaev's continuing hold on power and security structures has increased pressure on Toqaev. In Nur-Sultan, Pompeo will promote a "shared commitment for peace, prosperity, and security in Central Asia" and talk about investment, reforms, and human rights, according to the State Department. Next, in Tashkent on January 5-6, Pompeo will meet with Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoev, whose cautious reforms since he took over after a longtime authoritarian administration in 2016 have provided some hope of further democratization and freedom for his country of around 30 million people. National elections in Uzbekistan this month were a slight improvement on past votes but still fell far short of free and fair democratic standards and left the same groups in power, OSCE observers said. Pompeo will also attend a so-called C5+1 meeting of Central Asian foreign ministers while in Tashkent. Pompeo is scheduled to finish his tour with a stop in Nicosia to meet with the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders, Nikos Anastasiades and Mustafa Akinci, on January 7. | null | https://www.rferl.org/a/pompeo-to-make-swing-through-ukraine-belarus-kazakhstan-uzbekistan/30352925.html | Mon, 30 Dec 2019 18:03:16 +0000 | 1,577,746,996 | 1,577,753,987 | politics | political dissent |
478,173 | russiainsider--2019-04-11--Clown Show Congress Pushes for Censorship With Farcical Hearing on White Nationalism | 2019-04-11T00:00:00 | russiainsider | Clown Show: Congress Pushes for Censorship With Farcical Hearing on White Nationalism | Democrats and the professional “hate” watchers insisted white nationalism is the greatest threat to America. Most Republicans tried to switch the topic to that other great domestic danger: left-wing anti-Semitism. Big Tech’s representatives bent over backwards to say they are doing as much as they can do to suppress white nationalism. And to illustrate the absurdity of the whole thing, YouTube closed the comments to the committee hearing livestream because there was too much “hate speech” i.e. the dogs didn’t like the dog food. [Racist and anti-Semitic comments flooded YouTube livestream of congressional hearing on white nationalism, by Donnie O’Sullivan, CNN Business, April 9, 2019] Except for a few brief moments of sanity, the whole hearing was a farce—but it revealed our political Establishment’s mounting and ominous obsession with censorship. Here were the important highlights. Republican California Rep. Tom McClintock questioned the tech representatives about the dangers of censorship and how their platforms violate their commitment to neutrality."What we're seeing across the world today is that it is a very slippery slope between banning hate speech and banning speech we just hate," McClintock said. "We've seen many examples even in our own country recently of legitimate speech being suppressed on college campuses, on social-media platforms, and even in public discourse." [Republicans tried to turn a hearing about white nationalism into a venue to complain about attacks on conservatives, by Joe Perticone, Business Insider, April 9, 2019] He also took a swipe at the prohibition of “hate speech”: “Free societies don’t punish words—they punish deeds.” The California Republican pressed Google and Facebook’s representatives to explain how they satisfy the spirit of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 requires social media platforms to serve as neutral forums with true political diversity in order to be protected from publisher liabilities. McClintock astutely noted how Big Tech platforms routinely censor certain views and demonstrate political bias. "Are you a neutral forum or an editorial publication responsible for your content?" he asked the tech representatives. Both tech representatives skirted the question. Facebook rep Neil Potts claimed his company errs on the side of more speech and only censors speech that calls for violence. That’s an outright lie. Potts had spent most of the hearing insisting Facebook was committed to the suppression of white nationalist views, regardless of whether they encourage violence. Faith Goldy, American Identity Movement, and countless others have never advocated for violence. Yet they are banned from Facebook. Google rep Alexandria Walden insisted her company only censors speech that threatens safety, even though there is ample evidence Google suppresses mainstream conservatives like PragerU. McClintock’s speech was the high point of the hearings and put Big Tech in the hot seat for their contradictory policies and statements. Unfortunately, the tech reps chose to be dishonest. Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert questioned the tech reps why they censor conservatives like Diamond & Silk. Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs said Congress shouldn’t just focus on white nationalist “hate speech.” [Conservatives Derail Congress’ White Nationalism Hearing, Declare ‘All Hate Speech’ Matters, by Andy Campbell, HuffPost, April 9, 2019] Owens said the push to suppress white nationalism as a strategy to suppress political dissent and reaffirm left-wing power. [Candace Owens to Congress: Left Uses Terms Like White Nationalism For Power, To Scare Brown People, by Ian Schwartz, RealClearPolitics, April 9, 2019] "Let me be clear the hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes, it is about fear mongering, power and control," Owens said. "It is a preview of a Democrat 2020 election strategy—the same as the Democrat 2016 election strategy." She said, rightly, that Democrats and liberals deliberately inflate hate crime statistics to fearmonger and divide Americans. "The goal here is to scare Blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims into helping them censor dissenting opinions ultimately to helping them regain control of our country's narrative which they feel that they lost." Owens added that Democrats should focus on Antifa, instead: “If they actually were concerned about white nationalism, they would be holding hearings on Antifa—a far left violent white gang.” Democrats were outraged Owens was invited to speak at the panel and multiple lawmakers took the time to criticize her appearance before the committee. California Rep. Ted Lieuplayed a (deceptively edited) clip of her talking about Adolf Hitler, which he claimed was a defense of the Nazi dictator. Another Democrat, Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, said she was hurt Owens was invited because the conservative inspired the Christchurch massacre. The Christchurch shooterjokingly cited Owens as an influence, but few believe he was serious. The consensus was clear from Democratic lawmakers: Big Tech must censor more. The Big Tech reps were grilled over how their companies had not censored more white nationalists or taken so long to do so. Some Democrats wanted to know if Facebook and Google had developed AI algorithms that can detect “dogwhistles” and other silly things. Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond argued that hate speech is illegal and you can’t shout hate in a crowded theater. (You actually can!) Nearly all Democrats, including Richmond, blamed President Trump for the “rise in hate” and virtue signaled against the administration. Democrats also made sure to say “white supremacists” were the real terror threat, not Islamic extremists. A particular concern for Democrats was VDARE.com contributor Faith Goldy. They were incensed that Goldy was able to publish on Facebook a (completely factual) video on the demographic transformation and not be immediately censored. Goldy was banned from Facebook and Instagramon Monday in response to the outrage against her video. Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline accused Facebook of complicity in the spread of white nationalism and wanted to know how they will combat it in the future. Cicilline’s recommendation: tech platforms treat white nationalism as terrorism and ban everybody like Goldy. "What specific proactive steps is Facebook taking to identify other leaders like Faith Goldy and preemptively remove them from the platform?" he asked Potts. Potts said Facebook is doing everything possible to eliminate white nationalism from its platform. Both tech reps spent the entire hearing placating Democrat complaints and vowing to do more censorship. It was pathetic and disturbing. If Democrats had their way, anybody that shared VDARE.com content would receive an instant ban. You don’t have to be a white nationalist to earn the ban, just be called a “white nationalist” by the Left. The Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee invited representatives from the Anti-Defamation League, the Equal Justice Society, and the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. All of these witnesses—along with Mohammad Abu-Salha, a father of a Muslim girl killed in an alleged hate crime—wanted state power to be used against white nationalism. Equal Justice Society President Eva Paterson (right) urged the government to give “muscle” to the efforts of these “anti-hate” groups. All of the alleged hate experts wanted federal authorities to create a task force to combat white nationalism and wanted the Department of Justice to make “hate” a top priority. Abu-Salha wanted hate crime laws to be instituted nationwide and hate crimes to require less proof to be used against criminal offenders. Anti-Defamation League Senior Vice President Eileen Hershenov defined “white nationalism” as a euphemism for “white supremacy.” Hershenov also implied Gab and 8chan should be taken down because they are “24/7 white nationalist rallies.” [Congressional hearing on white nationalism goes off the rails, by Luke Barnes, Think Progress, April 9, 2019] National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law president Kristen Clarke (right) complained Facebook wasn’t doing enough to censor white nationalists because it still had pages that said “It’s Okay to Be White.” Clarke also lamented that Facebook originally differentiated white supremacy from white nationalism and didn’t ban the latter category until a few days ago. Democrats treated all of these witnesses with kid gloves and nodded along with their suggestions. Instead of defending free speech and skewering the notion alleged white nationalists are the biggest threat to America, most Republicans stuck to attacking Ilhan Omar and critics of Israel. The leader in this tactic: Zionist Organization of America President Mort Klein, one of the hearing’s GOP witnesses. Klein focused on the alleged anti-Semitism of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and the Muslim community. The focus on Muslim anti-Semitism was an interesting tactic but it didn’t prove effective. Klein’s strategy did draw a bizarre statement from Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Mary Scanlon. Scanlon argued Muslims were not responsible for anti-Semitic attacks in America and insisted white supremacists try to pit Muslims and Jews against each other. The whole hearing would have been comical if the people involved didn’t have the power to shut down dissent. The hearing predicts more tech censorship, more state suppression, and impotent Republican resistance. We need Trump and the GOP to wake up. | Washington Watcher | https://russia-insider.com/en/clown-show-congress-pushes-censorship-farcical-hearing-white-nationalism/ri26746 | 2019-04-11 14:04:00+00:00 | 1,555,005,840 | 1,567,543,137 | politics | political dissent |
478,273 | russiainsider--2019-04-24--Charlottesville The Last Stand of American Freedom | 2019-04-24T00:00:00 | russiainsider | Charlottesville: The Last Stand of American Freedom | The extreme left and politicized elements of the government are using Charlottesville to crush your rights and solidify their power A remarkable thing is happening in Charlottesville. Although the Unite the Right rally happened over a year and a half ago, Charlottesville is where the organized, militant left and its establishment backers intend to crush popular resistance to their near total control of American political discourse. If they succeed, public free speech--speech that challenges prevailing attitudes at any rate--will be nearly impossible. The American citizen will have been reduced to the status of a serf. Fight now, or that will be your destiny. The hard left has been attacking its political enemies on two fronts: in the media and in the courts. In the media, they have spun a false narrative about the rally with the intent of stirring up moral outrage against the political dissenters, that is, the Alt-Right. The extreme left has succeeded in bringing about broad censorship of dissident opinions. Their narrative also justifies their second method: a campaign of lawsuits and frivolous criminal prosecutions, the purpose of which is to intimidate the Alt-Right and to drain what little resources they possess. Once the hard left has wrapped up the dissident right, they will move on to other targets. The left’s narrative must be comprehensively refuted. Those who attended the August 12, 2017 Charlottesville protest must launch a legal counter-offensive to stop the unfounded and harassing attacks, liberate the falsely imprisoned and send a message to all who would attack us in the future: We will fight back. The media have been spinning their narrative since the beginning. Sometimes they lie outright, but their primary means has been twisting the truth. They omit and obfuscate. One of the staples of the narrative is that “violence broke out” or that “both sides engaged in violence,” phrases that are meant to confuse the reader about who exactly was responsible for the violence. This allows the media to pin the blame on those who wished to attend Unite the Right rally, and to gloss over the crimes of the truly responsible: the leftist “counter-demonstrators” (“Antifa”), the police, and the civil authorities. Let’s start with Antifa. Evidence of their guilt is overwhelming. Despite having been granted permits to protest at two separate parks in downtown Charlottesville, Antifa rallied on the street right outside Lee Park, where Unite the Right was permitted to demonstrate. They positioned themselves to block anyone else from entering and leaving the park, knowing that police would not remove or disperse them, and daring anyone to pass through their ranks. When attendees tried to pass, Antifa locked arms, screamed, attacked with fists, poles and other weapons. No brawls would have happened if they had stayed in their designated protest-zones, or if they had simply made way and limited themselves to shouting abuse from the sidelines. That would have been an appropriate way to exercise free speech. Blocking people from attending a legally permitted rally is, it should go without saying, illegal. There is a substantial body of law regarding the “heckler’s veto." Antifa has regularly used this tactic. One might confuse this behavior for “civil disobedience,” but to do so would ignore the fact that civil disobedience is directed against the authorities. When you block other citizens from a public space, you are not engaged in civil disobedience, but mob-rule. Map 1: Unite the Right (UTR) at c. 10:50 AM It should be noted that without Antifa, no violence occurs at Alt-Right demonstrations. The Alt-Right gathered in Charlottesville two times, once before and once after Unite the Right. Neither time did “violence break out.” The same cannot be said of Antifa, who notoriously rioted in Washington, DC during Trump’s inauguration, blocking check-points, burning cars, smashing windows. These patterns of behavior have been apparent in countless other incidents around the country, especially in the last two years. After the police declared that everyone gathered in and around Lee Park was engaged in an “unlawful assembly,” the vast majority of the Alt-Right dispersed. Antifa did not. Instead, they hounded rally-goers who were trying to get back to their cars and hotel rooms. Even after a state of emergency was declared, Antifa and their auxiliaries continued parading through the streets attacking police and intimidating citizens for hours. Yet not a single one has been prosecuted. These critical facts have been absent from virtually all mainstream media reports. The media has, as usual, presented footage of spectacular brawls, making no effort to determine how those fights began or to present anything about their context. The media narrative has also ignored the responsibility of the police and civil authorities. However, a comprehensive, independent report found that the authorities failed spectacularly. This is nothing short of an epochal scandal. Why have so few reported on this? The report, compiled by former US attorney Timothy Heaphy, criticized many, including the City Council, the Mayor, the Virginia State Police (VSP) and other state-level agencies. Charlottesville Police Department (CPD) came in for particular scrutiny because 1) their training, planning and rehearsals were totally lacking or inadequate, 2) they did not seek advice from other police departments (like those in DC, Berkeley or Portland) who had dealt with similar situations with Antifa, 3) they did not learn any lessons from a riot in Charlottesville one month before August 12, 2017, where Antifa blocked traffic, assaulted cops and refused to obey a dispersal order. Perhaps the most damning finding was that two witnesses claimed that a “stand-down order” was given. According to the report, as Antifa was attacking people trying to assemble at Lee Park, CPD Chief Thomas said, “let them fight, it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.” But CPD is an easy target. A lot is known about their conduct because they were relatively cooperative with Heaphy’s inquiry. Other, higher organizations have refused to talk, notably the Virginia State Police, who released only one document. The Governor’s office too was reticent to respond to Heaphy. These state officials are senior to CPD and had every reason to know what was likely to happen if Antifa was given free reign. Yet they did not coordinate effectively with CPD, and in fact, it was VSP who formed the riot line that pushed dozens of protestors (including me) out of Lee Park and into Antifa, despite the fact that they had total control of other, safer means of exit. Map 2: Unite the Right (UTR) Ambushed by Antifa and Police Again, the media has shown a stunning lack of interest in investigating the authorities. But the media’s campaign of lies was only preparatory. The real assault on American rights has happened in the courts, where the Alt-Right has been viciously and unfairly attacked by the organized left and, worse, the authorities. Contrast that with how Antifa has been treated. No one in Antifa or any one of their supporters has been criminally prosecuted for any of the dozens of crimes they committed, despite the profusion of evidence. Only one leftist was charged with a misdemeanor. Found guilty of assaulting Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler in front of dozens of journalists and police officers, a Charlottesville jury fined him $1. No official of the city or state government or the police has been investigated or tried. The Alt-Right, on the other hand, has been subjected to a series of criminal and civil cases. James Fields, Jacob Scott Goodwin, among others have been railroaded in the courtroom and thrown into prison. It is outside the scope of this article to fully recount the cascade of outrages, but suffice it to say the cases have been gross miscarriages of justice. Another four young men were arrested by the FBI for “serial rioting.” They have been in prison for over six months, awaiting trial in June. You can imagine how that will go. What’s more, two sprawling civil suits have been launched against dozens of dissident organizations and individuals. One, Sines v Kessler, claims that the rally was a cover for a secret plot to riot and attack minorities wantonly. It’s an interesting theory, because it reflects what actually happened in Charlottesville, albeit with the aggressors and victims reversed. And, the reader might be shocked to learn, Sines v Kessler is being argued by two New York-based Jewish law firms with lots of money and political connections, Boies Schiller Flexner and the practice of the lesbian Roberta Kagan, infamous for her advocacy of “gay marriage.” Also involved is a third firm, Cooley LLP, famous for representing top Silicon Valley companies like Google and Facebook, companies that have spent the last year and a half censoring the opinions of the Alt-Right, or anyone who supports their eminently reasonable positions. Charlottesville has given Americans one thing of inestimable value: a demonstration of how moneyed thugs can dictate what is allowed to be said in public. The police and the authorities simply do not have the political will to enforce the law. Antifa has discovered how to avoid any consequences for their intimidation: by obscuring their identities they can riot, by pooling money and aggressive lawyering they can avoid punishment. They have turned our constitution’s legal protections into a “get out of jail free” card for themselves. Would that private citizens were so privileged. For justice to be re-established, the rules have to be applied fairly, not selectively. Police and prosecutors need to enforce the law, especially against those, like Antifa, who intentionally flout it. Charlottesville is just one instance. As mentioned above, over 230 Antifa were arrested during Trump’s inauguration (the “J20 Riots”) eight months before Charlottesville. The vast majority of them had their charges dropped and only one did any prison time. Anarchy reigned in the capital during a major civic event, attendees were terrorized, over $100,000 in property was destroyed, millions were spent on emergency services and police (3,000 officers), millions more on prosecutions, all for one guy to do a measly 4 months in prison. It will happen again. To fix this problem, the following measures need to be taken Many will balk at such measures, because they are “impractical” and “will never be implemented.” They are of course right--under current conditions. The only way forward is for Americans of good conscience to show that they are willing to assert their rights. To do so, they must prove that they are willing to suffer slander and doxxing (publication of their private information, name, address, revelation of real name behind a pseudonym which can lead to being fired, etc.), and in many cases, physical attacks, frivolous lawsuits and even prison time. But if Americans will not stand up to Antifa and their enablers in the media, the police, and the courts; if they will not fight, then they are contemptible weaklings. Let tyranny reign, for slaves do not deserve to be free. | Gregory Conte | https://russia-insider.com/en/media-criticism/charlottesville-last-stand-american-freedom/ri26853 | 2019-04-24 15:04:00+00:00 | 1,556,132,640 | 1,567,541,870 | politics | political dissent |
486,627 | slate--2019-02-09--The Least Pro-Life President Ever | 2019-02-09T00:00:00 | slate | The Least Pro-Life President Ever | On Tuesday night, in his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump called for legislation to outlaw abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. “Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life,” said Trump. On Thursday, at the National Prayer Breakfast, the president renewed his plea. “Every life is sacred,” he declared. “We must build a culture that cherishes the dignity and sanctity of innocent human life.” Abortion is a serious matter. People may disagree on when life begins, but everyone agrees, at least in principle, on the sanctity of human life. Everyone, that is, except Trump. He treats human life as expendable, not just in the womb or in infancy, but in childhood and adulthood. He condones killing people in every context: capital punishment, counterterrorism, assassination, and crushing political dissent. He’s the least pro-life president in American history. Other presidents have started or fought bloodier wars. What sets Trump apart is his malicious intent. For him, violence against civilians isn’t just a tragic consequence. It’s often the objective. As a presidential candidate, he encouraged crowds to “punch,” “rough up,” and “knock the crap out of” protesters. At a campaign rally four months ago, he congratulated a congressman for body-slamming a reporter. Speaking in North Carolina in 2016, Trump warned his supporters that if Hillary Clinton were to win the election, there would be nothing they could do to stop her from appointing judges—“although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.” Trump says the United States should deliberately target family members of suspected terrorists. Sometimes he says he’d stop short of killing them; sometimes he says he’ll “leave that to your imagination.” In a drone strike, the distinction is moot. It doesn’t matter to Trump whether these people have done anything wrong. What matters is that by hurting them, we might deter terrorists. “With the terrorists, you have to take out their families,” Trump argued three years ago. The idea, he explained, was that terrorists “may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” In comments about other governments, Trump explicitly condones murder. During the 2016 campaign, interviewers pointed out that Russian President Vladimir Putin had arranged the assassinations of dissidents and journalists. Trump said he didn’t care. “Our country does plenty of killing also,” he retorted. “At least he’s a leader, you know, unlike we have in this country.” Two weeks after Trump’s inauguration, during a Fox News interview, when Bill O’Reilly reminded Trump that “Putin’s a killer,” the president batted the question away. “We got a lot of killers,” he argued. “What, you think our country’s so innocent?” For Trump, violence against civilians isn’t just a tragic consequence. It’s often the objective. Last summer, Trump praised North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un as a man who “loves his people.” Again, a Fox News interviewer challenged Trump, citing Kim’s atrocious record on human rights. “He is a killer. He’s clearly executing people,” Bret Baier told the president. Trump responded by defending Kim: “Hey, when you take over a country, tough country, with tough people. … If you can do that at 27 years old, I mean that’s 1 in 10,000 that could do that.” Baier persisted: “But he’s still done some really bad things.” Trump shrugged, “Yeah, but so have a lot of other people.” Trump doesn’t just excuse Kim’s butchery. He glorifies him. In September, Trump bragged at a campaign rally that Kim “wrote me beautiful letters” and “we fell in love.” In October, CBS News correspondent Lesley Stahl pressed Trump about that boast. She reminded Trump that Kim “had his half-brother assassinated” and “presides over a cruel kingdom of repression, gulags, starvation … slave labor, public executions. This is a guy you love?” Trump stood by his man. “I get along with him really well,” he told Stahl. “I have a good chemistry with him.” Over the years, Trump has defended other mass killers: Saddam Hussein of Iraq (“Saddam Hussein throws a little gas. Everyone goes crazy. ‘Oh, he’s using gas!’ ”), Muammar Qaddafi of Libya (“We would be so much better off if Qaddafi were in charge”), and Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines (who said he’d be “happy to slaughter” that country’s “3 million drug addicts”). Lately, Trump has extolled Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who’s implicated in the October murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. On Thursday, the New York Times reported additional evidence against the crown prince: A year before the murder, he told an aide that if he couldn’t drag Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia, he’d go after him “with a bullet.” Trump has worked hard to excuse or minimize the Khashoggi assassination. In November, as evidence of the crown prince’s guilt piled up, Trump personally dictated a White House statement that downplayed U.S. intelligence in the case, smeared Khashoggi as “a member of the Muslim Brotherhood” (he wasn’t), and defended Saudi Arabia as an esteemed client of American defense contractors. Two days later, Trump was asked who should be held accountable for the murder. He shrugged, “Maybe the world should be held accountable.” At home, Trump promotes broader use of the death penalty. Among pro-lifers, there’s sincere disagreement on that question: Some believe capital punishment is always wrong, while others believe it’s a proper punishment for taking a life. But Trump wants to go further. He advocates executing people even for nonlethal offenses. Last year, he told an audience that America should follow the lead of countries that “have the death penalty for drug dealers.” A week ago, he thanked Chinese President Xi Jinping for promising, at Trump’s request, to execute pushers. “They’ve agreed to do the death penalty for selling fentanyl,” said Trump. “We really appreciate it.” Some pro-lifers, despite their revulsion at the president’s advocacy of violence, support him because he appoints judges who are sympathetic to legislation against abortion. But everyone knows Trump is a fake pro-lifer. He has extramarital affairs, doesn’t use condoms, and expects his partners not to give birth. Twenty years ago, when he was asked about “partial-birth abortion,” he defended it. “I am pro-choice in every respect,” he said. Trump is an opportunist. He was pro-choice when he thought it would help him as a Democrat. Now that he’s a Republican, he calls himself pro-life. To him, it’s all marketing. He doesn’t stand for a culture of life. He stands for depraved indifference. | William Saletan | https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/trump-is-not-pro-life.html | 2019-02-09 01:03:32+00:00 | 1,549,692,212 | 1,567,549,060 | politics | political dissent |
486,693 | slate--2019-02-26--Trumps National Emergency Is a Ploy Straight Out of Venezuela | 2019-02-26T00:00:00 | slate | Trump’s “National Emergency” Is a Ploy Straight Out of Venezuela | On Tuesday, House Republicans voted to support President Trump’s assertion of unchecked executive power. Trump has invoked a law passed 43 years ago—which was designed to facilitate presidential action in times of desperate haste, such as war or disaster—to seize power from Congress and override its explicit instructions. And Trump’s party is standing behind this assault on the Constitution, ensuring that Congress won’t be able to block him. The GOP’s complicity is bitterly ironic because at the same time, Republicans are decrying a presidential coup against the national legislature of Venezuela. Unlike the United States, Venezuela is awash in economic chaos and political repression. But the behavior of Trump and his party since the November midterms bears an uncanny resemblance to the behavior of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his party after they lost that country’s 2015 legislative elections. Trump says Venezuela illustrates the perils of socialism. But it also illustrates the perils of authoritarianism, which the Republican Party of the United States now supports. In December 2015, Venezuelans expressed their disgust with Maduro by electing the opposition to take over the National Assembly. Maduro ignored their rebuke. He declared a national emergency that gave him, according to the New York Times, “the power to bypass the National Assembly on spending matters.” In May 2016, Maduro renewed the emergency declaration, falsely claiming that the country faced a threat of invasion. He accused the opposition of petition fraud, obstructionism, and trying to impeach him. The assembly voted to reject the emergency declaration. Lawmakers warned that no Venezuelan president had ever undertaken such emergency measures in defiance of a vote of the legislature. But Maduro’s allies on the supreme court upheld his declaration, and he plowed ahead. In the United States, Republicans mocked Maduro’s talk of an invasion and condemned him for overriding the assembly. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida called it a coup. “Democracy has been canceled,” said Rubio. “You have an elected national assembly being ignored.” The assembly passed laws restricting Maduro’s authority. He ignored them, and the court upheld his right to act without legislative approval. In 2017, when he created an alternative legislative body, the Trump administration denounced his “power grab” and demanded that he “respect Venezuela’s constitution.” Vice President Mike Pence protested that Maduro had “ignored and undermined the National Assembly.” Trump imposed sanctions, claiming that Maduro had “usurped the power of the democratically elected National Assembly.” In February 2018, Maduro seized more financial power by creating a digital currency. The assembly declared this move unconstitutional and void, but Maduro dismissed its verdict. Trump responded by imposing sanctions on anyone who used the new currency to evade sanctions. In its explanation of the sanctions, the Trump administration protested that Maduro had issued the currency “in a process that Venezuela’s democratically elected National Assembly has denounced as unlawful.” Last month, Trump went further. He announced that the United States would recognize the assembly’s president, Juan Guaidó, as Venezuela’s true president. The assembly was “duly elected by the Venezuelan people,” said Trump. On this basis, the United States would honor Guaidó’s declaration that he, not Maduro, was the country’s legitimate leader. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pointed out that Guaidó “made this declaration with the full support of the National Assembly.” Like Maduro, Trump ignored precedents that had previously limited the assertion of emergency powers. House Republicans agreed that Maduro trampled the assembly and had to be stopped. Republican Whip Steve Scalise thanked Trump for “standing with the Venezuelan people” against Maduro. Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said America had to ensure that “democracy [is] restored for the people of Venezuela.” Rep. Liz Cheney, chair of the House Republican Conference, praised “US efforts to support freedom for the people of Venezuela.” Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a leading GOP voice on foreign policy, called on Americans to stand with Venezuelans against “the tyranny of Maduro.” That’s the Republican position on authoritarianism in Venezuela. But at home, the Republican position is just the opposite. In November, Americans expressed their disgust with Trump—a president who never even won the popular vote—by electing the opposition to take over the House of Representatives. The new Congress voted to reject Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion to build a border wall. Trump, like Maduro, responded by dismissing the will of the legislature. He declared a national emergency and asserted, through his control of the military, the power to spend money that Congress, in its exercise of constitutionally assigned power, had refused to appropriate. Like Maduro, Trump accused the opposition of voter fraud, obstructionism, and trying to impeach him. Like Maduro, Trump claimed that he had to assume unilateral authority because his country faced a fictional “invasion.” Like Maduro, Trump ignored precedents that had previously limited the assertion of emergency powers. Like Maduro, he hopes his allies on the Supreme Court will stand by him. On Tuesday, House Republicans voted 182 to 13 against a resolution to terminate Trump’s power grab. They couldn’t stop the resolution, because Democrats hold the majority. But the GOP’s votes are enough to ensure that when Trump vetoes the resolution, as he has pledged to do, the House can’t override his veto. The Republican Party has decided to stand not for the rule of law, but for the rule of Trump. It is no longer a republican party. At a press conference on Tuesday morning, House Republicans defended Trump’s declaration and endorsed his deployment of the U.S. military to the southern border. “The president has the authority to do it,” said McCarthy. “There is an emergency at the border,” said Cheney. “This is a national emergency,” agreed Kinzinger. Scalise claimed that “there’s no physical barrier to control our border”—which is false—and vowed that Republicans would “stand with the president.” He insisted, “The president is on strong legal ground to declare this emergency.” We are not Venezuela. We don’t have runaway inflation and crime, corrupt state control of the economy, or routine incarceration for political dissent. But we do have the first two ingredients: a president willing to seize power, and a party willing to block the legislature from stopping him. It’s not the left that is threatening to turn the United States into Venezuela. It’s the right. | William Saletan | https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/trump-republicans-national-emergency-venezuela.html | 2019-02-26 23:35:02+00:00 | 1,551,242,102 | 1,567,547,209 | politics | political dissent |
492,170 | slate--2019-11-27--What’s Fact and What’s Fiction in <em>The Two Popes</em> | 2019-11-27T00:00:00 | slate | What’s Fact and What’s Fiction in <em>The Two Popes</em> | In The Two Popes, director Fernando Meirelles and screenwriter Anthony McCarten—who wrote the screenplays for The Theory of Everything, Darkest Hour, and Bohemian Rhapsody—dramatize the recent history of the Roman Catholic Church. Despite its title, the movie is in many ways a biopic about one pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, later known as Pope Francis, though Benedict XVI also appears as an important supporting character. But how accurate is this depiction of the man who would eventually become the first pope from Latin America? What role did Francis really play during Argentina’s Dirty War? And did he and Benedict really spar about church doctrine over pizza and Fanta? Below, we break down what’s canonical and what’s apocryphal in Netflix’s new movie. The process of selecting a new pope is kept a secret from the public—at least, it’s supposed to be. After a pope dies or resigns (more on that later), cardinals from around the world gather in Vatican City to vote for the new pope, with a two-thirds majority required for election. As seen in the movie, the results of each round of voting are communicated to the outside world using smoke. White means a decision has been reached; black means the cardinals remain undecided. Since 1971, cardinals over the age of 80 have been ineligible to vote. A papal conclave was held in 2005 after Pope John Paul II died, with 115 cardinals participating. Among them were Cardinals Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina and Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger of Germany. The Two Popes goes behind the scenes, depicting the political machinations that took place during four rounds of voting. The ballot results are those leaked by an anonymous cardinal to the press: According to the leak, Ratzinger got 84 votes and Bergoglio got 26 in the final tally. In the movie, Bergoglio is not interested in becoming pope despite the urging of Italian Cardinal Carlo Martini, who, like Ratzinger and Bergoglio, also got several votes on the first ballot. Like Bergoglio, Martini is a reformist member of the Society of Jesus. But Martini thinks it’d be better if the pope came from outside Europe, so he supports Bergoglio over himself. Bergoglio has since said that he went even further than the mere disinterest in being pope shown in the film, actually urging other cardinals to back the more conservative Ratzinger, who won and took the name Benedict XVI. The movie’s central conceit involves a secret meeting in 2012 between Ratzinger (then the pope) and Bergoglio (still a cardinal). It begins at the Apostolic Palace of Castel Gandolfo, the pope’s Italian vacation home and summer residence. A disillusioned Bergoglio asks Ratzinger to grant him an early retirement, which Ratzinger considers an act of insubordination, and the two debate Catholic dogma. Ratzinger is old-school, standing for doctrine and tradition. The more progressive Bergoglio wants to modernize the church. This 2012 meeting appears to be completely fictional. The two men did have at least one confirmed meeting at Gandolfo, but it took place in March 2013, after Ratzinger resigned and Bergoglio had already become pope. McCarten told Awards Daily that he saw a picture of Francis and Benedict watching TV together and imagined, given the timing, that the two might be watching the World Cup match between Argentina and Germany. (Pope Francis really does love the Argentine San Lorenzo team as much as the movie suggests.) That’s the scene that plays during The Two Popes’ end credits. The popes’ fictional meeting takes place under the shadow of the real 2012 Vatican leaks scandal, in which internal church documents were disseminated to the Italian press. Paolo Gabriele, who had been Pope Benedict’s personal butler since 2007, was identified as the leaker, arrested, and convicted of the theft. In the movie, this is conveyed with a montage of news reports without digging much into the details, though Ratzinger makes a comment that his past assistant would not have allowed Bergoglio to have been kept waiting for him in the garden. “He was perfect,” says Ratzinger. “Now he’s in jail,” replies Bergoglio. Ratzinger tells Bergoglio during their conversation at Gandolfo, “The way you live is a criticism. Your shoes are a criticism,” to which a surprised Bergoglio asks, “You don’t like my shoes?” We later see Bergoglio, after he’s been elected pope, rejecting a pair of red loafers, preferring to keep the shoes he already has on. It’s a major symbolic difference between the two men, and one that’s true to life: Benedict took plenty of heat for his fashion choices while pope, including his red shoes, which were falsely rumored to be Prada. Esquire named him the Accessorizer of the Year on its 2007 best-dressed list alongside the likes of Scooter Libby, which is not a very dignified place for a pope to be. Popes wore red until the mid-16th century, when Pope Pius, a Dominican, changed the vestments to white, with the exception of the red cape, hat, and shoes, which have been worn by most popes since then. Francis, meanwhile, was spotted wearing black shoes even in the very first days of his papacy, and the shoes he wore to the conclave where he’d be elected were reportedly so scrappy that his friends bought him new ones. His rejection of the red shoes is not only part of his humble lifestyle: It shows a disregard for church tradition. Given the level of scrutiny toward his own shoes, it’s no wonder Ratzinger would’ve taken Bergoglio’s footwear choices personally. In a flashback, we see that as a young man, Bergoglio, on the fence about entering the priesthood and waiting for a sign, becomes engaged to a woman, Amalia. A chance encounter with a priest then makes up his mind, and he apparently breaks the engagement, devastating her. Amalia Damonte is a real person, but she and Bergoglio were actually childhood sweethearts. After his election, she told reporters that he wrote her a love letter when they were 12, writing that if she wouldn’t marry him, he’d become a priest instead. Her disapproving parents were the ones who broke it off. Francis was the head of the Jesuit order in Argentina when a military junta took power in 1976, and he has been accused of cooperating with or not standing against the regime as it punished political dissenters, including Catholic priests. This is dramatized in The Two Popes by two incidents from the war based on real events: Bergoglio burning left-leaning books and ordering two priests, the Revs. Franz Jalics and Orlando Yorio—his former teachers—to stop working in the impoverished community of Rivadavia. It’s unclear, both in the movie and in real life, whether Jalics and Yorio left the Society of Jesus so they could continue their work in the slums in defiance of Bergoglio’s instructions or because the future pope forced them out for disobedience. But without belonging to a particular religious order, the men were vulnerable. Accounts in Paul Vallely’s Pope Francis: Untying the Knots also differ about what happened next. Bergoglio apparently gave the men references so they could be brought under the protection of a local bishop, but some, including Yorio, have said the references actually cast them in a negative light. Jalics and Yorio also lost their licenses to publicly celebrate Mass at this time, which was perceived as enough of a rejection by the church for the military to kidnap them. They were stripped and tortured for five days, then imprisoned for five months before being drugged and dumped in a field. Though this development complicates the otherwise rosy portrait of Bergoglio in The Two Popes, the movie is largely sympathetic as it shows him later pleading, unsuccessfully, for Jalics and Yorio’s release with a military leader, insisting that the stay on their ability to celebrate Mass was only temporary. Bergoglio tells Ratzinger in the movie that though Yorio never forgave him, Jalics did, and we see the two embrace during a Mass. That tracks with a report from another Jesuit quoted in Vallely’s book, who said the two men “fell into each other’s arms crying” when they met in Germany years later. Jalics issued a statement after Francis was elected pope denying that Bergoglio had reported him and Yorio to the authorities, though it stops short of absolving him of any blame in the situation. For a movie called The Two Popes, it spends a lot more time on Bergoglio’s life and career than it does on Ratzinger’s. His background is conveyed in brief snippets of dialogue, as when critics derisively call him a Nazi. That’s because of his time in the Hitler Youth as a teenager, though defenders have pointed out that enrollment was mandatory and that Ratzinger worked with John Paul II to atone for Catholic involvement in the Holocaust. Benedict is as musical as he seems in The Two Popes, and the album mentioned in the film, Alma Mater: Music from the Vatican, is real. It has not gotten good reviews. (To be fair, Pope Francis’ own album hasn’t gotten great reviews, either.) At the end of the movie, we get our most intimate look at Ratzinger as he confesses his sins before Bergoglio, admitting that he hid away in books in his youth and didn’t experience the world fully. Then, things turn serious. Ratzinger begins to talk about allegations made against a priest 12 years earlier. The movie’s audio becomes muffled, so we can’t hear the details, but the name of priest at least is audible: Father Maciel, as in the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, an influential Mexican priest who preyed on young boys over the course of decades. In the late 1990s, nine men publicly accused Maciel of sexual abuse and filed formal charges with the Vatican. But the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then under Ratzinger’s leadership, failed to prosecute Maciel. It wasn’t until years later, after Ratzinger was elected pope, that Maciel was forced to step away from public ministry—though the church did not denounce him until 2010, two years after his death. In the movie, Bergoglio is horrified that Ratzinger didn’t act sooner despite knowing about the abuse. One of the movie’s most poignant scenes involves Ratzinger and Bergoglio eating a simple meal of pizza in the Room of Tears, which is located off the Sistine Chapel—in this case, not the real chapel, which does not allow fictional movies to be filmed there, but a painstaking re-creation. The Room of Tears is where a new pope gets dressed for the first time and is so named for the emotions of the men facing the responsibility of spiritually leading 1.3 billion people. While Bergoglio is the one who suggests the two get pizza in the room, it’s Ratzinger who is famously a Fanta fiend. | Marissa Martinelli | https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/two-popes-movie-accuracy-francis-benedict-fact-fiction.html?via=rss | Wed, 27 Nov 2019 01:54:46 +0000 | 1,574,837,686 | 1,574,856,963 | politics | political dissent |
508,217 | sottnet--2019-11-13--None dare call it conspiracy: Pathologizing conspiracy theories is the psychopathic government's way | 2019-11-13T00:00:00 | sottnet | None dare call it conspiracy: Pathologizing conspiracy theories is the psychopathic government's way of suppressing dissent | The term 'conspiracy theory' has long been used to discredit anyone pointing out collusion between powerful people, but efforts to pathologize dissent as 'conspiracism' are doomed to collapse under the weight of reality.Conspiracy theories are divisive, dangerous, even evil, according to the mainstream media. They cause "violence, including terrorism," former Obama administration official Cass Sunstein notoriously declared , and the FBI's Phoenix field office recently reiterated . They're a way for ignorant people to make sense of the world, academics cry, or a holdover from the caveman era, when primitive man had to suspect enemies around every corner. More recently, they've been described as a way for white people to deal with demographic changes.But conspiracies are everywhere in American politics today in a way that is nearly impossible to ignore. Convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart deal, given an open-door 13-month sentence despite evidence of abusing and trafficking scores of girls ("he belongs to intelligence," the prosecutor later claimed he was told), the machinations of the so-called Deep State ("thank God for the Deep State!" ex CIA director John McLaughlin chuckled , live on CSPAN), and the CIA's fomenting of coups around the worldUnable to drive people away from researching secret plots by calling them racist cavemen, academia has revived the word "conspiracism," a term first coined in the 1980s to describe the pervasiveness of conspiracy theories in politics as a sort of mass psychosis'Conspiracy theory' has become the go-to shorthand in the mainstream media for inconvenient outbreaks of political dissent. CNN's Jim Acosta applied it to the idea professed by President Donald Trump and many independent journalists that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election on behalf of the DNC. CNN's Chris Cillizza applied it to Trump's claim that Google was suppressing conservative news outlets in its search results, a claim echoed by many right-leaning social media users.But the mainstream media also reported on Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election, and multiple Google whistleblowers have come forward to confirm the search giant does, in fact, suppress right-leaning sources in its news searches.Indeed, the mainstream media has spent so much time peddling fantasies like the "Russian collusion" delusion - which dominated headlines for three years in the absence of concrete evidence before dying ignominiously - that trust in 'journalism' is at record lows . The abundance of real conspiracies behind many of the turning points of recent history - Watergate, the Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" hoax, and the CIA arming and training terrorist "mujahideen" in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union being just a few examples - is rarely mentioned amidst the endless mockery of those tinfoil-hat loonies who believeEven some mainstream journalists see through the tripe they're asked to report, as Project Veritas' recent leak of an ABC reporter calling out a conspiracy to suppress her story on suspiciously-deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein proved. A media apparatus that can't even fool the people on its payroll is in a sad state indeed.Powerful people and intelligence agencies who don't want the hoi polloi probing their misdeeds are aware they have a crisis of credibility on their hands. Even the FBI, in a memo warning agents that conspiracy theorists (like literally everyone else) are dangerous loonies, had to admit that the "uncovering of real conspiracies or cover-ups involving illegal, harmful, or unconstitutional activities by government officials or leading political figures" might be behind the outbreak of conspiracy theorizing that had seized the nation.The tradition of labeling ideas conspiracy theories to discredit them is itself a conspiracy - a documented one. The term was weaponized in 1967 in a CIA memo about how to quash criticism of the Warren Report, the product of the government investigation into President John F. Kennedy's murder. The memo laments that some 46 percent of Americans did not believe the assassin acted alone, and details how the agency might "counter and discredit the claims of the conspiracy theorists" suggesting others were involved. It recommends "employ[ing] propaganda assets to refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose."Over half a century later, the CIA's plan hasn't worked very well - a 2017 poll found that the percentage of Americans who believe JFK's death was the result of a conspiracy had swelled to 61 percent. But rather than come up with a new strategy, the media's narrative managers have simply doubled down on the failed one, expanding the range of opinions smeared as "conspiracy theories" and heaping scorn upon their adherents. try to shame people , diagnosing anyone suspicious of threadbare media narratives with the societal psychosis of 'conspiracism.' It may work to keep inconvenient truths out of the mainstream media, but in the absence of a compelling alternative narrative - one that can't be disproven by the evidence of one's own senses (or a few minutes' research on the internet) - conspiracy-shaming is a weak weapon. | null | https://www.sott.net/article/423806-None-dare-call-it-conspiracy-Pathologizing-conspiracy-theories-is-the-psychopathic-governments-way-of-suppressing-dissent | Wed, 13 Nov 2019 01:39:08 +0000 | 1,573,627,148 | 1,573,648,530 | politics | political dissent |
510,510 | sottnet--2019-12-29--The criminalisation of protest in America | 2019-12-29T00:00:00 | sottnet | The criminalisation of protest in America | The US today freely interferes in the governments of so many other nations, fueling unrest and financing violence, seeking to impose on these countries a peculiarly American form of "open government" which it can control, but has always severely restricted any such activity either suspected or real, on its own soil. We have already read about the Un-American Activities Act [1] and the extensive government policies to prohibit political activism or promote other forms of government or capitalism in those years, and I briefly mentioned the Sedition Act passed by President Woodrow Wilson's government in the early 1900s. [2]This latter legislation was directed against all Americans and used to firmly silence criticism of government policies. Under this Act, the government engaged in countless illegal searches and seizures of property and imprisoned tens of thousands of US citizens simply for criticising Wilson's desire for war. The authorities organised gangs to regularly intimidate and beat up citizens, unrelated to the propaganda war on the Germans.In 1940, under President Franklin Roosevelt, the US created a law known as the Smith Act [3] which made it a crime in the US to "knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the ... desirability or propriety of overthrowing ... any government in the United States". And for the following decades the government prosecuted thousands of individuals who proposed alternatives to the US system of capitalism, or promoted any form of socialism or attempted to form another political party. The act was exclusively intended to suppress any and all forms of political dissent in the United States. Many people were imprisoned or disappeared simply for publishing or circulating pamphlets or articles that discussed alternative political or economic views.The government created internment camps where anyone suspected of being a subversive agent could be imprisoned indefinitely without charge, disappearing into a secret prison system. US authorities still continue the process they began more than 60 years ago of using the IRS - the US Tax Department - as a weapon of intimidation against those who dare to challenge the political or capitalist systems. According to records, tens of thousands of individuals and groups, colleges, charities and even religious organisations have been mercilessly harassed by the IRS as punishment for political activism.In 1950 The US passed the McCarran Internal Security Act that effectively prohibited even the discussion of other forms of government within the US. That law required that all persons objecting to the American multi-party political system were to be registered as subversive agents, a process that would automatically deny them most of their basic rights including the ability to travel freely and would place severe restrictions on the kinds of jobs they could hold. They were also subject to arbitrary deportation even though they were American citizens.Failure to register as subversive agents would lead to a $10,000 fine and five years in jail for each day of non-compliance, all in a circumstance where the definition of such persons and their need to register were by no means clear.It was apparent this law was a forceful method of using fear to intimidate individuals from criticising the government since its application was entirely arbitrary and with no transparency whatever.[4]The McCarran Act was a far-reaching piece of legislation that served to remove most of the civil liberties from a great many people on what was essentially an arbitrary basis, the set of laws that gave Senator McCarthy the freedom to introduce fascism on a grand scale, and worked in conjunction with the House Un-American Activities Committee. The Act's stated purpose was to protect the US against subversive activities by requiring registration of hostile foreign propagandists and agents, but it did far more than this. It prevented people from becoming citizens, it could withdraw citizenship, deport individuals, prevent their employment, and much more. In all, it had far-reaching consequences for both civil liberties in the US - which it totally trashed - and as a template for its own resurrection in the 1980s and beyond. It targeted intellectuals, anyone who might have written criticism of the US government. One Dr. Morrison received an unfortunate summons to a Congressional Committee simply for writing a review of a book that described the human horrors of nuclear war. At the time, the US was desperately trying to produce an improved atomic bomb and widely used the powers of this Act to silence all public criticism of its plans by categorising objections as subversive and treasonous.The Act prohibited the writing or circulation of, or any teaching of, opposition to the US form of government or the removal or replacement of the US governmental system. It was forbidden to be a member of any organisation that would "raise the presumption that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States". It was forbidden to advocate any economic or political doctrine foreign to the US. The Act stipulated that all persons arbitrarily defined by the FBI as 'political activists' would be confined to automatic forced detention on the spurious grounds they might conspire to commit sabotage or espionage.It was forbidden for any employee of the US government or of any US corporation "to communicate in any manner or by any means, to any other person whom such officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative of any foreign government". No such "agent of a foreign government" was permitted to "seek, accept or hold" any employment in the US, nor to conceal the fact that he was such an agent. All US citizens were forbidden from funding, advising or assisting any such person or organisation, and it was forbidden by law to associate with those who were not "well disposed to the good order and happiness" of America.This legislation and other similar Acts are still in force in the US today, raising yet again the vast discrepancy between what the Americans preach externally and what they do at home.And once again we can ask why, if these "seditious foreign agents" must be registered and identified in the US, cannot be funded or even communicated with, cannot publish or distribute any material contradictory to the American government and capitalist system, it is okay for the Americans to do precisely these things in China. Why is it not equally appropriate for China to force all Americans and their agents to register as "seditious aliens", forbid them to communicate with Chinese and forbid employment? And why isn't it okay for China to just deport all those Americans who are not "well disposed to the good order and happiness of China"? We must remind ourselves yet one more time that democracy is a coin with only one side.Today, the proliferation of 'anti-terror' legislation in the US essentially duplicates all this past legislation in its fascist glory, but updated to the present.The Patriot Act made all Americans potential enemies of the state, and the National Defense Authorization Act gave the US military and espionage agencies the ability to ignore all considerations of law or civil rights. You have read of some of the problems in US agriculture and the problems with so-called "factory farms" where animals are raised in abhorrent conditions.Today in the US, anyone investigating the toxic conditions and abuses on these farms risks being prosecuted under the same terrorism legislation, for causing "losses to American businesses" owned by the top 1%. One Ph.D candidate at MIT, whose name appeared on one of these prosecution lists, wrote,Simply, the puppet-masters who control the White House and also direct the large corporations are avoiding exposure and prosecution and silencing all political and anti-capitalist sentiment by directing the justice system to target civilian investigators and activists as terrorists.The process now operating within the US is that every threat, real or imagined, to the established political-capitalist order will produce increased public repression. And it is not only US government agencies and police forces that are involved in this civil suffocation; the major American banks and the Foundations play an increasingly deep role in subverting even further the free expression of dissent in America. We have already seen that the banks that were the target of the Occupy Wall Street protests surreptitiously funded the group in order to manage its direction and ensure its demise. Foundations like Rockefeller and Carnegie have done the same, with the idea of financing and participating in various civil rights movements in order to better control them and prevent the movements from taking their natural course as popular expressions of public sentiment against an unfair and brutal system. They were co-opting the movements to suit the interests of the top 1%, to make the world "safe for capitalism". Some states have introduced legislation to criminalise all investigations of corporate crimes, in transparent attempts to use frighteningly powerful and unlimited legislation to protect corporate profits. Even photographing some of these actions will be classified as terrorism and subject to the full arbitrary power of these laws. We have reached the point where a camera is now a terrorist weapon, the possession of which is punishable by life imprisonment in a black prison without any judicial process or recourse.Congress recently passed a new law that effectively criminalises all public protests, and categorises civil society movements like Occupy Wall Street as "domestic terrorism". The Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act give the military and espionage agencies unlimited powers.The intent is to intimidate all citizens and stifle any public criticism of US government acts or policies. Any of the following actions may get a US citizen labeled as a suspected terrorist today:(1) Speaking out against government policies,(2) Protesting against anything,(3) Questioning the government's many wars,(4) Asking questions about Wall Street Banks and the FED,(5) Taking pictures or video, especially of police.The US government is using the Patriot Act and various other bits of new legislation not only to outlaw most of the basic civil freedoms in the country, but these laws are so vague as to permit virtually any domestic atrocity against civilians.Anyone today who speaks out against any US government policies can be arbitrarily classified as either a terrorist or an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely without charge or trial. Few people seem aware that the US media are compelled by law to report to the FBI/CIA all communication (letters to the Editor, etc.) that is critical of the US government.Many government agencies, including the military, now actively monitor all US social media like Facebook and Twitter to identify those who criticise the US government, then seek them out and interrogate them. This has a particularly chilling effect on American so-called "free speech" when citizens know that espionage agencies are now monitoring every online post and comment. It is not widely known, but US authorities constantly monitor the social media, bulletin boards and other Internet sites for potential political dissent, and often exercise their authority to order people to disperse from "unlawful online assembly", which definition is as arbitrary as the authorities wish to make it.Moreover, leaked documents revealed that any students who could be identified as having been involved in protests, or posted public but 'sensitive' information, or involved in various political activisms, would forever be prohibited from employment with any part of the US government. One university student who had taken part in the Occupy Wall Street protests later said, "The system in place sublimely manipulates our social reality in ways obvious only when we realize that there is nothing between us and the police but fear". She added that if the protestors had held out and actually tried to make changes in the system, her participation would exist in a permanent record and she would never be able to get a job. And in any case, she held out no hope that the citizens could ever really change anything.The DHS hired defense contractor General Dynamics for a $12 million program to monitor the Internet for "reports that reflect adversely on DHS, especially those that have a negative spin on DHS activities". These agencies are not monitoring so-called "terrorist" activity, but normal social activity and political commentary. In its defense, DHS claimed the released documents were "outdated" - though they were new - and that social media were monitored for "situational awareness of man-made threats" and not to police disparaging opinions about the federal government. According to their spokesman, the manual's instruction that analysts should identify media reports that reflect adversely on DHS activities was not at all meant to silence criticism, but simply "to identify areas where DHS wasn't doing a good job, and to help it improve". I can scarcely imagine a greater lie than that one. [5] [6]In yet another attempt to silence political dissension, New York State proposed new legislation that would outlaw anonymous speech on the Internet, on the foolish pretense of discouraging 'cyber-bullying'.This was not presented as a removal of a civil right but rather the granting of a new one - the government's "right to know who is behind an anonymous internet posting", on the basis that a valuable resource like the Internet "ought to be used properly". Of course, there are few people anywhere so reckless as to expose themselves to the entire Internet world in this fashion, especially when it would invite a knock on the door. Naturally, government officials, media owners and anyone in the top 1% can continue to publish op-ed pieces without a byline, maintaining their own privacy while the peasants cannot.In their book Manufacturing Consent, and writing of the elite domination of the media, Herman and Chomsky noted that the marginalisation of dissidents results from filters so natural that the media can easily convince themselves they are being objective, but the constraints are so powerful and so fundamentally built into the system that alternative choices are scarcely imaginable.Ben Bagdikian wrote that the acceptable range of discourse determines what topics can be discussed and to what degree, which will be pushed into the shadows and which uppermost in the public mind. He claimed it is the power to treat some subjects obscurely and others in depth where the media ownership most effectively influences the news - and also the content in the public mind. And, as Chomsky has often noted, it is the assumptions that are not articulated that affect the range of public discourse. And again, it is the political-capitalist narrative that is so closely protected from dissenting voices. Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers made these very accurate observations:Notes(1) HUAC - Definition, Hearings & Investigations; https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/huac (2) U.S. Congress passes Sedition Act; https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-congress-passes-sedition-act (3) Smith Act; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act (4) McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950; https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1047/mccarran-act-of-1950 (5) Lawmaker Demands DHS Cease Monitoring of Blogs, Social Media; https://www.wired.com/2012/02/dhs-media-monitoring/ (6) Department Of Homeland Security Tells Congress Why It's Monitoring Facebook, Twitter, blogs; https://www.fastcompany.com/1816814/department-homeland-security-tells-congress-why-its-monitoring-facebook-twitter-blogs Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai's Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He can be contacted at: [email protected] | null | https://www.sott.net/article/426479-The-criminalisation-of-protest-in-America | Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:09:39 +0000 | 1,577,632,179 | 1,577,624,074 | politics | political dissent |
577,317 | theantimedia--2019-02-12--Erdogan Says Venezuelan Gold Will Be Processed in Turkey | 2019-02-12T00:00:00 | theantimedia | Erdogan Says Venezuelan Gold Will Be Processed in Turkey | (TM) — Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said on Tuesday that Venezuelan gold would be processed in the Central Anatolian province of Çorum. Speaking at a rally ahead of local elections on March 31, the president said Çorum would reach a new level in terms of gold trade amid reports that Venezuela sells most of its gold to Turkish refineries. On Monday Reuters reported that Venezuela uses some of the proceeds to buy consumer goods such as pasta and powdered milk, citing people with direct knowledge of the trade. Trade between the two nations grew eightfold last year. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s gold program has developed in tandem with his deepening relationship with Turkey’s Erdoğan. Both leaders have been criticized internationally for cracking down on political dissent and undermining democratic norms to concentrate power. A Nov. 1 executive order signed by US President Donald Trump bars US persons and entities from buying gold from Venezuela. It does not apply to foreigners. Ankara has assured the US Treasury that all of Turkey’s trade with Venezuela is in accordance with international law. Venezuela in December 2016 announced a direct flight from Caracas to İstanbul on Turkish Airlines. The development was surprising given the low demand for travel between the two nations. Trade data show those planes are carrying more than passengers. On New Year’s Day, 2018, Venezuela’s central bank began shipping gold to Turkey with a $36 million air shipment of the metal to Istanbul. It came just weeks after a visit by Maduro to Turkey. Shipments last year reached $900 million, according to Turkish government data and trade reports. Venezuela’s central bank has been selling its artisan gold directly to Turkish refiners, according to two senior Venezuelan officials. Proceeds go to the Venezuelan state development bank Bandes to purchase Turkish consumer goods, the officials said. Gold buyers include Istanbul Gold Refinery, or IGR, and Sardes Kıymetli Madenler, a Turkish trading firm, according to a person who works in Turkey’s gold industry as well as a Caracas-based diplomat and the two senior Venezuelan officials. In an interview with Reuters, IGR CEO Ayşen Esen denied the company has been involved in any Venezuelan gold deals. In a written statement, she said she met with Venezuelan and Turkish officials in İstanbul in April to offer her views on compliance with international regulations. Esen said she advised the Turkish government that working with Venezuela “would not be right for leading institutions or the state.” As for Sardes Kıymetli Madenler, no one at its İstanbul offices responded to inquiries from Reuters. Turkish consumer products, meanwhile, are making their way to Venezuelan tables. In early December 54 containers of Turkish powdered milk arrived at the port of La Guaira near Caracas, according to port records seen by Reuters. The İstanbul-based shipper, Mulberry Proje Yatırım, shares an address with Marilyns Proje Yatırım, a mining company that signed a joint venture with Venezuela’s state mining firm Minerven last year, according to filings with a Turkish trade registry gazette in September. This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy. Since you’re here… …We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too. If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us | Turkish Minute | http://theantimedia.com/erdogan-venezuelan-gold-turkey/ | 2019-02-12 23:11:28+00:00 | 1,550,031,088 | 1,567,548,856 | politics | political dissent |
578,783 | theatlantic--2019-07-05--Europe Has Turned Its Back on Its ISIS Suspects | 2019-07-05T00:00:00 | theatlantic | Europe Has Turned Its Back on Its ISIS Suspects | The irony is that some western European countries, whose representatives were appalled by America’s indefinite detention of terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay after September 11, are now by default accepting a sprawling Guantánamo in the desert. “Europeans seem to be fine with letting their own citizens sit there,” a senior State Department official, who requested anonymity to discuss the issue, told me. This official said that the U.S. was working to identify its own citizens in the custody of America’s local Kurdish allies—the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF—and has repatriated four so far for trial. (One dual Saudi American citizen the U.S. had suspected of joining ISIS, but never brought to trial, was freed in Bahrain last year; in another case, the State Department controversially argued that an accused ISIS propagandist, Hoda Muthana, was not actually a citizen despite being born in Alabama.) But thousands of other foreign fighters—not even counting Iraqis and Syrians—are in makeshift prisons northeastern Syria. Among democratic countries, which arguably have the best means to bring them to justice and hold them securely, there is very little interest in bringing them home to face prosecution—or even in bringing home the wives and children of ISIS fighters, who are being held separately in squalid detention centers. A further irony is that authoritarian Central Asian countries, such as Kazakhstan, have been leading the way on repatriating their citizens from Iraq and Syria—especially women and children—and casting their efforts in humanitarian terms, Letta Tayler, a senior researcher in terrorism and counterterrorism at Human Rights Watch, told me. “Western Europe is hiding its head in the sand when it should be taking care of its citizens,” said Tayler, who recently visited separate camps in northeastern Syria, where the families of suspected ISIS members are being held in conditions she described as squalid and horrifying. “If Kazakhstan can repatriate by the hundreds, surely western Europe, with far greater resources and far fewer suspects and family members … can do the same.” (Tayler has written that France, for example, has brought back 17 children—but has left at least 400 people, including children, behind.) Read: He was branded the ‘American Taliban.’ Now he’s getting out of jail. In a rare moment of praise for a post-Soviet dictatorship, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, the United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, said the country was showing “much needed leadership on the critical global issue.” There are, of course, concerns that, public messaging aside, authorities in dictatorships like Kazakhstan may themselves abuse prisoners. Ní Aoláin highlighted the country’s use of domestic-counterterrorism laws against religious minorities and political dissenters. Tayler says Human Rights Watch has been pushing for transparency about what happens to prisoners in custody. But the broader significance of policies like Kazakhstan’s, she says, is that they expose the weakness of the western European argument that it’s too difficult or dangerous to take such suspects back. | Kathy Gilsinan | https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/trump-administration-pushes-europe-try-isis-suspects/593296/?utm_source=feed | 2019-07-05 10:00:00+00:00 | 1,562,335,200 | 1,567,536,753 | politics | political dissent |
579,137 | theatlantic--2019-10-11--Why Is Turkey in NATO Anyway? | 2019-10-11T00:00:00 | theatlantic | Why Is Turkey in NATO Anyway? | Read: The U.S. moves out, and Turkey moves in This soon became a case of more allies, more problems. When Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 following a Greece-backed military coup, the two allies came into direct conflict; in fact, Greece left NATO over it, before later rejoining. Later, the U.S. flew bombing raids on Iraq from Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base during the 1990–91 Gulf War; in 2003, though, Turkey refused to station U.S. troops on its territory to attack Baghdad. (Other U.S. allies, namely France and Germany, also opposed the 2003 Iraq War, though France was not fully participating in NATO at the time.) As for that whole democratic-values thing, the military stepped in to run the country about every decade or so. But by the time anti-government protests swept Arab countries in 2011, Turkey looked like a model of stability and Islamic democracy. In an interview with NATO Review in 2012 marking 60 years of Turkey being in NATO, then–Turkish Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz said that in joining the alliance, Turkey had made its direction, and its security, “the same as the West’s.” He went on: “This was not a decision Turkey took only in 1952. This was the consequence of Turkey supporting Western values. Let’s not say Western—universal values, which are democracy, human rights, and core values of human rights based on the rule of law.” Turkey was even negotiating for membership in the European Union. Which all now seems a bit rich, given that the current leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a self-avowed champion of the Muslim Brotherhood, has changed the constitution, rerun elections that didn’t favor his political party, and led a crackdown on journalists and political dissenters, as well as a purge of thousands suspected of involvement in a failed 2016 coup. Even on the interests front—Incirlik Air Base has been central to U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the ISIS era—hitches came up. The Turkish government did little to rein in ISIS fighters transiting its territory to join the battles in Iraq and Syria; some ISIS members even passed through Turkey to carry out attacks in Europe. Erdoğan’s government has bought Russian air defenses over vigorous American objections and in the face of sanctions threats, and as of this week, the Turkish government ditched an agreement that U.S. officials had hoped would keep the peace in northeastern Syria. “About 10 years ago, you couldn’t swing a dead cat in Washington and not hit somebody who wouldn’t say, ‘Oh, Turkey’s a great ally’ … Now everyone’s mad at Turkey,” Cook said. Hence the questions now about whether the alliance is even worth it. Senators Lindsey Graham and Chris Van Hollen are pushing bipartisan legislation to sanction Turkey over its Syria incursion; Graham has also floated suspending Turkey from NATO altogether. (There’s actually no clear legislative way to do this—the NATO charter doesn’t contemplate kicking out members, though members can leave on their own, as Greece did over its dispute with Turkey.) France’s EU-affairs minister, too, has said that NATO suspension is “on the table.” | Kathy Gilsinan | https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/turkey-and-nato-troubled-relationship/599890/?utm_source=feed | 2019-10-11T11:30:28-04:00 | 1,570,807,828 | 1,570,831,994 | politics | political dissent |
590,638 | thedailybeast--2019-01-15--Why Conservative Media and the Far Right Love Tulsi Gabbard for President | 2019-01-15T00:00:00 | thedailybeast | Why Conservative Media and the Far Right Love Tulsi Gabbard for President | The latest Democratic candidate to enter the 2020 race has an unexpected base of support: The far right and conservative media. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), who announced her candidacy last Friday, has cultivated a fandom among the right by bashing fellow Democrats and espousing views that break with the party line. Since taking office in 2013, Gabbard, 37, has established a reputation as an unorthodox politician. While holding familiar Democratic positions on environmental issues, health care, and gun control, Gabbard was a frequent critic of President Obama’s foreign policy, met with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, and has questioned whether he used chemical weapons on his own citizens. Once discussed among party insiders as a rising star who signed on to be a vice chair at the Democratic National Committee, she quit in protest during the 2016 election and endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). When she ran for re-election in 2018, she had the backing of liberal groups including the AFL-CIO and Planned Parenthood, yet she was briefly considered as a potential member for Trump’s cabinet, and cheered on his diplomatic overtures to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Since announcing her bid for the presidency, Gabbard has faced a torrent of criticism for some of her more eccentric politics, zeroing in on her equivocations on Assad and her past homophobic comments. And, in the process, she has earned one prominent defender: Tucker Carlson. In a Monday evening segment, featuring anti-war leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald, the Fox News host argued that Gabbard had been unfairly maligned because of her deep skepticism about intervention in Syria and willingness to talk to Assad. “There’s something so stealthy and feline and dishonest about the way they’re attacking her,” Tucker said. “If you don’t like her foreign policy views, let’s just say so. But no one ever really wants to debate what our foreign policy should be. They just attack anyone who deviates from their own dumb ideas.” Gabbard first became an in-demand Fox News guest in 2015 after she criticized Barack Obama’s unwillingness to use the label “radical Islamic terrorism.” Her media tour explaining that position earned her positively-tilted coverage in right-wing outlets like Breitbart and The Daily Caller—a trend that continued when she later expressed skepticism of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal. One person with direct knowledge told The Daily Beast that in the wake of her Obama criticism of Obama, Gabbard became an increasingly requested guest for Fox News hosts and producers to appear on-air. They weren’t the only ones in television news who took notice: senior executives at Sinclair Broadcasting made appeals for Gabbard to appear on their networks after she rebuked Obama. And her emergence as a left-wing Obama critic further put Gabbard on the map in conservative media. In May 2015, the National Review implored readers to “Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat Who’s Turning Heads by Challenging Obama’s Foreign Policy.” The conservative outlet touted Gabbard as having “endeared herself to right-wing hawks” by challenging Obama’s “rudderless” foreign policy. “I like her thinking a lot,” American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks was quoted as saying. Gabbard has also maintained friendly relationships with high-profile, right-leaning television personalities, including Carlson and Fox News colleague Neil Cavuto, a long-time anchor and Trump skeptic who leans conservative on business issues. And earlier this month, after she accused her fellow Democratic senators of engaging in “religious bigotry” for asking questions about a Trump judicial nominee’s faith, she received yet another round of Fox News praise. Todd Starnes, a Fox pundit with a long history of anti-gay comments, wrote in an op-ed that he found Gabbard’s comments “encouraging.” “I respect Gabbard’s bold declaration that ‘no American should be asked to renounce his or her faith or membership in a faith-based, service organization in order to hold public office,’” he wrote. “But I’m afraid she may be in the minority within her party.” To be sure, not all of conservative media is smitten with Gabbard—many object to some of the congresswoman’s positions that endear her to the left. Fox News host Laura Ingraham, for example, on Monday evening cited Gabbard as being among the Democrats “who criticize Israel for nothing." Many right-leaning outlets took umbrage at Gabbard tweeting at President Trump: “Being Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not ‘America First.’” And after her 2017 visit with Assad, hawkish conservative outlets like the National Review have come around to call her “disappointing.” But beyond her acclaim among many in conservative media, Gabbard has long earned high praise from far-right online personalities. Search “Tulsi Gabbard” on majority-right forums like 4chan’s Politically Incorrect (/pol/) board or the social network Gab. Unlike results for Democratic candidates like Elizabeth Warren (described as a communist) or Kamala Harris (described in racist terms), Gabbard has met a warmer reception. “Unironically listening to Tulsi Gabbard on Rogan podcast right now. I've cried 3 times so far because of how closely aligned her views are to mine. She is the Trump I hoped for but apparently didn't deserve,” one /pol/ commenter wrote Sunday. On Gab on Monday, users favorably circled an article about Gabbard’s past anti-gay stances. These are anonymous commenters, on a forum riddled by trolls. But other, more prominent far-right figures have publicly spoken in Gabbard’s defense. Steve Bannon, Trump’s former White House chief strategist, reportedly admired Gabbard’s foreign policy, and arranged a meeting with her and Trump shortly after his election. Bannon was reportedly considering Gabbard for an administration role, although no such job ever materialized. “He loves Tulsi Gabbard. Loves her,” a person close to Bannon told The Hill at the time. “Wants to work with her on everything.” The person added that Gabbard “would fit perfectly too [inside the administration] … She gets the foreign policy stuff, the Islamic terrorism stuff.” Richard Spencer, a white nationalist and alleged domestic abuser who has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing,” has tweeted multiple times in support of Gabbard. David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader and current racist, has also heaped praise upon her. “Tulsi Gabbard is brave and the kind of person we need in the diplomatic corps,” Spencer tweeted in January 2017. “Tulsi Gabbard 2020,” he tweeted later that year. In a November 2016 tweet, Duke said Gabbard was representative of a “political realignment” he hoped to see in the U.S., and called for Donald Trump to appoint her secretary of state. Duke ran a favorable blog post about Gabbard on his website. Gabbard hit back at Duke. “U didn't know I'm Polynesian/Cauc?” she tweeted at the former KKK leader. “Dad couldn't use ‘whites only’ water fountain. No thanks. Ur white nationalism is pure evil.” But he continued to laud her, writing “God bless Tulsi Gabbard” later that year. Spencer and Duke credited their Gabbard support to her stance on Syria, where civil war has resulted in an estimated half-million deaths. (Some on the far right view Assad as a hero. The Intercept reported that fascists in the U.S. and abroad see Assad as creating an ideal “homogeneous” authoritarian state, free of political dissent. And James Fields Jr., the neo-Nazi who murdered a woman with a car at a 2017 white nationalist rally in Virginia in 2017, posted a meme of Assad on Facebook, alongside pictures of swastikas and Hitler.) Gabbard has billed herself as an anti-interventionist in Syria, but she’s gone further than many pacifists—most famously by meeting with Assad on the trip organized by members of a far-right group in early 2017. The congresswoman described her visit as being motivated by concern for Syrian civilians, though critics have pointed out that she also voted in favor of the GOP-backed “American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act,” a 2015 bill that made it harder for Syrian and Iraqi refugees to immigrate to the U.S. Gabbard has yet to say what her presidential policy on Syria would look like. | null | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thedailybeast/articles/~3/zj87y61NCOE/why-conservative-media-and-the-far-right-love-tulsi-gabbard-for-president | 2019-01-15 09:32:15+00:00 | 1,547,562,735 | 1,567,552,305 | politics | political dissent |
592,668 | thedailybeast--2019-03-31--When They Want War India and Pakistan Will Always Have Kashmir | 2019-03-31T00:00:00 | thedailybeast | When They Want War, India and Pakistan Will Always Have Kashmir | When this series was first published in The Daily Beast last December, I had no idea that Kashmir was about to explode—quite literally—into the headlines again. There had been numerous developments in the region between my visit and the series’ publication, but none were quite as important, or as troubling, as those that came to pass in February and March. In light of these more recent developments, a preamble is in order. On February 14, an Indian-born Kashmiri named Adil Ahmad Dar drove 300 kilograms of explosives into a convoy of Indian military vehicles in Pulwama, a district of Indian-administered Kashmir. In addition to himself, Dar killed 40 Indian soldiers, rendering the attack the deadliest in decades. A Pakistan-based militant group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, claimed responsibility for his actions, and the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was quick to allege Pakistani involvement. Pakistan denied the charge. A quickly escalating game of tit-for-tat followed. Indian jets crossed the infamous Line of Control and, according to official statements, bombed a terrorist training camp on Pakistani soil. Pakistan denied this, too, saying the planes hadn’t destroyed much of anything and certainly hadn’t killed any terrorists. Meanwhile, Pakistan sent its own planes across the LoC in response. For the first time since the 1971 war that led to the creation of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan engaged in dogfights over Kashmir. When an Indian plane was shot down on the Pakistani side of the LoC, its pilot, Abhinandan Varthaman, was captured. He was returned to India on the first day of March in a move that Pakistan described as a “gesture of peace.” The stand-off has largely been limited to cross-border shooting and shelling since. A number of Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC have been killed. Bill Clinton once described Kashmir as “the most dangerous place in the world.” Christopher Hitchens once described the LoC—from a vantage point on the Pakistani side—as “the near-certain flash point of a coming war that could well become an Asian Armageddon.” For the moment, that war appears to have been averted. Cross-border shelling is business as usual in this part of the world. But Hitchens would have been surprised to learn that it was Pakistan, rather than India, that came out looking like the adult on this occasion. Then again, Hitchens, who wrote his dispatch in 2007, had long been convinced that the U.S. alliance with Pakistan was a form of geopolitical self-harm, and Hitchens died before Modi came to power in India in 2014. He did not foresee the rise of an Islamophobic nationalist government in Delhi and couldn’t have guessed at the manner in which that government would wind up radicalizing a whole generation of Indian Kashmiris through its militarization of the region and the brutality it would inflict on its citizens there. The essentially violent nature of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, has now been laid bare by events. Countless Kashmiris in other parts of India spent most of late February avoiding lynch mobs—many of them helped by activists like Shehla Rashid, who you will hear from later in this series. Many gruesome scenes that recalled the 2002 Gujarat riots, which left countless people, mostly Muslims, dead. The Indian media, up to and including ostensibly liberal journalists like Barkha Dutt, devolved in the wake of the Pulwama attack into an unthinking, bloodthirsty rabble. Bollywood actors, who have only ever played at war, became all-too-willing mongers for it. Hindutva Twitter—which has long made MAGA Twitter look quaint—seethed with denunciations of “traitors” and “Pakapologists” and writhed with demands for ever greater violence. The extent to which Modi’s anti-Muslim rhetoric has entered the Indian mainstream—its bloodstream—seemed scarily absolute. That Modi faces re-election in April obviously influenced his actions. (Indeed, his numbers went up immediately after he sent planes across the LoC, and a number of his colleagues have callously wondered aloud in the press how many seats the violence will net them.) But it’s the ideological bent of the nation he leads—which is to say, the ideological bent of the man himself—that strikes me as most important here. It is difficult to imagine a world in which Modi, heading to the polls or otherwise, didn’t respond to Pulwama this way. This is more than a little concerning. I have amended the postscript to this series slightly, adding some thoughts about what the recent stand-off means for Indian governments going forward—the country’s reluctance to confront its own culpability for the radicalization of Kashmiri youth means we are likely to see more attacks—and about Pakistan’s long-misplaced faith in the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. I have left the rest of the series more or less as it was published. Consider it a 13,000-word primer on a situation—older than the Arab-Israeli conflict, older than the Tibet debate, as intractable as either and arguably more important than both—that this year brought us closer to midnight than we have been in quite some time. In the end, I was probably lucky that the dog bite was the worst thing that happened to me. Not that I felt very lucky at the time. What I felt at the time was a pain in my leg. When I looked down, there was a stray hanging onto it. “Get off,” I said, which it eventually did. I spent the next couple of weeks in and out of Indian hospitals on a crash course of rabies shots. I had to be convinced to go. My initial response was to stagger into a coffee shop and order a cup of something strong. I checked my jeans, which had been punctured, and my leg, which, at first, didn’t seem to have been. The dog’s teeth had clearly made a mark, but it took some probing before it started to bleed. There was only a speck, but the waiter seemed concerned. I thought he was overreacting and said so. The day before, I’d been dodging bullets. He wrote down the address of the hospital anyway. He seemed amazed when I sat there and finished my drink, not realizing that I was testing to make sure I could still swallow. The doctors told me that the waiter had been right. I shouldn’t be so blasé about these things, they said. They gave me a tetanus shot in one of my butt cheeks and a rabies shot in each shoulder, and wrote down the name of the vaccine they had used so I could show it at the next hospital, in the next town. Perhaps it was karma, or a reminder of my mortality. Perhaps I’d simply walked too close to a pissed-off, pregnant dog. Whatever the case, it was certainly fitting: a mildly bloody end to an especially bloody week. I arrived in Kashmir 10 days earlier, at dawn on the first Friday of Ramadan, the streets empty but for the few auto-rickshaw drivers who had come out to meet the overnight bus from Jammu. It was an emptiness to which I would become accustomed over the course of my first 48 hours in town. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was due in Srinagar the following day and he wasn’t taking any chances. The roads into the city had been heavily militarized, with checkpoints reducing traffic to a trickle. Compounding one’s sense of a city under siege, a total shutdown had been announced by the Joint Resistance Leadership, a triumvirate of Kashmiri separatists that commands a great deal of respect in these parts. At the time, the Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was ostensibly in power in the state, having formed a coalition with Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014. Largely as a result of this alliance, it was considered by many to be Delhi’s puppet, only serving to strengthen the triumvirate’s hand, the sureness of its grip. A light rain fell on Dal Lake as the man commanding my shikara navigated canals lined with colonial-era houseboats, an entire floating neighbourhood of them, to the place where I was staying. Kashmiris don’t like the houseboats, he said, which are a reminder of the British and only patronised by Westerners and Indians up on holiday from the south. The view from my room recalled the Louisiana bayou, all lily pads and corrugated iron lean-tos, with only the rolling, snow-capped peaks beyond them to remind the visitor that, far from America’s Deep South, he was in fact in India’s Far North. Not that the vast majority of Kashmiris consider this India. Since 1947, when British India was partitioned to create India and Pakistan, Kashmir has remained a point of contention. The whole point of partition—“our crowning failure,” as one of the British characters in Paul Scott’s Raj Quartet memorably put it—was to create two religiously homogenous states. But the rulers of British India’s princely states, which included Kashmir, were given a choice as to which fledgling nation they would join. By a quirk of history, Muslim-majority Kashmir was at that time ruled by a Hindu, Maharaja Hari Singh, who decided upon independence until Pakistan tribesmen came knocking with other ideas. The Maharaja fled to India, seeking military assistance, the cost of which was ceding the region to Delhi. War ensued, and ensued, and ensued. India today controls a little over 40 percent of Kashmir’s territory (and 70 percent of its population) and Pakistan a little under the same amount. (Never one to miss an opportunity, China controls the remaining twenty.) In the late 1980s, vote-rigging in the Indian part of the region, designed to benefit Delhi’s preferred candidate, gave rise to a separatist insurgency, which has waged a low-intensity conflict ever since. India accuses Pakistan of bankrolling the insurgents. Pakistan, which has previously admitted to doing so, claims that the region—the “k” in its acronymous name—should belong to a Muslim nation like, say, Pakistan. On the ground, arguments vary. In the time I was there, I heard them made in favor of everything from joining Pakistan, to greater autonomy within India, to outright independence. Around midday, as I sat drinking coffee at the stern of the houseboat, the muezzins could be heard calling the faithful to prayer from unseen mosques in near every direction. The houseboat’s owner, Firdous, was visiting his home village, called away by the untimely death of an uncle, and his right-hand man, Younis, said it would not be possible for me to go into town: all the shikara men were off praying. I spent my first full day in Srinagar confined to Dal Lake, unconscious but for Twitter updates of the clashes unfolding outside the city’s central mosque, the Jamia Masjid. Those clashes would be repeated with bloody regularity until the advent of Eid al-Fitr. It said much about the security situation in Jammu and Kashmir at the time that Narendra Modi’s visit on May 19 should have been so furtive. The BJP leader was scheduled to fly in from Ladakh in the east, lay the foundation stones on various construction projects, and then fly out again almost immediately to Jammu in the south. There were to be no parades, no public rallies, the likes of which he has staged in the region before. It all rather belied his claims that the situation was under control, and called into question his own belief in the efficacy of the conditional Ramadan ceasefire he had announced only a few days earlier. According to Kashmiri journalist Sameer Yasir, it was going to be all but impossible to see the prime minister while he was in town. He suggested that we catch up instead, and at least discuss the visit. We met outside the Ahdoos Hotel, sneaking under a half-closed roller shutter to take our seats in a working men’s coffee house, which was half-defying the shutdown order in order to serve its regulars. These days, unless a bureau chief is up from Delhi for a few nights, or an Australian freelancer swings though on an ill-advised 10-day tour, Kashmir’s story is largely being told by Kashmiris themselves. Yasir is one of the most prolific journalists in the region, though he never intentionally set out to become one. When he returned to Srinagar in 2010, after getting a degree in international relations and working in Singapore, he decided to head out to the India-Pakistan Line of Control and wound up writing about his experiences there. After a few days spent dodging mortars and living in bomb shelters, he returned with a story that he sold to the New York Times. It was a hell of a way to find his feet as a stringer, but it paid a small fortune in local terms, and the paper wanted more from him. By virtue of history and geography, his homeland was of interest to readers elsewhere, compelling him to take up the pen. Plenty of others have done the same and have something that we foreigners—parachute journalists and bureau chiefs alike—rarely do: an innate understanding of what’s going on here, of what stories really matter, and why. It was while we were drinking coffee that Modi made the few fleeting remarks that quickly made headlines across the region. “Neither abuses nor bullets will resolve problems,” he told an audience at the Sher-e-Kashmir International Convention Centre. “But hugging every Kashmiri will.” The comments were cynically paternalistic and, like the ceasefire before them, difficult to take seriously. According to Yasir, the ceasefire had already been broken, with a number of militants killed. According to the government and its cheerleaders in the Indian press, the militants had fired first—having never agreed to the ceasefire in the first place—and the terms of the arrangement allowed the security forces to retaliate. “But there’s no way of knowing who shot first,” Yasir said. “It’s a very convenient loophole.” We finished our coffees and went for a walk. The neighborhood of Lal Chowk was dead. On Residency Road, the ghanta ghar, or clocktower, showed one o’clock, and Indian military types sat eyeing us from the roadblocks leading up to it. On the walls of a building in the Press Colony neighbourhood, where the city’s various news outlets are quartered, a strapping young photojournalist, Kamran Yousuf, appeared in his Press vest on a banner reading: “Kamran Yousuf is a Journalist Not a Stone Pelter.” Yousuf is a freelance photojournalist who was imprisoned between September 2017 and March 2018 on charges of sedition, criminal conspiracy, and attempting to wage war against India. Delhi claimed that he wasn’t a real journalist on the grounds that he never received formal training in the trade. He was released on bail—against the wishes of the National Investigative Agency—after the Committee to Protect Journalists and others called for his release. Kashmir’s most famous “stone pelter”—a term given to the young people who face off against the Indian security forces armed with little more than rocks—is arguably Afshan Ashiq. In April 2017, the 23-year-old soccer star, who captains Kashmir’s girls’ squad and also plays for a team in Mumbai, was escorting a group of female players to training when she clashed with police. A photo of her in that moment throwing a rock in a blue flowing salwar-kameez made her a sensation. Ashiq was asked to meet then-chief minister Mehbooba Mufti; the sports academy where she coached saw a 100 per cent increase in female enrolments; and a Bollywood movie about her life was rushed into the works. Sitting across from me in the home of PDP youth president and spokesman Waheed Rehman Para, Ashiq was difficult to imagine as a riotous stone-pelter. She also seemed a little bored to be rehashing the incident yet again. “It’s all anyone ever wants to talk about,” she told me. “It’s the first question they ask in every interview.” “It was very unfortunate,” she said. “A police officer used abusive language towards us and then slapped one of my players. I couldn’t help it.” Para was keen to have me write a story about Kashmiri girls’ sports. The J&K Sports Council was his baby, he told me, the means by which he hopes to create opportunities for young Kashmiris while also engendering a kind of state identity that isn’t reliant on the usual communal and religious frameworks. It bothered him, he said, that the stories about Kashmir should always be so negative. But he was also clear-eyed about the region’s reality, and gave it to me straight when I asked him about it, even though we were still on the record and I was still recording the conversation. “The situation is very bad here,” he said. “It is probably the worst it has been in years. There is a tension in the air. You can feel it. We are closer to war than we have been in a long time.” The houseboat’s owner, Firdous, appeared that night, his familial duties having been discharged. He was a thin man, well-hidden within the folds of his phiran, and he sipped slowly at a large bottle of Kingfisher beer—“I am not a very good Muslim,” he said, a refrain I would come to know well—as I made my way through another pot of weak coffee. The houseboat was his heritage, he said. His father had run the hotel before him, and his grandfather before that. It was a tough time to be in the tourist trade, he said. The word itself puts people off: Kashmir, with all its baggage, its echo, even for those who don’t know its history, of conflict. I was the only guest scheduled to stay that week, and those who were coming after me, on their ways to or from Ladakh, the trekking capital of the north, would only stay for one or two nights before continuing on their way. “It is a shame,” he said, “because Kashmir should have thousands of tourists. We have the mountains, the Kashmiri crafts, the natural beauty. You should see our Kashmiri crafts.” He took down a papier-mâché duck from a mantle above the fridge and showed off its quality. “Even if you don’t buy anything, you can’t help but admire it,” he said. I decided to tell him why I was here, that it wasn’t to play the tourist. He came over excitably conspiratorial and immediately began making plans. I needed to meet his friends, he told me, such as Mr. Nazir, a fellow houseboat owner from around the corner, who might be able to help me out. “I cannot read or write,” Firdous said—our entire correspondence prior to my arrival had been conducted, on his end, with the aid of a speech-to-text app on his phone—“and I don’t know much about politics. But Mr. Nazir knows a lot and sometimes comes over to read me the newspapers.” It was not out of kindness that I extended my stay on Firdous’ houseboat, though it pleased me to think it might do him some good. It was rather that I had decided, at some point that day, during Modi’s visit, that I wanted to attend the next Friday prayers. I wanted, I said, to see the stone-pelters at work. The young man standing in the doorway nodded, apprehensively it seemed to me, rather than with pride or braggadocio. “We were bored,” he said. “Me and my friends. We got into fights with the police for something to do. But then I got arrested and was in prison for 10 days.” Younis nodded again, recalling the memory reluctantly. “I didn’t do it again after that. I didn’t think it was worth it.” Across the darkening water, the muezzins began calling, one after the other, never quite in time, or in quite the same key. Their prayers would continue well into the evening, a near-constant drone of all-male voices, not unlike that produced by Tibetan throat-singers, rumbling on until well after midnight and then starting again long before dawn. That night, everyone seemed to assume, the ceasefire would be broken again. The day after Narendra Modi’s visit to Srinagar, the city remained in a state of suspended animation. It was the anniversary of Molvi Farooq’s assassination, the one-time Mirwaiz of Kashmir and separatist leader having been murdered 18 years earlier. A march had been scheduled, as it is every year, and would have wended its way through the old city that afternoon. But the powers that be had decided that no such march should take place, citing security concerns, and the city was brought to a standstill for the second day in a row by the mutually reinforcing pressures of the military’s lock-down and the separatists’ shutdown. It was, Yasir told me, as good a day as any to get out of the city and into the militant heartland. Our driver was a veteran fixer of the insurgency’s 1990s heyday and claimed to have ferried around everyone from CNN to the Washington Post . Despite his bona fides, he still had to stop and ask directions on occasion, so deep into the boondocks were we going. It occurred to me that we could have followed the signs. Not the road signs, of which there were none, but rather those scrawled on the sides of houses and the roller doors of shuttered shop fronts: “We want free.” “We want peace.” “We will become Pakistani.” If it was difficult to find the village of Heff—a mealy string of concrete buildings along a rocky, unsealed street in the district of Shopian—it was easy to find the home of Bilal Ahmad Mohand, a militant also known as Bilal Molvi who had been killed in a shootout with Indian security forces only two weeks earlier. One only had to look for the signs of martyrdom and mourning, with which the facade of the building was festooned. Above the front door, fixed to the awning, photographic enlargements of Bilal had been erected that showed him posing with various weapons, his children, and his comrades-in-arms. He had been a large man, a leader of the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen separatist group, and sported a beard that brought immediately to mind those of other militants—terrorists, we could call them in the West—the world over. His father, Muhammad Yousuf, met us at the door and quickly ushered us upstairs. It was only now that I became aware of a misunderstanding that existed between Yasir and myself. As we settled in against the cushions that lined the walls of the otherwise bare room, he asked me what I wanted to know. I had assumed he was here to report a story of his own, where in fact he had brought me to help me with mine. That I hadn’t a story in mind yet was a problem. Indeed, I had spent most of the morning’s commute marvelling at the poppy plantations on the side of the road—private paddocks of potential heroin—rather than coming up with questions. I asked, a little pathetically, how Muhammad Yousuf was feeling. He cocked an eyebrow, almost bemused. “My son just died,” he said in Koshur, which sounded to me a little like Urdu, not that I understand Urdu, either. “How does he think I’m feeling?” He continued talking, primarily to Yasir, as though to save me the embarrassment. “My son was prepared to die this way,” he said. “We have always known that this is how it would end.” He said the family’s primary concern was now Bilal’s wife, whom he said had been diagnosed with a “tumor”—meaning cancer—and his two school-aged children. “We cannot be concerned for Bilal, who is in paradise,” he said. “He died a martyr, as Allah wished it. But now there is no one to care for his family. This is what we must focus on.” I was better prepared at the next house, the home of Saddam Hussain Paddar, who was killed in the same altercation as Bilal. Paddar’s mother, Feroza Bano, came to join us on the porch, a large woman in a pink floral headscarf, and we settled in again on the cushions provided. In May 2018, Bano became something of an internet sensation when footage of her at Paddar’s funeral went viral. In the video, which is available on YouTube, Bano stands atop the roof of the house with a group of militants and fires an AK47 into the air. The video was a gift to both sides. In south Kashmir, separatists rallied around it. In the Hindu heartland—and in the Indian press—it was seized upon as yet another example of how such separatists are ultimately all terrorists. “I did what I did because I loved my son and was pleased when he became a martyr,” she said. “We need more martyrs, more boys like my son. It is Allah’s wish.” Speaking to both Yousuf and Bano, I was struck, not by their sense of pride in their sons, which, commingled with their inevitable grief, seemed befitting of the families of fallen soldiers, nor indeed by their fatalism, which befitted their situation. There are between 150 and 200 militants in Kashmir at any given time, roughly split between locals and Pakistani infiltrators, with more than half a million Indian security forces ranged against them. Given the odds, I’d be fatalistic, too. No, what I was struck by was their rhetoric. They spoke, not in terms of national liberation, but in those of Islamic fundamentalism. While these are by no means exclusive registers, the complete absence of nationalist feeling in what they were saying did seem somewhat curious. Yasir had noticed it, too, he told me: something did appear to be shifting in the narrative. “This is why I wanted you to meet Paddar’s mother,” he told me. “I had never seen anything like [her behaviour at the funeral] before.” We were standing at the gate to Heff’s “Martyr’s Graveyard,” a grassy knoll in which the militants had been recently interred. Their headstones dutifully faced Mecca, which at that moment meant into the early afternoon sun. Militant funerals have become all too common in this part of the world, often drawing thousands of mourners. The February 2018 funeral of 19-year-old Ubaid Shafi Malla, who dropped out of college to join the Hizb, as the group is sometimes known, was representative of their tone and tenor. According to Yasir’s BBC report of the event, Malla’s mother addressed the crowd: “Would you like to become a police officer?” she began, to which the angry crowd chanted back “No, we won’t!” “Would you like to become a militant?” she continued. “Yes, we will,” the crowd roared in response. “Would you like to become Tiger?” she said, pointing to a nearby village where a famous Kashmiri militant Sameer Bhat, also known as Sameer Tiger, was killed the previous week. “Yes, we want to!” the crowd responded. “Then say it loudly,” she shouted. “This is what killing militants does,” Yasir told me. “It creates martyrs and brings their families honor—and, as a result, it creates more militants.” We had a sneaky bite to eat nearby—neither Yasir nor the driver were observing Ramadan—before continuing onto Beighpora Awantipora in the district of Pulwama. Here, bathed in soft afternoon light and the pollen floating visibly on it, we found the house of Hizb commander Riyaz Naikoo, who styles himself as Mohammad Bin Qasim, and asked after the man’s father. It had again been easy to find the place: the otherwise candy-colored building had been desecrated with black graffiti and its windows broken and patched up with cardboard. Naikoo’s father Assadullah told us it was the work of the Indian security forces, which have allegedly been harassing the family since his son became a militant. “They have treated us like dogs for six years,” Assadullah said. “They have raided our house more than 30 times, often beating us up. They think we know where Riyaz Saab is.” A former math teacher, Riyaz Naikoo is representative of what the Hindustan Times has labelled Kashmir’s “new breed of militant”: educated, middle-class, and social media savvy. “The [militants’ social media] videos are affecting the psychology of Kashmiri youth, who spend hours watching videos uploaded by local militants and by Islamic State,” Pulwama’s Superintendent of Police, Tejinder Singh, told the newspaper last year. “Their only role models are militants with guns. ... We haven’t been able to provide them with alternative role models." Naikoo’s family spends hours watching such videos as well. They have only seen Riyaz twice since he went underground in 2012, Assadullah told us, and await his Facebook sermons eagerly: his digital dispatches are the only way they have of knowing that he’s still alive. “Why would he tell us where he is when he knows the Indian military is hounding us?” Assadullah said. “We wait for him to make his statements like everybody else does.” I asked about the graffiti outside: the name “Musa” was clearly discernible on the walls. This, I was told, was a reference to Zakir Musa, a militant who split with the Hizb in 2017 after it refused to back his calls for Kashmiri separatists to join the wider struggle for an Islamic caliphate. In April that year, a group of unidentified militants addressed a gathering in Pulwama. “We love Pakistan only because it was created in the name of Islam,” News18 reported them as saying after obtaining an audio recording of the meeting. “But there is no Islam in today’s Pakistan. We have to do jihad in Pakistan, just like in India.” “[The] Taliban wants an Islamic system in Pakistan. We should love [the] Taliban,” they said. This was not the opinion of others in the Hizb, and Musa broke away from them to form the Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind. “The Indians wanted us to think that we were being harassed by Musa’s supporters,” Asadullah said of the graffiti. “But we know the truth.” Naikoo’s family were hesitant to discuss the internal politics of the Hizb with me, though Indian intelligence agents have credited Naikoo with holding the group together in the wake of Musa’s defection. (Indeed, some estimate that the Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind may have as few as ten members.) They were far more keen to discuss the way that Indian security forces have made their lives a living hell. Wearing an olive-green sweater vest and sitting cross-legged on the carpet in the family’s front room, Naikoo’s uncle, Ghulam Qadir, said he had been held for six months under the Public Safety Act in 2016, a year before Naikoo ascended to the leadership of the Hizb. “I kept asking why they had arrested me when I hadn’t done anything wrong,” he said. “They beat me regularly to make me answer their questions. It was a terrible time. This is why young men like Riyaz Saab want to fight them and become martyrs.” By now, the matter of the families’ rhetoric—the constant references to martyrdom and Allah—had become my overriding obsession, and I put it to Naikoo’s family plainly. To what extent was their struggle for independence? To what extent was it religious in nature? They didn’t seem to understand the question. “Riyaz Saab and others like him are fighting for the Kashmiri people,” Assadullah said. “Our country and our religion are the same to us, you understand?” I did, of course, but only intellectually. I couldn’t understand it in my bones. This is what separates me from them, and indeed, in large part, the West from so many of our professed enemies. Until we understand the interpenetration of these seemingly contradictory motives—which continue to define conflicts from the Caucasus to southern Thailand—we will continue to flail aimlessly, making as many militants as we kill, ensuring yet more forever wars. At Ghat 7 on Dal Lake, where my shikara man was waiting for me, a large family of Indian tourists were piling their suitcases onto boats. I made a bee-line through them to my own ride and asked that I be taken home. On the boulevard that traced the lake, a man sat at a pedal-powered grindstone, and went about sharpening the locals’ knives. A few months later, in August 2018, Assadullah Naikoo would be among eight people detained in a series of raids in south Kashmir. He was released after “questioning” two days later. The security services had once again made their point. The worst thing I ever did on Twitter was follow Shehla Rashid. From the moment I did so—or at least from the moment she first retweeted me—I have had a front-row seat at the shitshow that is Hindu nationalist social media, especially when it’s out for blood. I have been accused of being a Pakistani spy, a Communist, and a terrorist sympathizer. I have been charged with overlooking the plight of Kashmiri Pandits—the region’s Hindu minority, which according to some has faced ethnic cleansing at the hands of its Muslim majority—and of slandering the Indian nation. Rashid and I are friends on Facebook as well, though the level of abuse there is comparatively muted: her account on that particular platform is private, and has been since the rape threats she received there became too numerous, too credible. It was amazing to think that the young woman I found myself sitting across from at Srinagar’s Chai Jaai Tea Room, reading a secondhand copy of Nandita Haksar’s The Many Faces of Kashmiri Nationalism when I arrived and quick to order us a round of salty pink noon chai once I had, can inspire such insurmountable hatred. (“People don't hate me,” she once told me on Twitter. “Only Twitter trolls.” “I hate you,” responded a Twitter troll immediately.) But then Rashid represents a unique threat as far as India’s right wing is concerned: not only is she a proud Kashmiri Muslim, she’s also a socialist and, perhaps worse, an outspoken woman as well. The only thing I found disturbing about her was how quickly she could turn from laughter to righteous indignation. “On the ground, people feel that we are being targeted for our faith,” she told me at one point during our conversation. (We had spoken for an hour before she said: “Right. We can start the interview now.” I had already been recording it. All her quotes come from the second hour.) “Forget international relations, the larger geopolitical situation. People here feel that we’re being targeted because we’re Muslims. That’s a very powerful narrative here, and the national government is doing very little to suggest that it’s untrue.” In south Kashmir, I had been struck by the Islamist rhetoric of the militants’ families. But it remains true that a secular, non-violent separatist movement also exists in this part of the world. It coexists uneasily with its militant counterpart, but remains inevitably bound to it. That tends to happen when movements that differ on means, and even occasionally on ends, share at least an enemy in common. But those differences nonetheless exist. “There is obviously a question about what exactly it is that we’re fighting for here,” Rashid said. ”Some people talk about an Islamic system, something closer to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. I don’t think there is much agreement or clarity on that front.” “For the insurgents, the struggle may not necessarily be one to establish a separate nation,” she said. “Jihad is a fight against injustice. You simply fight against an unjust system, without being bothered about questions like the viability of a new nation-state. But there is certainly a growing consensus in Kashmiri society that we’re being targeted because of our faith, and as a result that we can and should take strength from it.” She nevertheless finds certain aspects of the militants’ narrative disturbing. “Many people now feel that they can find liberty in death, or dignity in death,” she said. “People don’t surrender now. They’d rather now die than surrender. In that respect, Kashmir has become a society with a death wish.” She mentioned Saddam Hussein Paddar’s mother, Feroza Bano, and the gun salute that Bano performed at her son’s funeral a few weeks earlier. That was a seminal moment, she said, even a kind of tipping point. “That was quite shocking. I had never seen anything like that. This is the kind of celebration of death that is now common in our society. It can only be explained as a lack of faith in government and democracy, and I don’t know how the government, or those of us who believe in a political solution to the conflict, can convince people to come back from that.” “The government will have to do something really revolutionary to make any political headway now. There was a time when it seemed possible. There was a time when autonomy was a demand that had great currency here, but you won’t hear people talking about it today. The government doesn’t seem very interested in it, either. It is very difficult to see a way forward when this is the case.” “The army and the security agents don’t seem to want it,” she said. “Among other things, the military-industrial complex here is a huge source of employment. If militant funerals create more militants, that can only be a good thing for them.” As ever, Narendra Modi loomed large in our conversation. “Hate has been normalised under this government,” Rashid told me. “It is totally acceptable now to talk about killing Muslims in mainstream conversation. The number of beef lynchings [mob murders of people accused of selling beef] has increased exponentially every year of Modi’s prime ministership and he is aiding and abetting this.” “His supporters have tasted blood, in a sense, and they’re not going to back down any time soon. If anything, they want him to be more violent towards Muslims.” This sort of thing has affected Rashid directly, she said. It is not, it turns out, an easy thing to play a role like hers in a country like this. “I remember the day that Modi became prime minister,” she said. “We went to the Student Union building.” That was at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, where Rashid first came to prominence as a student union leader, most notably after the union’s leaders were arrested in 2016 on charges of sedition. “There was a television set in the room and we were watching the results on it. India is not a perfect country—what country is?—but I had hope and naïve optimism that Modi wouldn’t be victorious. The election had taken place following major protests against corruption, major protests against rape. I believed that the Aam Aadmi Party would win, an alternative to the two main parties, the [Indian National] Congress and the BJP.” “My hope and optimism were shattered that day. It was the first time I had been explicitly aware of my identity as a Muslim. I knew immediately that things would be different for me now.” “It was just so difficult to believe that it had happened,” she said. “We suddenly had to come to terms with the fact that the country had elected a man accused of the massacre of Muslims.” In 2002, when he was chief minister of Gujarat, Modi oversaw, and was accused of implicitly encouraging, some of the worst religious violence since independence. Over three bloody days, between 790 and 2000 Muslims were killed, as well as roughly 250 Hindus, after a group of Hindu pilgrims died in a fire at Godhra railway station. “I mean, I’m still an optimist,” she says. “But things have certainly been different since the election. They’ve been worse. I have been called a jidhadi on Twitter by a major newspaper editor. The same newspaper ran a graphic novel that depicted a character, which many commentators said was based on me, being raped and murdered. It is deeply reminiscent of anti-Semitic propaganda leading up to the Holocaust. “But I’m not going to stop being an activist,” she says. “I don’t know that I could stop if I tried.” The news never seemed to stop coming in Kashmir. Every day, there was something new on hand to outrage us. On May 21, Indian soldiers attempted to host an Iftar dinner in the village of Dred-Kalipora in Shopian. The locals rejected the olive branch. In the ensuing “scuffle”—an interesting example of journalistic euphemism, given that the soldiers opened fire—a number of girls wound up getting shot. On May 23, Major Leetul Gogoi tried to enter a hotel with a Kashmiri woman, resulting in a flurry of articles attempting to besmirch the girl’s character. It was the second time in as many years that Gogoi had made headlines. In 2017, he tied a Kashmiri man to the front of his jeep and used the fellow as a human shield during protests in Srinagar. At the time, he was actually awarded for his efforts. In August 2018, a court of inquiry found Gogoi guilty of “fraternizing with a woman source against existing orders” and “leaving his unit post in an operational area without permission.” That the girl was initially reported to be underage—something that the army has since “disproved”—seemed to have been all too conveniently forgotten. We were discussing the Gogoi affair among ourselves when Firdous’s neighbour, Mr. Nazir, made his first appearance on the houseboat. He was smartly dressed in collared shirt and slacks, his beard trimmed neat and close. He held his cigarettes with the remotest possible tips of his fingers. The plan had been to line up a meeting with Syed Ali Geelani, arguably the most influential member of the Joint Resistance Leadership. But the 89-year-old leader of the separatist Tehreek-e-Hurriyat party was at that time under house arrest, as he has been, on and off, for years. The idea of a random Australian rocking up at his gate and announcing to the Indian guards that he sought an audience struck everyone as the fastest way to get myself kicked out of the country. Firdous and Mr. Nazir had come up instead with the second-fastest way: an interview with human rights activist Khurram Parvez of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society. Firdous had decided that he wanted to come with me. He was keen to meet the man, he said, about whom Mr. Nazir had told him a lot, though I wondered whether that was really the case. Part of me thought, and continues to think, that he was a little worried about me, too — about having a guest, who was by now also a friend, wind up on the government’s radar. We certainly took a circuitous route to Parvez’s office, ducking down alleyways and darting up questionable looking staircases before entering a sun-dappled room overlooking the Jhelum River, where Parvez sat looking over the final draft of a report that the JKCCS was about to release. He apologized for not standing to welcome us: with only one leg, it was easier to remain seated. He lost that leg in 2004, when an IED took out the car in which he was traveling. One of his colleagues, Asiya Jeelani, and their driver, Ghulam Nabi, were killed in the same blast. “We were deliberately targeted,” Parvez said. “We were monitoring the general elections. There had been claims of fraud, of people being forced to vote a certain way.” Before Firdous and Mr. Nazir had conspired to get me in the room with Parvez, I had made the mistake of emailing the JKCCS about lining up an interview with him myself. “I wish you hadn’t done that,” Parvez told me. “You know they’re probably following you, yes? That they might have seen you here already?” He was talking about the Indian security services, about their communications dragnet. “Luckily, we haven't spoken on the phone, and I don’t think we ever responded to your email,” he said. “We know that we’re being surveilled,” he continued. “We try to use our transparency as a weapon. But you know, the Indian government puts Nazi Germany to shame as far as their surveillance capabilities are concerned.” When Shehla Rashid evoked the Holocaust, I had written it off as hyperbole. I had been reminded of Godwin’s law: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” I was reminded, too, of one of that law’s corollaries: whoever mentions Hitler first immediately loses the argument. But Mike Godwin doesn’t live in Modi’s India. Mike Godwin still has both his legs. “It is a very difficult line of work,” Parvez said of Kashmiri activism. “It’s not just our organization, either. All activists in Kashmir are at risk. Lawyers have been killed, people’s houses have been targeted, unidentified gunmen have shot at people associated with us and other groups. It’s a very militarized environment, you know?” I said it hadn’t escaped my attention. The report that Parvez had been reading was about Kashmir’s disappeared, he said. More than 8,000 people have gone missing in the region since 1990. “The real tragedy is that the Indian government has resolved to kill the Kashmiri people slowly,” he said. “They don’t want a Rwanda on their hands. They don’t want any international outcry.” “As a result, they have invested very heavily in Islamophobia. They have changed the national discussion around Islam so that people don’t pay attention to what’s happening here. They say that this is an Islamic insurgency, that it’s about al-Qaeda and ISIS and groups like that. This makes what they’re doing here acceptable to the people they’re trying to convince. But 8,000 disappeared people? It’s what we might call a slow genocide.” I was again reminded of Bano and her gun salute and brought it up in the conversation now. “Look, there’s no doubt that Islam plays a role in what’s happening here,” he said. “The Islamization we’ve seen in recent years is real and is a direct response to the hopelessness many people are feeling.” “But say you went to Ireland and talked to people there,” he added. “What would their discourse be? Would it be secular, or would it be couched in religious terms? The language you speak is the language you’re brought up with. People here are raised on Islam. Religion is always going to be part of how Kashmiris’ frame the situation, especially given that the Indian government has decided to frame it that way as well.” “What people here aren’t so good at is finding ways to frame the conflict in a way that is palatable to the international community,” he said. “The international community doesn’t want to hear about gun salutes and martyrs. It is able to justify its negligence in this region, able to justify its staunchly pro-Indian stance, precisely because of this religious framing.” Parvez said that this is where groups like the JKCSS come in. By framing the conflict in other terms—in the language of International Humanitarian Law and human rights, in drily secular reports about the disappeared—Parvez and others like him are hoping to move the conversation to a place where the international community will not be able to ignore it. “Of course, other issues will remain,” he said. “India has important trade agreements, especially arms deals, with countries all over the world, which people don’t want to jeopardize. The Indian and Pakistani governments want the conflict to continue because it energizes their bases and helps their electoral chances. But changing the way we talk about Kashmir is at least a start.” Activism has never been the most pleasant of vocations, the easiest of callings to answer. But it’s also been getting increasingly harder. The internet promised a lot more than it delivered to people trying to fight for their rights. It has in fact become a great boon to governments, and not only Modi’s, that wish to crack down on and curtail those rights. It occurs to me now, with the benefit of hindsight, that I was more at-risk in Kashmir than I pretended to myself at the time. It also occurs to me that I put others at risk. Rashid and Parvez didn’t have to speak to me. They chose to, knowing full well that their words, the vast majority of them incendiary, would wind up in front of an international audience. I am lucky enough not to live in India. But India—or at least Indian-administered Kashmir—is and remains their home. I was able to leave at a time of my choosing, and they, quite obviously, cannot. They, they told me, have to keep fighting. On the other hand, of course, I don’t know that they could stop if they tried. With my stay in Kashmir now approaching its end, I wandered down to the town’s rugby pitch, to see one of the beginners girls’ squads at practice. As Waheed Para had promised, it was a great story: a ray of light befitting the beauty of my surrounds. The girls had only been playing for a week and seemed unwilling to get too violent with one another. “I saw a video online,” one girl told me excitedly. “They were smashing into each other like cars!” They admitted that passing the ball backwards had initially struck them as counter-intuitive. “Catching,” they said, made rugby somewhat difficult to master. But then rugby, unlike cricket or soccer, doesn’t have an overly long history in Kashmir. When I took a photo of the girl’s coach, Irfan Aziz Botta, he pointed to the goal posts behind him. “When these were first installed,” he told me, “people asked if they were some kind of artwork, or had some religious significance.” The girls seemed very excited about the sport. Indeed, they seemed excited about sport in general. I would later speak with Irtiqa Ayoub, a 23-year-old who has become one of Kashmiri rugby’s leading lights. “In the town where I am from, it isn’t normal for a young woman to leave her home to learn how to play rugby,” she said. “I faced resistance from my parents, but as I began to have successes, winning some matches and getting some medals, they began to change their minds. Now they support me fully.” But I also wondered whether the girls weren’t censoring themselves. With Botta there, coaching their answers as well as the play, they seemed not to be telling me everything. After practice and my interviews were over, and a hundred thousand selfies had been taken, the girls retired to the nearby change rooms, from which they gradually emerged transformed. Gone were the J&K Rugby Academy Jerseys, the shin pads and spiked boots. In their place, highly conservative salwar-kameezes had appeared, much like the one that Ashiq, the soccer star, had been wearing when she had her famous run-in with the police. Most of them were fully veiled, and indeed, later, when they started adding me on Instagram in their droves, I noted that none of them ever posted a selfie that didn’t start below the neck. A generation of girls, I would find myself thinking, playing a sport best-known for causing brain injuries, walking around with online profiles that caused one to think that none of them had heads at all. As I struck out along MA Road, in the direction of Dal Lake, two of them sidled up to me nervously, falling in step, wanting to walk me home—and, it became immediately apparent, to ask me some questions of their own. At first, these were mostly innocuous. What is Australia like? Do you have a photo of your wife? Do all Australian women have such beautiful eyes? Do any of them wear the veil? But the questions quickly took on a more political bent. What, they wanted to know, did I think of Modi? What did I think of his visit to Srinagar? Obviously, I knew what I thought, but wanted to turn the question back on them. What did they think of India’s prime minister? “I hate him,” one of them said matter-of-factly. (I have withheld their names for obvious reasons.) She was a slip of a thing, eighteen-years-old but far younger-looking, even though I could only see her eyes. There was something in them, and in her voice, that spoke to an anger much larger than her frame seemed capable of containing. “He’s no good,” the other said. “But you don’t hate him.” “No,” the first girl said. “I hate him. He hates Kashmiris. Why shouldn’t I hate him?” I asked her what she thought of Ashiq. “Oh, I love her ,” she said. “She is very inspirational.” She nodded sagely. I liked her very much. “Both,” she said. “But mostly because she’s a stone-pelter. I would be a stone-pelter if I could. But my brothers won’t let me. They don’t think girls should be stone-pelters.” They probably didn’t think she should be playing rugby, either. Her brothers were stone-pelters themselves, it turned out, and she thought their position very hypocritical. “I would like to throw a stone at Modi,” she said as we approached the end of the road. “I would like to throw a stone in his face.” We were nearing the Dalgate footbridge, where our paths were set to diverge. The other girl shook her head and said: “You shouldn’t listen to her. She’s showing off.” I said I understood her anger. “That will help you with your rugby,” I said. The girls laughed. Within twenty-four hours, I would see such anger unleashed. Stone-pelting wouldn’t be the half of it. But first I had to meet Yasin Malik, the only member of the Joint Resistance Leadership it seemed possible for me to interview without alerting the Indian security services to my presence. Of course, I had arranged to meet him by email, which, as I had learned from my interview with Parvez, meant they had probably already been alerted to it. Malik is the chairman of the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front, which once advocated for armed struggle against the Indian occupation, but now favours a political solution. He also doesn’t favour joining Pakistan, a view that helps to differentiate him from many of the pro-Pakistani militants in the region. He believes that Kashmir deserves outright independence, and has been agitating for it, in various ways, since the beginning of the 1980s. I was planning to attend Friday prayers the next day, I told him. What did he make of the young people who took up, not arms, but rather stones against the military? “What else are they meant to do?” he asked me. We were sitting in his office beneath a map of the region. It was quite a thing to behold. The cartographer behind it, driven by idealism, the commission, or both, had included Kashmir’s Indian, Pakistani and Chinese territories within a single, much hoped-for border. It was this border that Malik wanted to make a reality, ideally by non-violent means. “These children have grown up surrounded by conflict,” he said. “They have lived with the occupation, and the militancy, their whole lives. We cannot tell them no. They have taken the fight into their own hands. We should at least give them credit for that.” My conversation with Malik was to remain fixed—and indeed would eventually flounder—on this contentious point. Although he has preached non-violence since 1994, following entreaties from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other European powers to do so, he could not bring himself to condemn, or even to describe as counterproductive, those among his countrymen who remain committed to armed struggle. “My heart remains committed to the ideals of a non-violent democratic movement,” he told me. “But over the past four years, whatever little political space was available to us here, in which we could express our dissent, has been restricted even further. They’re not allowing us to march. They’re not allowing us to think.” He asked me to think about that a moment. “In the land of Gandhi, a nation state that claims Gandhi as its father—the man who gave these ideals to the whole world, to people like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela—in the very state that claims Gandhi as its father, we find no space for political dissent,” he said. Malik was born in 1966 in a densely populated neighbourhood of Srinagar. In the early 1980s, he helped to form the Tala Party, which, among various other acts of civil disobedience, attempted to disrupt a 1983 cricket match between India and the West Indies. By the end of the decade, Indian print media were describing him as “the self-styled commander-in-chief” and “most effective strategist” of the then-outlawed JKLF, and, no longer content with disrupting the cricket, he famously helped to kidnap the daughter of the Indian Home Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed in 1989. He was arrested in 1990 and spent “many years” in solitary confinement. After his release on bail in 1994, he declared an indefinite ceasefire. The JKLF became very good at circulating petitions. (He claims that one of these, calling for political talks between India and Pakistan on the question of Kashmir, received more than five million signatures.) “But at least six hundred people, including many of my colleagues, were killed by the Indian state after that,” he told me. “The only ceasefire that can work in Kashmir is one that all the stakeholders can agree to. In the past, India has not been opposed to this idea. But things have changed in recent years. It is now more content to kill us than to have a conversation.” Modi’s Ramadan ceasefire, he said, was little more than political theatre. “This is why we have seen a transition back towards violence,” he said. “These boys”—I had asked about Molvi, Paddar and Naikoo—“believed in the non-violent movement once, too. But the space has been taken away from them. Harassment of their families has increased. They have seen their friends and families in body bags.” “This is what radicalisation is ,” he said. “India is humiliating these people.” What Malik refused to acknowledge, though, was the way the cycle of radicalisation and militant funerals ultimately plays into the Indian government’s hands. “These boys have nothing to answer to,” he said. “The Indians are the ones you should be asking.” “The United States, the British government. They all asked me to give up arms, and I did,” he said. “They said they would convince India to create a space for discussion. Where is that space now? Even the British Empire gave space to Gandhi and the Indian National Congress.” “Didn’t that have something to do with the fact that the British Raj was on its last legs?” I asked. “India sees itself as a rising power these days.” “The fact of the matter is that the space existed for a non-violent movement,” he said. “The British knew that sentiment was against them, but they still allowed for that space to be created, and for the exploration of India’s democratic voice. But here in Kashmir, India is not allowing that space.” “And where is the international community?” He was yelling at me now, on a roll. He was probably wondering who, exactly, he had invited into his office. His eyes were trained on me, even his lazy one, which seemed a lot less lazy now that it had a target. “These people do business with India while India continues to kill us. My dear brother, I will tell you this one thing. Today, the international community is supporting India without any compunction. What is the role of the United States in Kashmir? And not only in Kashmir, but in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine, too? If there is no agreement on Kashmir today, it is because the international community’s national security and business interests demand that there cannot be. Where are the voiceless people in all this? Where are we? That is the question you must ask, my dear brother.” I tried one final time. “I understand all this,” I said. He was interrupting me even as I started to speak and I was interrupting his interruption. “I agree with what you’re saying,” I said. “I’ve been to a lot of these places you’re talking about. But doesn’t the rise in radicalisation make your work harder for you here? Doesn’t it allow the Indian government to claim that it’s right about Kashmir and to make it even harder for you to secure a political solution to the conflict?” More than 200 militants were killed in 2018, the highest number in a decade, yet the number of active fighters remains more or less stable. Malik smiled and quietly said: “When I was their age, I was like they are now. You will not get me to condemn them.” I said I wasn’t trying to. But then, by this point, it was also true that I didn’t know what I was trying to do. “I have to admit,” I eventually said, our half hour together finally coming to an end. “It almost sounds like you miss the armed struggle and have more faith in it today than you do in non-violence.” He leaned back in his chair and considered the question. He held his hands in his lap as he spoke. “I hope and believe in non-violence,” he said. “I will remain in the non-violent democratic movement until I die. I do believe this is how we will win.” “But when you are fighting for a just cause, your conscience never questions your methods. This, you understand, my dear brother, is how countries are made . If King or Mandela had given up on their struggles—had people given up in other places—there wouldn’t be a single country in the world.” Our time was up. Malik had meetings to attend. He extended his hand and looked me in the eye. “I am proud to say that I have played my part,” he said. Friday prayers began at half-past twelve. There had already been a minor altercation. As I arrived, Indian security forces on Nowhatta Chowk, a square on the Srinagar-Leh Highway, where a fountain tinkled prettily, were attempting to prevent a group of young men from approaching the Jamia Masjid. I decided to get the lay of the land and walked around the burnt-brick building, built in 1394 in the Persian style, several times, sticking my head down the souks for a look, taking in the street art and graffiti. “8 lakh [800,000] uniformed terrorists versus defenceless Kashmiris,” someone had scrawled across one of the walls. Latecomers to prayer watched me sitting on the steps outside the mosque, reading George MacDonald Fraser’s Flashman and the Mountain of Light, in which Gulab Singh, the first Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, plays a key role. They watched with a combination of wariness and concern, the latter apparently for my well-being, before performing their ablutions and hastening inside. By the time the mirwaiz, Umar Farooq, leader of the separatist Hurriyat Conference and the third and final member of the Joint Resistance Leadership, began leading the Qunut, the building was overflowing with people, the aforementioned latecomers almost praying on the street. There was a hint of something metallic on the air, and behind me, near the fountain, the numbers of Indian military personnel were growing steadily. The Kashmiri faithful had come prepared. No sooner were they out on the street than they were adorning themselves with facemasks, keffiyehs, and bandannas, and the shopkeepers directly opposite the mosque on its southern side started shuttering their properties. A press photographer standing nearby donned a gas mask and began flitting about like something out of Cronenberg. There was a momentary, wholly abortive attempt at something like a peaceful protest, a group of young men arranging themselves behind a banner and walking with it towards the iron gates that gave onto the road. But this was mostly pretense. Behind the bannermen, their masked equivalent seethed, and as the first stone soared out in an arc from their midst, so, too, was the first report of gunfire to be heard. The security forces, at this point, were showing something akin to restraint, wary of advancing too far beyond the gate. But as more rocks began to land among them, mostly falling short or flying too far, a second group, hidden before now, descended down a second, unseen set of stairs and began advancing along the shuttered shop-fronts. The protesters now faced their opponents directly to their front, and on their right flank, and began a hasty retreat into the mosque, which loomed above them on their left. Not for the last time, and without intending to do so, I found myself on the other side of the front-line, watching as men in fatigues fired tear gas canisters and live ammunition directly into the building. I know it was live because, at this moment, taking advantage of a momentary lull, I came out from under the awning into the street, where the photographer in the gas mask was fingering a cartridge from a pellet-firing shotgun. He gave it to me and said I could keep it. It was labelled: “Indian Ordnance Factories.” I later left it in a bathroom cubicle at Indira Gandhi International Airport. In a few short minutes, the scene had changed completely, the ground now littered with stones and pieces of brick. The military men were falling back to the gate in anticipation of the second wave. It came, but not immediately, or at least not in a form that one might have expected. A huddle of men emerged from the mosque, holding a bleeding body aloft. A man, a shopkeeper, had been shot in the chaos: the whites of his eyes, as the men passed me, were red, his arms streaked similarly crimson. The soldiers fell back further, to the fountain, where I had seen them denying men access earlier, and a two-door hatchback sped up, an improvised ambulance. I was now among the protesters again, and the second wave could really begin. It did so with a fury, compounded by the sight of the injured man, that dwarfed that of the first. By falling back to make way for the car, the security services had ceded their advantage, and young men poured through the gat | null | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thedailybeast/articles/~3/GBJLqCY1Rjs/when-they-want-war-india-and-pakistan-will-always-have-kashmir | 2019-03-31 03:12:01+00:00 | 1,554,016,321 | 1,567,544,539 | politics | political dissent |
668,160 | theduran--2019-07-29--Moscow protests aim to destabilize Putin government Video | 2019-07-29T00:00:00 | theduran | Moscow protests aim to destabilize Putin government (Video) | The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss this weekends protests organized by liberal Russian opposition figures, demanding places on the ballot ahead of September’s Moscow city council elections. The protests blocked traffic along major Moscow streets, eventually ending in clashes with police. The Saturday march was one of the largest unsanctioned rallies Moscow has seen in years, with estimates placing the number of participants at roughly 3,500 people, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Ministry claims that 700 people in attendance were working as journalists. Various independent Russian media outlets estimate the protestors to have been over 5,000. Moscow police detained over 1,000 protesters, among them, professional provocateur Alexei Navalny. In a recent turn of events, certain to embolden protestors, a Moscow doctor says Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny may have been poisoned while in prison. Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel. Moscow’s most prominent opposition figure, Alexei Navalny, has been moved from jail to a local hospital in the Russian capital after officials said the rogue politician may have been poisoned. According to BBC, officials said Navalny – who has been detained for the second day on Monday – was in “satisfactory” condition, and that though he may have had an allergic reaction, Navalny’s doctors said they demanded “fundamentals” like the prospect of using “disproportionate” things like making. More than 1,400 people were detained while protesting Navalny’s detention. Navalny had been sentenced to 30 days for provoking an unsanctioned protest with other lawmakers. The EU slammed Russia over the “disproportionate” use of force against the protesters, claiming it undermined the “fundamental freedoms of expression, association and assembly.” then again, Russia isn’t exactly known for its tolerance of political dissent. According to the AP, access to Navalny is restricted, and Dr. Anastasiya Vasilyeva, Navalny’s physician, only managed to see him on Sunday afternoon. Doctors at the hospital initially said that Navalny was taken in after suffering a severe were region At least 21 people, including Navalny’s supporters and journalists, “briefly detained outside the hospital Sunday evening. Still, hospital officials refused to run any additional tests on him. Another Navalny ally, Leonid Volkov, said on Sunday that conditions at the prison were unsanitary. Baton-wielding police on Saturday wrestled with protesters in arguably the largest unsanctioned protest in Russia in a decade. Navalny has been the Kremlin’s most formidable foe since 2011, when Navalny led a massive wave of protests against Putin and his party. Since then, Navalny has been arrested many a times. | Alex Christoforou | https://theduran.com/moscow-protests-aim-to-destabilize-putin-government-video/ | 2019-07-29 12:36:49+00:00 | 1,564,418,209 | 1,567,535,493 | politics | political dissent |
682,739 | theguardian--2019-12-05--US government edict puts international film-makers in danger, lawsuit claims | 2019-12-05T00:00:00 | theguardian | US government edict puts international film-makers in danger, lawsuit claims | Documentary film-makers operating in some of the most dangerous countries in the world are having their work disrupted and security compromised by a Trump administration edict that forces them to disclose their social media activities when applying to enter the US, a new lawsuit claims. The US homeland security and state departments were sued in a federal court in Washington on Thursday over a rule change that the plaintiffs argue could put film-makers in personal peril. The suit concerns a registration requirement introduced in May that affects more than 14 million visa applicants each year, obliging them to disclose all social media behavior including the pseudonymous handles they use to protect their identity. The legal action has been brought by two US-based documentary film organizations that collaborate with international directors and producers. The films created through these networks often deal with highly sensitive subjects such as political dissent and corruption. “In many cases, our partners can be thought of as activists with cameras. Many work with various kinds of risk – physical, political or other forms of persecution,” said Oliver Rivers, a director of one of the plaintiff groups, Doc Society which is headquartered in New York and London. Under the rule change, film-makers wanting to come to the US to work with Doc Society or its fellow plaintiff, the Los Angeles-based International Documentary Association (IDA), must fill out electronic visa application forms in which they are required to state which of 20 social media platforms they have used in the past five years. The platforms include Facebook, Flickr, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter and YouTube as well as several sites in China and other countries. In each case, the applicant must divulge the social handle they post under, effectively forcing them to break their anonymity and hand the information over to the US government. The DHS and state department are known to store the data for up to 100 years after an applicant’s date of birth and are allowed to share the intelligence with other federal and state agencies as well as “international government agencies”. In effect, the rule change permits the US government to hand over personal information on foreign film-makers to the very government bodies who they might be investigating in their documentary work. It also amounts to a massive new form of surveillance. “The registration requirement is the linchpin of a far-reaching and unconstitutional surveillance regime that permits the government to monitor the online activities of millions of visa applicants, and to continue monitoring them even after they’ve entered the United States,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight Institute which along with the Brennan Center is legally representing the film groups. The plaintiffs are petitioning the federal court to block the social media disclosure provision on grounds that it unlawfully infringes the free speech rights of the film-makers and subjects them to arbitrary and capricious government action. They argue that if the requirement is allowed to stand it will place a chill on the political activities and creativity of the artists. “Our partners are telling us that they have already begun to censor themselves online or alternatively cancel their plans to come to the US, and both of those are extremely disturbing,” Rivers said. At the time that the rule change was made, Twitter strongly opposed it. The platform said that it “could have a chilling effect on free speech and the willingness of people who use Twitter to engage in free expression and conversation”. The lawsuit refers to an unnamed Turkish film-maker who belongs to IDA who has decided not to come to the US because he fears handing over his social media identifier. It cites another IDA member from Syria who is in particular danger because they use pseudonymous online accounts to share views on political and social issues. Among those who are now reining in their social media speech is a film-maker who pseudonymously comments on the Trump administration, the lawsuit says. The legal challenge lands at a time when international film-making is enjoying something of a golden era. This week For Sama, the documentary about life under siege in Aleppo at the heart of the Syrian war, swept the awards at the British independent film awards. But the terrain remains challenging for many directors who rely on anonymity to mitigate the extreme risks they are taking. The lawsuit points out that in August the Burmese film-maker Min Htin Ko Ko Gyi, founder of Myanmar’s Human Dignity Film Institute, was reportedly sentenced to a year’s hard labor for criticizing the country’s armed forces on Facebook. | Ed Pilkington in New York | https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/05/us-government-rule-puts-international-film-makers-in-danger-lawsuit-claims | Thu, 05 Dec 2019 15:21:15 GMT | 1,575,577,275 | 1,575,592,414 | politics | political dissent |
691,502 | theguardianuk--2019-02-24--The Guardian view on Egypt and Europe embracing authoritarianism Editorial | 2019-02-24T00:00:00 | theguardianuk | The Guardian view on Egypt and Europe: embracing authoritarianism | Editorial | Days after Egypt executed men who said they were tortured into confessions of killing the country’s former top prosecutor, Europe’s heads of state are enjoying the hospitality of its president. The resort of Sharm el-Sheikh is hosting the inaugural summit of the European Union and the Arab League. Donald Tusk, president of the European council, is co-chairing with Abdel Fatah al-Sisi; Britain’s Theresa May is among the guests. If the event itself is a first, the approach is familiar. As Mr Sisi entrenches his rule, presiding over what Human Rights Watch calls Egypt’s worst human rights crisis in decades, European countries murmur about their “quiet diplomacy” on such issues. Then they carry on building ties and providing the air of international legitimacy that he needs given his grim record since seizing power in 2013’s coup. Mr Sisi’s recent spate of executions is instructive: he must have felt confident there would be no repercussions for putting people to death so close to the summit – despite their blatantly unfair trials. Political dissent is suppressed through disappearances, torture and arbitrary arrests. Sami Anan, the former military chief who tried to stand against Mr Sisi in last year’s sham election, has just been jailed. Human rights defenders and labour activists are harassed and prosecuted, journalists detained and barred, the work of NGOs drastically curbed. Constitutional changes now going through parliament would allow Mr Sisi to stay in power until 2034, grant new political powers to the military, and increase presidential control of the judiciary. Once approved by legislators, they will face a referendum that promises to be as free and fair as the polls which Mr Sisi swept last year with 97% of the vote. But EU leaders see Mr Sisi’s regime as a rare source of stability in the region, even if his actions are feeding long-term pressures. Emmanuel Macron applauds Egypt as a bulwark against terrorism while reminding Mr Sisi, sotto voce, about the need for human rights to be respected. Migration is high on the agenda; though Egypt is not currently a major transit point, talks have begun on a deal that would see Cairo cut numbers in return for economic benefits – reflecting Europe’s broader willingness to have migrants trapped in squalid and dangerous conditions if it keeps them away from our shores. France, Egypt’s main arms supplier, also has those sales to think about – and human rights are in any case dropping down the EU’s agenda. Egyptians deserve and expect better. The constitutional coup now under way removes even the “promise or veneer” of democratic rule, notes one Egyptian author. An increasingly autocratic ruler may well believe he does not need much support when he can coerce compliance. But his predecessors thought so, too. Corruption, inflation and unemployment as well as state brutality are fuelling frustrations. A more accurate assessment of Mr Sisi’s rule might be stability – for now. Bolstering his reign is foolish and wrong. | Editorial | https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/24/the-guardian-view-on-egypt-and-europe-embracing-authoritarianism | 2019-02-24 18:37:28+00:00 | 1,551,051,448 | 1,567,547,506 | politics | political dissent |
692,907 | theguardianuk--2019-03-14--China hits back at US prejudice in human rights tit-for-tat row | 2019-03-14T00:00:00 | theguardianuk | China hits back at US 'prejudice' in human rights tit-for-tat row | China has hit back in unusually strong terms after the US state department singled out Beijing’s human rights record. On Thursday China attacked the US for its record on gun deaths, racial discrimination and media freedom. It came after the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, highlighted abuses in Iran, South Sudan, Nicaragua and China in the department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, but told reporters that China was “in a league of its own when it comes to human rights violations”. Michael Kozak, the head of the state department’s human rights and democracy bureau, said mistreatment of China’s Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang region was like had not been seen “since the 1930s”, apparently referring to the policies of persecution of Adolf Hitler’s Germany and Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union. The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Lu Kang, said the US report was filled with “ideological prejudice” and groundless accusations, and that China had lodged a complaint with Washington about it. China fully safeguards human rights and it has made many achievements in this regard, he claimed. “We also advise that the United States take a hard look at its own domestic human rights record, and first take care of its own affairs,” he said. China has rejected concern about its policies in Xinjiang, where rights groups said the government was operating internment camps holding a million or more Muslims. China said they are vocational training centres aimed at de-radicalisation. The Chinese government on Thursday issued its annual rebuttal to criticism from Washington about China’s human rights record. China’s state council, or cabinet, said the US was a self-styled “human rights defender” that has a human rights record which is “flawed and lackluster”. It said: “The double standards of human rights it pursues are obvious.” China’s report pointed to the high rate of gun deaths, racial discrimination and also what it said was a lack of media freedom in the US, despite China being ranked 176 last year on the world press freedom index of Reporters Without Borders, ahead of only Syria, Turkmenistan, Eritrea and North Korea. “Press freedom has come under unprecedented attack,” it said, pointing to cases of reporters in the US being arrested and prevented from doing their jobs. “The US government continues to publicly and fiercely accuse the media and journalists of creating ‘fake news’ and creating an atmosphere of intimidation and hostility,” the report said. “Reporters’ legal right to report has been violated,” it added, pointing to cases of the White House stripping some reporters of press credentials. There is no routine access to China’s presidential office and no presidential spokesperson. China’s president, Xi Jinping, only very rarely takes questions from any reporters, let alone foreign media. Both foreign and Chinese journalists in China are frequently blocked from reporting freely. At least 48 journalists were jailed in China as of 2018, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. The relatives and friends of overseas Uighur journalists reporting on the situation in Xinjiang have been detained, according to reports. Human rights have long been a source of tension between the world’s two largest economies, especially since 1989, when the US imposed sanctions on China after a bloody crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in and around Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. China routinely rejects criticism of its human rights record and has pointed to its success at lifting millions out of poverty, and that nobody has the right to criticise its model of government. But the ruling Communist party brooks no political dissent and Xi’s administration has overseen a sweeping crackdown on human rights lawyers and activists. | Reuters | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/14/china-hits-back-at-us-prejudice-in-human-rights-tit-for-tat-row | 2019-03-14 08:52:41+00:00 | 1,552,567,961 | 1,567,546,302 | politics | political dissent |
741,405 | theindependent--2019-01-16--Womanaposs obituary says Trump aposhastened her deathapos but local paper refuses to run it | 2019-01-16T00:00:00 | theindependent | Woman's obituary says Trump 'hastened her death' but local paper refuses to run it | Frances Irene Finley Williams felt the same way about dress codes at funerals as she felt about politics: strongly. So when she died just before Thanksgiving at the age of 87, her family thought they would make politics a part of her obituary too. It was only natural, said her daughter, Cathy Duff. Williams and her 92-year-old husband, Bruce, were the kind of couple who woke up with the Louisville Courier-Journal and USA Today and went to bed switching channels between CNN and the local news. She was a bridge-playing, churchgoing, Elvis Presley and Willie Nelson loving political junkie who "did not take gladly to fools," a "very, very spirited woman" who sometimes said that her frustration about President Donald Trump was killing her - "contributing to her decline," as Ms Duff put it. She didn't seem to be joking, Ms Duff told The Washington Post. So at the end of her mother's obituary, just after the part about Williams's passion for making family photo albums, Ms Duff added this sentence: "Her passing was hastened by her continued frustration with the Trump administration." "I just felt like, along with everything else that was in there, that was a vital part of her personality and something she expressed with me over the last few months - just like she expressed she felt strongly about a dress code for funerals," Ms Duff told The Post. "So I felt it was important to put it in there. We never gave it any more thought than that." At least not until the Courier-Journal declined to publish it: They would have to remove the Trump quip, they were told, or their $1,684 obituary wouldn't run at all. Ms Duff and her brother, Art Williams, were shocked. "We didn't understand it," Ms Duff said. Now, more than two weeks after Williams' memorial services, the Courier-Journal and Gannett, the paper's owner, are apologizing following backlash on social media, which circulated after Ms Duff's brother made their ordeal public earlier this month. It was a "mistake" to refuse to publish the political sentence, Laurie Bolle, the director of sales for Gannett's West Group, told the Courier-Journal in a column titled, "Obit blaming Trump for hastening woman's death should have been published." "Mrs. Williams' obituary should have published as it was presented to our obits team and as requested by the family," Richard A Green, the Courier-Journal's editor, told the columnist. "In this political climate we now find ourselves, partisanship should have no role in deciding what gets included in an obituary that captures a loved one's life - especially one as amazing as what Mrs. Williams led. I'm certain she is missed greatly by those who loved her. We send the family our deepest condolences and apologies." Ms Duff said she first learned their obit was rejected when she got a phone call from her brother on 24 Decemeber. The Cremation Society of Kentucky, which had been handling Williams's obit, had received an email from a Gannett employee out of Wisconsin, who said the obit had been rejected because it contained "negative content." "Per our policy, we are not able to publish the obituary as is due to the negative content within the obituary text," said the email, which was provided to The Post. "You are more than welcome to remove the negative content so we may move forward with publishing if you wish." Ms Duff said she and her brother were too busy grieving and preparing for the services ― at which no one wore jeans or tennis shoes, as Mr Williams requested - to argue about the Trump line. And so they simply agreed to remove it. On 5 January, however, they decided to make their displeasure known publicly. Art Williams wrote on Facebook: "I was, and still am, dumbfounded, surprised, but most of all disappointed and aghast that a once historically courageous American newspaper that exists by reason of freedom of speech would so trivially move to abate the free speech that it seems, when convenient, to hypocritically champion." "And over a relatively innocuous sentence. ... my mom would have been offended." The comments on Ms Duff and Mr Williams's Facebook pages poured in. "[Courier-Journal] decision makers should be ashamed and take a long leave of absence to discern what their jobs really are. Have we left the truth in the gutter completely? I am surprised they wouldn't run that," another woman said. "People who knew her would have understood and probably gotten a kick out of seeing it." Williams said in another post 13 January that he and his father were waiting for an apology. Ms Duff said Green called her father, Bruce, to apologise and inform him that the Courier-Journal would run the obituary in full. Mr Green could not be immediately reached late Tuesday to confirm. It's far from the first time that obituaries have become a vessel for political dissent. Obituaries invoking Mr Trump or, alternatively, Hillary Clinton, particularly blossomed during the 2016 presidential campaign, as the dead implored the living to vote for their favored candidates. "Jeffrey would ask that in lieu of flowers, please do not vote for Donald Trump," the chiropractor Jeffrey Cohen's obituary read in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "His only regret is NOT being able to vote against Hillary Clinton in the next presidential election," said one for E. Karl Kmentt in the Akron Beacon Journal. Others, according to their family, just said forget it. "Faced with the prospect of voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Mary Anne Noland of Richmond chose, instead, to pass into the eternal love of God on Sunday, May 15, 2016, at the age of 68," began Noland's Richmond Times-Dispatch obit. Ms Duff said her intent with the line that the Trump administration had "hastened" her mother's death was not necessarily meant to be funny, but to encapsulate the exasperation her mom truly felt. Her mother had been suffering from coronary artery disease, and so Duff moved to Louisville a year ago to help her father care for her. During the last year of her life, Ms Duff said, she tried to pick at her mom's brain to figure out why she seemed much more invested in politics than anyone else she knew. She told her daughter it was perhaps because she grew up in the Great Depression, experiencing and witnessing poverty that she felt could have been prevented, and also because her husband was a World War II veteran. A member of Daughters of the American Revolution, she was in love with the country, Duff said, and so she cared a great deal about who was in charge of it. "She just always, and consistently, kept saying, why don't people see what's going on?" Ms Duff said. "She would shake her head and say, 'I can't believe the country has come to this.'" She would have hated to know about what Duff described as political censorship in her own obituary - but she might have been happy too, Ms Duff said. "It's getting people talking about something that was really important to her," she said. | Meagan Flynn | http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/louisville-obituary-newspaper-courier-journal-frances-irene-finley-williams-donald-trump-a8731431.html | 2019-01-16 19:25:49+00:00 | 1,547,684,749 | 1,567,552,184 | politics | political dissent |
744,939 | theindependent--2019-02-02--UAE launches apostoleranceapos ministry days before papal visit despite reports of widespread hu | 2019-02-02T00:00:00 | theindependent | UAE launches 'tolerance' ministry days before papal visit despite reports of widespread human rights abuse | The United Arab Emirates has branded a bridge, a new ministry, a family day at the park and even the entire year of 2019 under the banner theme of “tolerance”, an elaborate effort that’s in overdrive as the country prepares to host Pope Francis starting Sunday in the first-ever papal visit to the Arabian Peninsula. The state’s tolerance-themed project, however, has hard limits. While allowing churches and other places of worship to exist, and marking holidays such as Christmas, the Hindu Diwali and Chinese New Year with festivals and celebrations, the government has simultaneously stamped out critical political expression in the name of national security. Human rights activists and Muslim Brotherhood sympathisers have been imprisoned, academic research deemed sensitive has been curtailed and human rights groups have been barred entry. Political parties are banned and local media are censored. And while the law prohibits religious discrimination and guarantees the freedom to exercise religious worship, the state’s official religion of Islam is tightly monitored and controlled. A permit is required to hold a Quran memorisation circle or lecture, collect donations or distribute books or audio in mosques. The law also prohibits mosque employees from preaching and teaching religious lessons outside of mosques. Moreover, all imams receive their salaries from the government and – with the exception of the most senior imams – must follow official weekly guidance on the content of Friday sermons. The UAE‘s Minister of Tolerance, Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, said the government is simply doing what “we think is right for our people and for the world”. “We are trying to protect our religion,” he told the Associated Press in an interview last week. “We want to restore our real religion, which stems from our holy book the Quran, which believes in living together. It believes in the dignity of a human being.” The UAE, a federation of seven constituent monarchies led by President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is known for its gleaming cities of Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Modern skylines draw tourists from around the world, bars exist next to mosques, men and women dressed in traditional garb brush past foreigners, and tight security and surveillance ensures high levels of safety. Government bodies, public relations firms and even banks have been busy promoting the state’s version of tolerance in preparation for the pope’s visit, which includes a meeting on Monday with Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam’s foremost religious institution, and a mass on Tuesday before 135,000 people in Abu Dhabi. In a video message translated into English and Arabic ahead of his arrival, Pope Francis described the UAE as “a country that strives to be a model for coexistence and human fraternity, a meeting point of different civilisations and cultures. A place where people find a safe place to work, live freely and where differences are respected.” The UAE has a Hindu temple in Dubai and a large one being built in Abu Dhabi on land donated by the country’s rulers to help accommodate the roughly 3.3 million Indians who live in the country. It is also home to around 1 million Catholics, including a sizeable Filipino community. In addition to several Catholic churches, there are numerous churches in the UAE of other Christian denominations, a Sikh temple and a space for Jewish worship. Still, the US-based Freedom House notes that more than 85 per cent of the UAE’s population consists of foreign residents who lack political rights and electoral opportunities, including tens of thousands of stateless residents – known as Bidoon. Freedom House says that since 2011, when Arab Spring protests rocked countries throughout the Middle East, the UAE has aggressively cracked down on opposition activists, particularly if they are suspected of belonging to Al-Islah, an Islamist group perceived as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. The UAE has branded the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, viewing it as a threat to the country’s system of hereditary rule. “They’re certainly not tolerant of any form of political dissent,” Devin Kenney, researcher on the UAE for Amnesty International, said. “I mean OK, sure, like bars exist and people of multiple faiths are allowed to practise their faith, so it’s not culturally totalitarian, but it’s clearly not a really tolerant place,” he added. Kenney said the Pope’s visit “seems like a fairly straightforward PR gesture”. In recent years, the UAE named dozens of individuals and some 80 groups as “terrorist” – many for their alleged ties with the Brotherhood, which is not deemed a terrorist group in Europe or the US. The list includes political dissenters and opposition voices, but also groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy and civil rights group in the US, as well as Islamic Relief Worldwide, a UK-based humanitarian aid organisation with operations around the world. In a statement to the AP, Islamic Relief said it is not connected in any way to the Muslim Brotherhood and that the allegation has been “hugely damaging”. The group said it was never provided with any evidence by Emirati authorities to substantiate the assertion and has tried to contest it in UAE courts. “All our attempts to get an open hearing in front of a judge have been rejected on procedural technicalities,” the group said. The UAE is also one of four Arab countries that cut ties with Qatar in 2017, in part over its support of the Brotherhood throughout the region. The UAE banned the news operations of Al Jazeera inside the country, expelled Qatari residents, blocked websites affiliated with Qatar and warned residents that anyone who expressed sympathy for Qatar could face up to 15 years in prison. “Nobody’s perfect in this world ... ,” Al Nahyan, the tolerance minister, said. “We’re proud of our acceptance, tolerance, respect for human dignity, having laws that protect everybody’s rights.” | Aya Batrawy | http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uae-pope-visit-tolerance-human-rights-violations-bridge-ministry-emirates-a8759816.html | 2019-02-02 13:44:00+00:00 | 1,549,133,040 | 1,567,549,829 | politics | political dissent |
745,230 | theindependent--2019-02-04--Pope makes historic visit to Abu Dhabi in trip meant to bolster UAEaposs aposmoderateapos cred | 2019-02-04T00:00:00 | theindependent | Pope makes historic visit to Abu Dhabi in trip meant to bolster UAE's 'moderate' credentials | Pope Francis went to the United Arab Emirates on Monday in the first-ever visit by the head of the Vatican to the Arabian peninsula, birthplace of the Islamic faith as well as an incubator of a puritanical version of the religion that has inspired militant organisations. The pontiff, widely seen as the most progressive figure to oversee the Catholic church in decades, has eagerly embraced outreach to the Muslim world, making pastoral visits to Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Palestine, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Albania since ascending to the papacy in 2013. But some worried his latest trip, coinciding with a public relations blitz by Emirati officials, was being used to give a sheen of moderation to a UAE which is part of an axis of Arab nations increasingly intolerant of political dissent, independent journalism, and even certain religious minorities. The trip comes amid a sharp philosophical disagreement, exacerbated during the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings. While human rights advocates and scholars in the region see extremism as a byproduct of state repression, reactionary powers such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt see state power as the best way to maintain tight control over society and prevent political violence. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are also leading the war against the Iranian-backed Houthi militia in Yemen, a conflict seen as the worst ongoing humanitarian disaster on the planet, and many worry is sure to breed extremism in years to come. “The population is exhausted by the long conflict and many, many children are suffering from hunger but they are not able to get to food deposits,” Pope Francis said of Yemen in his Sunday sermon, before heading to the UAE. “There are children who are hungry, they are thirsty, they don’t have medicine.” Fighter jets in formation spewed yellow smoke as screeched across the sky over Abu Dhabi to welcome the pope on Monday. “With gratitude for your warm welcome and hospitality, and with the assurance of a remembrance in my prayers, I invoke upon your highness and all the people of the United Arab Emirates the divine blessings of peace and fraternal solidarity,” Pope Francis wrote in the guestbook at the palace of UAE president Khalifa bin Zayed, ruler of Abu Dhabi, one of the seven emirates that make up the country. “This is truly a historic visit of monumental significance,” Zaki Nusseibeh, UAE minister of state, told The Independent. “It is the first time that his holiness Pope Francis – the head of the Catholic church and moral leader of 1.4 billion Catholics and also a world moral leader – is coming to the Arabian peninsula.” The meeting was organised by Mohammed bin Zayed, Abu Dhabi’s crown prince, who also serves as a influence over Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman and has strong ties to the White House. Unlike Egypt or Jordan, the UAE has few if any native Christians. But up to 15 per cent of the country’s largely expatriate population practises Christianity, including Arab, Philippine, Indian and European residents who make up a significant bulk of the country’s workforce and are relatively free to practise their religion. “We have over 200 nationalities of different religious backgrounds who are today residing in the Emirates,” said Mr Nusseibeh. During his visit, the pope is scheduled to meet with Muslim scholars as part of an effort to foster “interfaith dialogue,” said Mr Nusseibeh. “We see around us the spread of intolerance, of hatred, of extremism, that feeds terrorism,” he said. “We see the break down of societies not only in own region but also abroad. We believe that extremism is one of the most serious challenges that mankind feeds today.” But rights advocates say the UAE has backslid on tolerance of political and religious dissent. Once celebrated as bastions of free-wheeling free market capitalism, the UAE’s two wealthiest and most populous emirates, Abu Dhabi and Dubai in recent years launched campaigns to arrest and deport civil society activists, critics and members of the Shia faith considered potential agents of Iran. A court in Abu Dhabi last year sentenced UK researcher Matthew Hedges to life imprisonment on questionable national security charges before he was pardoned amid an international furore. “Despite its assertions about tolerance, the UAE government has demonstrated no real interest in improving its human rights record,” Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. “But the UAE has shown how sensitive it is to its image on the global stage, and Pope Francis should use his visit to press UAE leaders to meet their human rights obligations at home and abroad.” The UAE has spent millions in the west to hire pricey public relations and lobbying firms but has been stumbling in efforts to burnish its image. Just days before the papal visit, the UAE raised eyebrows when Emirati football fans filling an Abu Dhabi stadium pelted players of the visiting team of Qatar with shoes and bottles whilst losing an Asia Cup semi-finals match 4-0. Later UAE Arabic-language newspapers refused to mention Qatar’s name when it won the tournament, beating Japan 3-1 in the final. | Bel Trew, Borzou Daragahi | http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/pope-francis-abu-dhabi-visit-uae-middle-east-arabian-peninsula-a8762391.html | 2019-02-04 14:07:00+00:00 | 1,549,307,220 | 1,567,549,658 | politics | political dissent |
754,029 | theindependent--2019-04-02--US spies helped UAE to monitor BBC journalist and other media figures investigation finds | 2019-04-02T00:00:00 | theindependent | US spies helped UAE to monitor BBC journalist and other media figures, investigation finds | A group of American hackers who once worked for US intelligence agencies helped the United Arab Emirates spy on a BBC journalist along with a host of other prominent media figures, it has been reported. The American operatives worked for Project Raven, a secret Emirati program that spied on dissidents, militants and political opponents of the UAE monarchy, a Reuters investigation found. They attempted to break into the iPhones of at least 10 journalists and media executives, the report states – including a Middle East-based BBC reporter and the chairman of Al Jazeera news station. The apparent aim was a fishing exercise to find confidential information that could be used in the UAE’s ongoing dispute with their Gulf rival Qatar and to stifle dissent. But the revelation has potential global reach in that it highlights how highly-trained former US intelligence officials have increasingly become guns-for-hire in the cyber wars of other nations – with little oversight from Washington. At least nine spies working on Project Raven had previously been employees of the US military or National Security Agency. The hackers started targeting journalists in 2017 in an apparent attempt to find evidence that the Qatar royal family was funding what the UAE’s authoritarian monarchy perceived as media coverage likely to ferment dissent towards their rule. The UAE is run as a hereditary autocracy and political dissent is not tolerated. Among those attacked were Giselle Khoury, the Beirut-based host of BBC Arabic’s The Scene, a current affairs show specialising in interviews with Middle Eastern leaders. Another was Hamad bin Thamer Al Thani, the chairman of Al Jazeera. When informed of the hack, Ms Khoury said: “They need to spend their time on making better their country, their economy. Not on having Giselle Khoury as a hacking target.” Reuters say the attacks utilized a cyber weapon called Karma – a piece of software which allowed Raven operatives to remotely hack into iPhones by inputting a target’s phone number or associated email address. Unlike many exploits, Karma did not require a target to click on a link sent to an iPhone, it is said. The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its embassy in Washington did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment. The US Department of Defense and the NSA also declined to comment. But Dana Shell Smith, America's former US ambassador to Qatar, told the news agency she found it alarming that American intelligence veterans were able to work, as effective mercenaries, for another government. “Folks with these skill sets should not be able to knowingly or unknowingly undermine US interests or contradict US values,” she said. We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view. At The Independent, no one tells us what to write. That’s why, in an era of political lies and Brexit bias, more readers are turning to an independent source. Subscribe from just 15p a day for extra exclusives, events and ebooks – all with no ads. | Colin Drury | https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-spies-uae-hackers-bbc-journalist-national-security-qat-a8851046.html | 2019-04-02 15:59:29+00:00 | 1,554,235,169 | 1,567,544,316 | politics | political dissent |
755,049 | theindependent--2019-04-07--Social media firms including Facebook and Twitter to be legally forced to protect users | 2019-04-07T00:00:00 | theindependent | Social media firms including Facebook and Twitter to be legally forced to protect users | Social media companies including Facebook and Twitter will be legally required to protect their users under government plans to introduce a regulator. The long-awaited government proposal, which would also see bosses of companies personally liable for harmful content on their platform, will ensure internet firms meet their responsibilities, which will be outlined by a mandatory duty of care. “The era of self-regulation for online companies is over,” culture secretary Jeremy Wright said. “Voluntary actions from industry to tackle online harms have not been applied consistently or gone far enough.” The joint white paper from the Home Office and Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport says the regulator will have the power to issue “substantial fines, block access to sites and potentially impose liability on individual members of senior management”. The government is currently consulting on whether a new regulator is needed to enforce the rules or if they should use an existing one such as Ofcom. The measures come amid concerns about the growth of violent content, disinformation and inappropriate material online. In March, the father of Molly Russell urged the government to introduce regulation on social media platforms in response to the suicide of his 14-year-old daughter, who was found to have viewed content related to depression and suicide on Instagram before her death. Prime minister Theresa May said the proposals were a result of social media companies’ failure to self-regulate. “The internet can be brilliant at connecting people across the world – but for too long these companies have not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people, from harmful content,” she said. “That is not good enough, and it is time to do things differently. We have listened to campaigners and parents, and are putting a legal duty of care on internet companies to keep people safe. “Online companies must start taking responsibility for their platforms, and help restore public trust in this technology.” The proposed new laws will apply to any company that allows users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online, the government said. The regulation will be applicable to companies of all sizes – from social media platforms to file hosting sites, forum, messaging services and search engines. The proposal also calls for powers to force internet firms to publish annual transparency reports about the harmful content on their platforms and how they are addressing it. Companies including Facebook and Twitter already publish reports of this nature. In March, Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg wrote an op-ed calling for governments to play a more active role in establishing regulation for the internet. The home secretary, Sajid Javid, said tech firms had a “moral duty” to protect the young people they “profit from”. “Despite our repeated calls to action, harmful and illegal content – including child abuse and terrorism – is still too readily available online,” he said. “That is why we are forcing these firms to clean up their act once and for all. I made it my mission to protect our young people – and we are now delivering on that promise.” However, former culture secretary John Whittingdale warned ministers risk creating a “draconian censorship regime” in their attempt to regular internet firms. He feared the plans would send the wrong message to other countries which censor their people. “Countries such as China, Russia and North Korea, which allow no political dissent and deny their people freedom of speech, are also keen to impose censorship online, just as they already do on traditional media,” he said. He added that the UK regulator “must not give the despots an excuse to claim that they are simply following an example set by Britain”. Daniel Dyball, UK executive director at the Internet Association, criticised the current scope of the proposals for being “extremely wide”, which could hinder their implementation. “The internet industry is committed to working together with government and civil society to ensure the UK is a safe place to be online. But to do this we need proposals that are targeted and practical to implement for platforms both big and small,” he said. “We also need to protect freedom of speech and the services consumers love. The scope of the recommendations is extremely wide, and decisions about how we regulate what is and is not allowed online should be made by parliament.” The proposal received a positive response from children’s charities which have campaigned for regulation. Peter Wanless, chief executive of the NSPCC, said it would make the UK a “world pioneer” in protecting children online, and Barnardo’s chief executive Javed Khan said the announcement was “an important step in the right direction”. Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner for England, welcomed the proposed legislation but added that it needed to be backed up by robust penalties. “The social media companies have spent too long ducking responsibility for the content they host online and ensuring those using their apps are the appropriate age,” she said. “Any new regulator must have bite. Companies who fail in their responsibilities must face both significant financial penalties and a duty to publicly apologise for their actions, and set out how they will prevent mistakes happening in the future.” In response to the proposals, Facebook’s UK head of public policy Rebecca Stimson said the company was looking forward to working with the government to ensure the regulation is effective. A 12-week consultation will now take place before the government publishes its final proposals for legislation. | Conrad Duncan | https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/social-media-regulation-facebook-twitter-government-jeremy-wright-a8858981.html | 2019-04-07 23:02:15+00:00 | 1,554,692,535 | 1,567,543,670 | politics | political dissent |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.