Crackdown on free speech a threat to justice – The Tribune India

Shelley Walia

Professor Emeritus, English & Cultural Studies, Panjab University

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King Jr.

In the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, John Rawls A Theory of Justice had a long-lasting impact on American anti-statists and British egalitarians, as well as on the larger issues of civil disobedience, international justice and commitment of the state and citizens in capitalist welfare states. Such a political philosophy aimed to legitimise political change by appealing to public intellectuals as moral agents of reform.

This development occurred in a culture of racism, bigotry and ultra-nationalism that has dominated the democracies ever since. Plagued by the crackdown on dissent, the situation in many countries is exacerbated by uncertain employment, housing and healthcare. A prejudiced leadership, partial media and the demise of the Opposition has given rise to the increasing intrusion of the private sphere.

Varavara Rao, poet-activist with a singular voice of protest, languishes in jail. GN Saibaba, a disabled professor, remains incarcerated with no trial in sight. With baseless and flimsy evidence, their lock-up violates civil liberties and subverts the constitutional order. Some fine scholars and writers come under police and judicial harassment for standing up for the deprived and the marginalised. It becomes a matter of anguish for the nation when a citizens fundamental right to life and liberty is denied.

However, radical change is optimistically envisaged with the possibility of producing a politics of freedom and resistance, with the hope of finding solutions to the nagging issues confronting a democracy. The defence of bona fide beliefs of an individual in a democracy screams for attention in an environment of pervert rational thinking and brash exercise of Orwellian surveillance for absolute ideological control.

The last few months have been exceptionally volatile in the history of the democratic working of public institutions. Democracy and free speech are under siege. For example, Prashant Bhushan, in declining to tender an apology to the Supreme Court, has secured his dignity and his sense of responsibility to the future of Indias democracy. His is a moral act defined by affirming the inviolability of free speech, public values and truth that resonate in Vaclav Havels statement on speaking truth to power: When I speak of living within truth, I naturally do not have in mind only products of conceptual thought, such as a protest or a letter written by a group of intellectuals. It can be any means by which a person or a group revolts against manipulation. Such a stand against the depravity of the political moment is an earnest attempt to uphold the power of the powerless and the fairness of justice.

Bhushan has not shown any disrespect for the judicial system, but has peacefully redirected the attention of the nation to the quality of justice and the dignity of our public institutions. A civil, humanistic public action against the jeopardising of democratic institutions cannot be anything but ethical to the core and, unquestionably, not invite the over-reaction of criminal reprimand through a self-deprecating contempt order.

Recent social and political upheavals in the wake of sectarian violence or the increasing infringement of public space has raised questions about the future of liberty and dignity, freedom and justice, calling for a scrutiny of the working of the Reserve Bank, judiciary, police or civil services. With politics taking on the character of regressive and unabashedly unconstitutional right-wing intimidation through the misuse of public institutions, public oppression becomes acute and expectations of the institutional foundations of our democracy fail. At such critical moments, the critical-minded progressive thinkers rise to counter any form of unanimity or mindless obedience to the capricious assertions of the leadership, fighting for the survival of a culture that reflects on deeper ethical and social concerns.

It is a fact that radical social transformations have been brought about not by totalitarian means, but by peoples participation in offering resistance or critiques of the retrogressive functioning of institutions and the arbitrary suppression of any opposition. The end of debate is apparently the outcome of the end of history syndrome that has dominated the liberal democracies of the world.

The liberal recipe stands botched in ushering a new world order promised by the happy birth of a global community. History brings us face to face with the threat of despotism, provoking public intellectuals to rise up against the obsessive use of raw power. At the irreducible existential moment of economic or military crisis when the row between democracy and fascism, freedom and tyranny becomes an unrelenting political encounter, they advance an alternative vision with a global appeal of a new reinvention of participatory democracy and free thinking.

The historical necessity of the times inspires the freedom-loving people to adopt strategies of non-violent resistance and non-cooperation, thereby echoing an ethical dimension of the politics of living in truth with a sense of individual responsibility.

The lesson to be learnt from Rawls, Havel or historians like Howard Zinn is to exist in the embrace of robust forms of free speech practical and responsible enough to create an environment with a commitment to challenge the state apparatus and institutions that it undemocratically uses for its authority.

Not surprisingly, intellectuals like Arundhati Roy, Ramachandra Guha, Harsh Mander or Prashant Bhushan have opened spaces for new civil and democratic politics in India, underpinned by notions of truth, accountability and civility. They bring their adverse stand into the shaping of the world through their scrutiny of the social and political world with a belief in their sense of belongingness to the state free from any sense of alienation or antagonism.

Why then should the state feel a sense of disquiet at resistance movements hurling ideas of emancipation and justice? It is wrong to presume that autocracies can wipe out the diversity of political thought. The spectre of Marx hangs on the contemporary world and dialectical materialism remains an antidote to ideological unilateralism, a condemnation of the systems that have usurped socialism and progressive movements. Indeed, the constitutional values of liberalism cannot be ignored for long.

See the original post:

Crackdown on free speech a threat to justice - The Tribune India

Opinion | Putting professor on leave is a crackdown on free speech – The Daily Orange

At the very least, Syracuse Universitys decision to place a professor on administrative leave for referring to COVID-19 as the Wuhan Flu and the Chinese Communist Party Virus demonstrates the administrations oversensitivity and willingness to fold under pressure from the speech police. At most, it represents SUs zealous crackdown on free speech.

In their joint statement emailed to the SU community on Tuesday, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Karin Ruhlandt and Interim Vice Chancellor and Provost John Liu pillory one of their own staff members for his bold decision to place these terms in his syllabus.

Racist, xenophobic, bigoted and hateful are the allegations the two administrators circuitously levy against this professor.

So its hateful now to attribute to an illness the name of the geological region where it originated? In that case, infections like Ebola, West Nile Virus, Lyme disease, and Zika (just to name a few) need renaming as well.

Naming illnesses after places is time-saving and allows for greater distinction between similar diseases. While examples do exist of highly distasteful disease naming-schemes, like AIDS at times referred to as gay-related immune deficiency, the naming process is almost never intended to humiliate or shame a group of people.

In all fairness, very few people likely desire to have their neck of the woods be associated with disease and death. Folks who share names with hurricanes are frequently reminded by meteorologists not to take it personally. Their justification? More easily recognizable storm names generate greater public awareness: more lives saved.

Nevertheless, SU administrators are not interested in reasonable explanations. They have, instead, decided that labeling COVID-19 after the totalitarian regime that actively suppressed life-saving, early reporting isnt a righteous calling-out of a malicious government but an act of vicious racism.

How many lives and livelihoods could have been saved had the Chinese government sounded the alarms in December when cases of this new virus started piling up? Blood is on the hands of the Chinese government, but dont let SU administrators catch you acknowledging that reality.

Published on August 25, 2020 at 10:43 pm

More here:

Opinion | Putting professor on leave is a crackdown on free speech - The Daily Orange

Standing by O’Shaughnessy, and for free speech – theday.com

The sensitivity meter in Stonington needs adjustment. Communities are concerned that the level of violence allowed on the streets of our cities has progressed from legitimate protest to lawlessness when criminal elements like Antifa, unchallenged,run wild with looting, burning and life-threatening actions.

The two reposted twitter messages were from American citizens with a different opinion than the whining liberals, who prefer to talk over and drown out the First Amendment. The first twitter message could have just as well been directed towards the conduct of the two accused in the hotel incident. Have any of the critics asked police commission member Bob OShaughnessy? Besides "We the People" have had enough. That is pretty much the content of both of those articles.

The Democratic Party is desperate, standing on the wall at the Alamo knowing the outcome.I have known Bob since 1970 and have worked with him and for him. He is a retired Connecticut State Police captain and since his retirement has done more civic volunteer work than all his critics combined. This patriot means to draw a line in the sand.

James L. Miller

Retired Connecticut state trooper

Salem

Read more:

Standing by O'Shaughnessy, and for free speech - theday.com

KSL Investigates: Does armed protest have a chilling effect on free speech? – KSL.com

SALT LAKE CITY A summer of protests highlighting the First Amendments protection of free speech has culminated in a movement highlighting the Second Amendments protection of the right to bear arms.

Members of Utah Citizens United have begun showing up at protests against police brutality carrying semi-automatic rifles.

Critics said that has a chilling effect on the freedom of speech.

So what happens when those two constitutionally protected rights seem to conflict with one another?

As the KSL Investigators learned, legal precedent has some catching up to do.

Provo native Casey Robertson formed Utah Citizens Alarm after a protest in his hometown on June 29 ended in a shooting when a protester opened fire at a driver whose vehicle was being blocked at an intersection.

It hit home that the violence is now here, Robertson explained.

That is when he took to Facebook and put out the call for support.

Who wants to come down there with me and show em were not going to put up with violence in our town, he said about his Facebook post.

Members of UCA have since attended rallies across Utah, oftentimes wearing military fatigues, tactical gear and carrying AR-15 style rifles. Many also wear face coverings, making them unidentifiable.

They show up to protests, Robertson said, to show solidarity with law enforcement.

We back law enforcement 100% as a group and they appreciate that because law enforcement is getting a horrible, terrible name right now, Robertson said. Were simply there to be eyes and ears for the police and just be a deterrent for violence. Thats it.

When asked if he encourages members of his group to come armed to protests, Robertson said, We encourage people to be aware of the laws and follow them closely.

Im not sorry if were intimidating. Im not. Utah citizens want to be intimidating. We dont want violence here in Utah. We do not want chaos and anarchy, Robertson continued.

While violence and property damage have occurred, of the dozens of protests that have taken place in Utah this summer, most have been peaceful.

While Robertson and his members argue their presence at protests absolutely deters violence, property damage and destruction, activists like Josianne Petit believe what UCAs presence really deters is people from exercising their First Amendment right to protest.

Petit started an organization for parents of black children called Mama and Papa Panthers. She has used her voice to speak out at many protests this summer.

They say theyre there to keep the peace. Well, the way my group and like groups have shown that were here for non-violent protests is we dont bring enough ammo to take out a small village, Petit said. They are weapons of war. They are not made to disarm or disable an opponent.

Petit is passionate and outspoken about the need for police reform and the need to end police brutality. She is demanding change and knows doing so is her First Amendment right.

Were just asking for the same treatment when we engage with police officers as white people have come to expect, Petit said. Its the cause of liberation.

She said the presence of heavily armed, masked men and women at largely non-violent protests has resulted in serious fear. In some cases, the concern for protesters personal safety is so concerning, she said, they are shying away from exercising their First Amendment right.

Their tactic is working, right? Its silencing the vast majority of black voices here in Utah, Petit said.

Shes equally worried about another intimidation tactic she said is employed by members of UCA.

They have made a point of stalking us at every single event that we hold, she said. They just monitor our Facebook page and if we say were going to an event, they show up.

Robertson admitted that as his group grows, its expanding focusing on intelligence gathering.

We have quite a few people that have stepped up and that have created false accounts where we can infiltrate some of their conversations and some of their planning and groups, Robertson said.

The KSL Investigators went to Jess Anderson, commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, to get his perspective on UCA and similar groups.

We appreciate their support for law enforcement, Anderson said specifically about Utah Citizens Alarm, However, its not done with the proper training. Its not done with a proper perspective or understanding.

He made it clear: when it comes to law enforcements interactions with UCA and groups like it, there is no working relationship.

Listen, we didnt request you. Youre not the backup to the police, Anderson explained. Theyve been respectful of that so far, but it causes concern to the law enforcement community just because it puts us in a very peculiar situation, knowing and understanding that if something were to happen, guess whos caught right in the middle of this? Its now the police [who] have an armed standoff.

As for UCAs aim of intelligence gathering, Anderson said, We, in the policing world, have all of our access to good intelligence, to which we are using in a most respectful way.

At what point do intimidation tactics cross the line and infringe on protesters Constitutional rights? University of Utah law professor RonNell Andersen Jones said theres little clear legal precedent.

Certainly the Supreme Court has recognized that if someone engages in a behavior that rises to the level of being what the court calls a true threat, then it loses its First Amendment protection and your capacity to express yourself with a weapon in your hand changes. You dont have the ability to continue to invoke Constitutional protection and the government can regulate you from threatening other people in that way.

However, the courts have not decided if a large number of firearms at a public protest rises to the level of a true threat.

The bare existence of the firearm on their person under Utah State law isnt necessarily a threat against another person. Its an exercise of the open carry right, said Jones. Were still waiting for jurisprudence from the United States Supreme Court that helps us to understand the boundaries of firearms in public.

Case law may not be far away.

There are lots of test cases that seem to be emerging all across the country as the Black Lives Matter movement and other protest movements are generating these conflicts on a scale that we havent seen before, said Jones.

Its actually, in some respects, quite remarkable that weve had since 1790, to have some of these conflicts emerge and havent had the chance to sort of tussle with them, she said. But its also a uniquely modern problem with modern firearms and with modern protest movements. And so sometimes it takes time for the Constitution to catch up with the problems that we face in the real world.

Casey Robertson said his group believes in the right to peacefully assemble and peacefully protest.

We dont exist to show up at protests, said Robertson. However, weve seen that these protests tend to get violent and Antifa is working through these protest groups to get their point across which is disruption and anarchy.

Antifa short for anti-fascists is a political group with no leader and no clear organization. Their ideology embraces violence as a tool to combat far-right extremists and white nationalist groups.

And its who Robertson believes is the real enemy of America.

Anderson, however, said Antifa is currently no cause for concern in Utah.

As far as identifying who those somewhat terrorist groups are, or otherwise really anarchistic groups, we do keep a close watch on that, Anderson said. By and large, we do not see that being an issue or a problem to the point where its causing us complete panic or concern.

Less than two months after Robertson created the Utah Citizens Alarm page on Facebook, it had attracted nearly 20,000 members.

Facebook shut down the page on Aug. 19, along with nearly 1,000 other accounts. The social networking company said the move was aimed at limiting violent rhetoric tied to anarchists, political militias and followers of the Q-Anon conspiracy theory.

According to NBC News, Facebooks policy states, Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts associated with these movements and organizations will be removed when they discuss potential violence.

Robertson said that will not deter his members. They created a website to continue operations online.

UCA is still here. We are still strong. This Facebook thing in no way will affect the momentum that we have created, Robertson said in a video posted on Monday.

Robertson said he is working on more formally organizing the group by providing members with training and legal support.

He also said UCA is more thoroughly vetting its members and hopes to change their image.

As weve grown, weve realized that an AR may not be the best thing to be carrying in a situation like that, Robertson said.

Visit link:

KSL Investigates: Does armed protest have a chilling effect on free speech? - KSL.com

Lawsuits accuse Gov. Whitmer of squelching free speech and Sec. Of State Benson of violating election law – Fox17

LANSING, Mich. Lawsuits have been filed that accuse Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of violating the First Amendment by restricting the number of people who can attend political rallies and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson of violating election law by allowing online application for absentee ballots.

The suits were filed by the Election Integrity Fund and One Nation Michigan.

The suit against the governor claims Whitmers executive orders limiting the size of indoor and outdoor gatherings virtually eliminate retail politics. It also takes issue with the governors ability to change the rules at any time without notice, claiming that is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The suit against the secretary of state claims Benson made it possible to request absentee ballots online, violating state election law the requires a voters signature on such applications. The suit also claims Bensons plan to send applications to all voters is also a violation of state law that requires voters to ask for an application.

The lawsuits were filed in the Michigan Court of Claims in Lansing and asks the court to give the suits a quick hearing and to stop the governors and secretarys actions.

See the original post:

Lawsuits accuse Gov. Whitmer of squelching free speech and Sec. Of State Benson of violating election law - Fox17

Trumpism Is the Real Cancel Culture – Washington Monthly

Free speech is under threat in the United States. Thats what numerous speakers have told the Republican convention, which wraps up Thursday night.

Theyre right. And the biggest threat comes from the man theyre re-nominating for president, Donald J. Trump.Trump has called major media outlets enemies of the people, warning that he might withhold their broadcast licenses. He encouraged supporters at one of his rallies to assault protesters, promising to pay any legal bills that resulted. And he ordered the removal of peaceful demonstrators from the front of the White House, all so he could pose for a photo-op while holding a Bible.

You havent heard anything about that at the GOP convention, of course, where every attack is blamed on the other side. And thats the biggest problem for free speech in our country right now. We all want the right to speak, but were perfectly happy to deny it to somebody else. And that isnt free speech at all.

So numerous presenters at the convention railed against cancel culture, complaining that many Americans are prevented or discouraged from speaking their minds. At universities, especially, students find themselves suppressing their beliefs to fit into the acceptable groupthink, as Tiffany Trump, the presidents daughter, declared on Tuesday night.

Thats true. According to a wide swath of research, growing numbers of Americans bite their tongues for fear of being canceled on social media. Disagreement is fine; indeed, its the lifeblood of democracy. But when we seek to obliterate our opponents, rejecting not just their ideas but their humanity, we make honest discussion impossible.

But guess who is the Canceler-in-Chief? Donald Trump, of course. To Trump, political challengers arent simply people who disagree with him; theyre losers, dummies, morons, and more. He has called Mexicans rapists, women pigs, and African countries shitholes. Almost every day brings another vile presidential tweet, denigrating someones intellect, gender, or racial background.

Yet speaker after speaker at the GOP convention condemned opponents for cancelling them. Joe Biden and the radical left are now coming for our freedom of speech and want to bully us into submission, Donald Trump, Jr., charged. Seriously? What is his father, if not the quintessential bully? And how can Republicans champion free speech, but ignore the presidents own attacks on the same?

Alas, my fellow liberals have too often demonstrated a similar inconsistency. When Trump or another Republican endangers speech, we raise up a hue and cry. But when the threat comes from our own side, we keep quiet or even cheer it along.

So after prominent University of Chicago economist Harald Uhlig tweeted out critical remarks about Black Lives Matter, we called for his head. Ditto for UCLA business professor Gordon Klein, who was placed on leave after questioning students demand to change his course requirements in light of the traumas suffered by African Americans.

And when respected Intercept reporter Lee Fang posted an interview with an African American about black victims of crime, Fang was denounced as a racistreallyon social media. Never mind that Fang himself is mixed-race, or that he attended predominantly African-American public schools as a child. The Twitter mob wanted blood, and it got it.

Enough already. If you really believe in free speech, it isnt enough to complain about somebody else. You have to put your own house in order, and grant other people the same liberty that you want for yourself.We believe in freedom of thought and expression, Tiffany Trump told the GOP convention. Think what you want. Seek out the truth. Learn from those with different opinions. Then freely, make your voice heard.

If only her father would follow her advice! The biggest danger to free speech is Donald Trump, who has used his own voice to suppress different opinions at every turn. And the second biggest danger is that the rest of us are imitating Trump, all in the guise of resisting him.

See the original post:

Trumpism Is the Real Cancel Culture - Washington Monthly

Scotland’s Hate Crime Bill would have a chilling effect on free speech – Spectator.co.uk

Among the encroachments on Miltons three supreme liberties contained in Humza Yousafs Hate Crime Bill is a cloturing of the debate on gender identity and the law. Proposals to remove medical expertise from the gender recognition process have either stalled or been shelved, but not before their radical scope prompted a lively dispute about the ethics of gender identity, sex-based rights and the freedom to dissent. That freedom will be meaningfully reduced in Scotland if the Hate Crime Bill becomes law because it is a piece of legislation that begins from the position that all legitimate debate has already concluded.

The Bill creates an offence of stirring up hatred against a list of protected characteristics, including transgender identity. That term was defined in Scots law a decade ago in the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009 as referring to:

transvestism, transsexualism, intersexuality or having, by virtue of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, changed gender, or any other gender identity that is not standard male or female gender identity.

The explanatory notes to the Hate Crime Bill advance a new, more expansive definition that includes:

those who identify as male but were registered as female at birth, those who identify as female but were registered as male at birth, non-binary people and cross-dressing people.

Not only is this a much broader definition than that of gender reassignment in the Equality Act, the Hate Crime Bill defines its terms in opposition to those of the 2010 Act, with the accompanying notes specifying that transgender identity:

does not only refer to people with a Gender Recognition Certificate or who have undergone, are undergoing, (or propose to undergo) medical or surgical interventions.

This is a Polonian definition: to thine own pronouns be true. Identifying themselves along these lines may make life easier for transgender people, and who would object to that? But a law that adopts such arbitrary and subjective parameters - and provides for custodial punishments for offending against them - is a tripwire pulled tight around personal and expressive liberty.

Murray Blackburn Mackenzie (MBM), independent and respected analysts of Scottish public policy, warns that a failure to clarify what is meant by this term is likely to add to the already substantial risks around freedom of expression. MBM notes that, while the Bill sticks to broad themes, much more specific definitions are already in use by bodies such as Police Scotland and NHS Lanarkshire, and in both cases are:

grounded in a persons internal feelings, and specifically in a belief in the presence of a gender identity which exists innately and separately from physical sex, rather than being related to any observable behaviours or physical traits.

That is a policy analysts way of saying that everyone is making it up as they go along.

SNP justice minister Humza Yousaf is effectively adopting a Potter Stewart test for what constitutes stirring up hatred on the basis of transgender identity. The approach seems to be in essence that people (individuals? the police? prosecutors? the courts? juries?) will know it when they see it, MBM concludes. The Hate Crime Bill is legislated vagueness with a seven-year prison sentence attached.

Imprecision is not the cardinal sin of this Bill. MBM warns of a substantial chilling effect on freedom of expression and no wonder. To be prosecuted, a person will not even have to intend to stir up hatred against a group which the law itself cannot define. It will be enough that his behaviour or communications are considered threatening or abusive and that a court deems it likely that hatred will be stirred up. If this cascade of caprice becomes law some, perhaps many, holders of controversial or dissenting views will conclude that it is safer to simply shut up than risk arrest, prosecution and even imprisonment.

Ever since the Scottish Governments campaign to legislate self-identification stalled, gender-critical feminists have been on alert for attempts to introduce these changes by the back door. The Hate Crime Bill gets closer than any other measure to jimmying the lock. If it passes as drafted, the potential chilling effects on debate about gender and identity will be such that some aspects of self-identification are achieved by default. Who will dare write or say that transwomen are not women when it could bring, at the very least, a visit to your home or workplace by police? Who will insist that sex-reserved spaces be reserved on the basis of sex when there are activists out there just waiting to experience your policy as threatening or abusive? Who will object to girls who are boyish or attracted to members of the same sex being told they are trans when a fellow teacher or medic or social worker might pick up the phone and report your heresy as hate speech?

No people can consent to be governed by such an insidious and repressive law and still be counted among the freedom-valuing nations of the world. I tend to think that, rather than being motivated by conscious contempt for liberty, Humza Yousaf is so enraptured by the ascendant ideology of coercive progressivism that he cannot see what an almighty shoeing his Bill gives to the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience. Im not sure his intentions are worth a jot, though, when the consequences are so destructive. Yousaf is a Scottish nationalist but while he might believe in independence, he has no regard for freedom.

View original post here:

Scotland's Hate Crime Bill would have a chilling effect on free speech - Spectator.co.uk

BOOK REVIEW: Yes, I Can Say That is Judy Golds take on freedom of speech – Wicked Local Provincetown

Emmy Award-winning comedienne Judy Gold is now appearing at the Crown and Anchor in Provincetown. She has written a funny and compelling new book "Yes, I Can Say That" which details her musings about freedom of speech from the perspective of the comic. In the books forward, she writes, Its terrifying out there right now for stand-ups. The fear of backlash and inciting microaggression from the audience members by uttering a politically incorrect joke that offends is always present in the mind of the standup before, during and after a performance, she says.

This kind of scrutiny from the easily-offended, is not only coming from the right politically, but also those leaning left, Gold maintains. Asshe proceeds with her manifesto on a performers right to free speech, she interweaves some hilarious anecdotes and jokes that have arisen in her performing life and in the performing life of other comedians as well.

Gold talks about stereotypes, and how were all products of our history and legacy. We can laugh at them for the spark of truth they contain, and challenge them when theyve been unfairly assigned or used to denigrate," she says. "One of the best ways to challenge these long-held false beliefs is with comedy. She then gives examples of how various comedians with a host of ethnic backgrounds have handled issues centered around this kind of stereotype attribution.

But the best comedy lives on the edge of whats acceptable, Gold writes, and thats where audiences can either laugh at the joke being delivered or choose to feel offended. Sometimes feelings of offense get mixed with anger and an audience member decides to leave the show. It is simply an individuals natural impulse to protect themselves from unpleasantness that causes such action. As Gold maintains though, Jokes are nourished by tension; laughter is a release.

Golds book is also part-history, chronicling the great comics who have fought for freedom of speech, and giving homage to these comics fight against censorship. Shetackles the issue of the Cancel Culture, the phenomenon of promoting the canceling or the rejection of an individual whose actions remarks, or ideologies others consider to be offensive or problematic.

She delivers a blistering attack on Donald Trump, but the attack constitutes a valid argument. Here Gold quotes the comedian Jon Stewart, I dont understand why in this country we try to hold comedians to a higher standard we do not hold leaders to.

Gold delivers a wonderful tribute to her idol, Joan Rivers, who she says was The funniest and most fearless of women. Readers learn a great deal about Rivers career, her methods as comedienne, and her pioneering efforts to promote women in the field of comedy. Rivers jokes, interspersed throughout Golds retelling, are hilarious.

Political correctness, according to Gold, is a virus that is killing great stand-up comedy, and such a death hurts us all. Protocols defining political correctness were established to avoid insulting marginalized groups of people. Gold warns her fellow comedians that they should refrain from maliciously offending people, and be willing to laugh at themselves. A cardinal rule should be, always endeavor to gain the trust of the audience.

To us the audience, Gold challenges us to stop taking ourselves so seriously. The most important thing of all? Laugh! Let go and laugh!

Read more here:

BOOK REVIEW: Yes, I Can Say That is Judy Golds take on freedom of speech - Wicked Local Provincetown

Getting wasted to win the War on Drugs and forget those who lost – Colombia Reports

I signed up for the War on Drugs because I want to be a winner, unlike my murdered friend and the two American former interns who died of an overdose. They lost.

Almost 50 years after late US President Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Latin Americas narcos are doing better than ever.

The rest of the world agrees the United States drug policy is a racket, but try explaining that to the Washington DC pen pushers and the narcos who now have billions of dollars to celebrate their scams 50th anniversary.

The narcos have every reason to celebrate as they are trafficking more drugs than ever before. The DEA has every reason to celebrate because they are ripping off the American people for $3.1 billion a year without doing anything.

As a former loser in the War on Drugs I dont have that kind of money. Fortunately, now that I have joined the war I get drugs for free.

People will stand in line to feed you doobies, smarties and benzos when you say you want to write a column while off your tits on drugs only to debase feds and their so-called War on Drugs.

Ironically, I am now too wasted to remember what day it is, but one cannot be wasted enough to win the War on Drugs.

I got nothing against drugs. I think its a personal choice, just like alcohol and cigarettes, just as long as that personal choice doesnt infringe on the freedoms and other peoples personal choices. Really, thats the end of the story. Thats called logic, itll help you.

George Bush says: Were losing the War on Drugs. Do you know what that implies? Theres a war going on and people on drugs are winning. What does that tell you about drugs? Theres some smart, creative motherfuckers on that side. Theyre winning a war and theyre fucked up!

Had the DEAs $3.1 billion budget gone to healthcare like in developed countries, my dead American former interns may have gotten the help they apparently needed.

Had the DEA not colluded with Medellin drug trafficker Don Berna and the Cali Cartel my late colleagues brains may still be inside his skull.

If you make a deal with one bad guy to take down another bad guy. Whats wrong with that? I heard this gloating DEA prick say on Netflix the other day.

The answer is that when counternarcotics officials collude with narcos they the DEA becomes their plaything. Ask El Tuso, his drug trafficking even got him a green card.

Plan Colombia was supposed to deprive organized crime of their drug trafficking revenue, which became became a $10 billion failure, yet the ignoramus who invented it, Philip Goldberg, was promoted and is now the US ambassador in the country he helped ruin.

Goldberg now pretends to be fighting drug trafficking with a government that has more ties to the now-defunct Medellin Cartel than I have had girlfriends.

While asking US Congress for more budget to fight drug trafficking, the US Embassy refuses to answer any of my questions related to criminal investigations.

Im probably blacklisted or something and I didnt even ask why no narco has been arrested in years.

I did reveal that Pablo Escobars cousin was hanging out with former ambassador William Brownfield before he became Assistant Secretary of State for dont laugh the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

Brownfield even won a Distinguished Service Award and three Presidential Performance Awards despite having secured a Medal of Freedom for another former Medellin Cartel associate.

Meanwhile, I was trying to overcome the deaths of my former colleague and former interns, but my days of losing this war are over.

It took pharmaceutical companies Novartis and Roche and my friends homegrown weed some convincing, but I have decided to become an active combatant in the War on Drugs.

I may be high as a fucking kite, but I believe I am winning and I no longer feel pain.

P.S. After sobering up I realized I dont want to be a racketeer like Goldberg or Brownfield and dont want to be responsible for the deaths of innocent people who either succumb to addiction or are assassinated for confronting organized crime and corruption. Ill just continue losing this stupid war.

Read more:

Getting wasted to win the War on Drugs and forget those who lost - Colombia Reports

‘The War On Drugs Show’ How Ketamine Took Over the World – VICE

InThe War On Drugs Show, we examine the social implications of drug prohibition how it plays into user harms, arrest and incarceration rates, drug seizures and the destruction of criminal networks.

Whether, basically, prohibition works or not.

In this episode, we take a look at the worlds most infamous horse tranquiliser. It may lack the glamorous associations of cocaine and the hedonistic kudos of ecstasy, but ravers, doctors and therapists worldwide are united in their love for ketamine.

The trippy anaesthetic has thrived despite global attempts to ban it, and has overcome PR damage caused by teenage incontinence and knocked-out horses. Since it was first used by US field surgeons in the Vietnam War, the drug has quietly been winning battles in the War On Drugs across the planet, and today is used by club kids zoning out at afterparties and pioneering psychotherapists alike.

Read more from the original source:

'The War On Drugs Show' How Ketamine Took Over the World - VICE

Mick Jagger and The War On Drugs talk ‘Goats Head Soup’ reissue & more – Brooklyn Vegan

The Rolling Stones recently had The War on Drugs remix "Scarlet" in celebration of the upcoming deluxe reissue of Goats Head Soup. (The original track, one of the rarities available for the first time as part of the reissue, features Jimmy Page on guitar.) Mick Jagger and War on Drugs' Adam Granduciel appeared today on Apple Music Radio to talk about the remix, the reissue and more.

"I thought that Adam might be interested in doing it," Mick told Apple Music Radio's Matt Wilkinson. "I thought he could do a good job, and make something slightly different. Because we got the original one, so I think that original classic version that we recorded with Jimmy and Keith and ... I mean, that sounds really great, but it's always good to have another take on it. So I thought Adam would do it, respecting the original, but doing something slightly different with it. And he did."

Mick then admits, "I never heard of Adam before (laughs) I never heard of War on Drugs. No, funny enough, I didn't hear the first War on Drugs album I realized. I realized that I heard the last one and the one before, I heard those two. And I always come to them a bit late with tracks like Red Eyes and Pain and things like that. So I was a bit late on it."

Adam, meanwhile, talked a little aboutnot wanting to mess the with drums too much on "Scarlett," as there was a rumor that Ginger Baker played on it. "I remember early, when the project came to me, there was talk that the original drummer was Ginger Baker from Cream. And so that was the myth for a minute. And I felt so bad that I had taken the groove and changed it. I was like, "I can't believe I messed with Ginger Baker.'" Mick called Jimmy Page, however, who told him Baker was not on the song. "He remembers everything. He says, 'No, it definitely wasn't Ginger.' And then we went to look and did some more research and we found out who it was, and he remembered everything. It was in Ronnie's basement. I said, 'Well, why wasn't Ronnie playing?' 'I don't know.' And it was at his house, but Ronnie wasn't playing. I mean, Ronnie's not the sort of person standing around not wanting to play.

The deluxe edition of Goat's Head Soup is out September 4 and there are more remixes to come -- this Friday, The Killers and Jacques Lu Cont will take a stab at "Scarlett" too. They also recently released an official video for "Scarlett" (the original version) featuring actor Paul Mescal who you may know fromhis Emmy-nominated role in terrificHulu drama Normal People. You can watch that below.

The interview also touched on what was next for The Rolling Stones, who released new song "Living in a Ghost Town" earlier this year. "The Stones were in the studio and we got some tracks that we hadn't finished. So I've been trying to finish those and do the vocals and some other parts," Mick said. "It's been a bit difficult because, I mean, we haven't really felt that we could really get together all in the same room since March.So we were supposed to get together and record, and now it's, I don't know about everyone else, but it seems still that we're in this kind of limbo, unknown situation where every week is a different thing that happens. So you just have to ... I mean, I'm just trying to work as hard as I can. I'm trying to do new songs and make good demos and things like that, and have fun and enjoy myself, and I speak to the rest of the band and stuff. But so I'm sure we'll get together as soon as we can."

You can listen to clips from the interview below.

View original post here:

Mick Jagger and The War On Drugs talk 'Goats Head Soup' reissue & more - Brooklyn Vegan

Philippines: Letter to member and observer States of the United Nations Human Rights Council – Human Rights Watch

To member and observer States of the United Nations Human Rights Council

Re: UN Human Rights Council should urgently launch an independent international investigative mechanism on the human rights situation in the Philippines

Geneva, 27 August 2020

Your Excellency,

We, the undersigned civil society organizations, write to express our continued grave concern over ongoing extrajudicial executions and other serious human rights violations in the context of the war on drugs in the Philippines, which continues to be fueled by incitement to violence and discrimination by the highest levels of government with near-total impunity. We urge your delegation to ensure that the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) responds robustly to the recent report on the situation in the Philippines by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights when it convenes for its upcoming 45th session. Specifically, we urge you to actively work towards the adoption of a resolution establishing an independent international investigative mechanism on extrajudicial executions and other human rights violations committed in the Philippines since 2016, with a view to contributing to accountability. This would be in line with clear calls by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, a group of Special Procedures, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, and national and international civil society.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights report on the Philippines, published on June 4, 2020, emphasized the need for independent, impartial and effective investigations into the killings.[1] On June 25, mandate holders from 23 Special Procedures reiterated a previous call from 2019 for the HRC to establish an on-the-ground independent, impartial investigation into human rights violations in the Philippines.[2] The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, during the interactive dialogue on the Philippines at the 44th session of the HRC, called on the HRC to consider options for international accountability measures.[3] National, regional, and international civil society groups have also repeatedly called for an international investigation. The human rights situation in the Philippines meets the objective criteria or guiding principles supported by a large cross-regional group of States at the HRC to help the Council decide, in an objective and non-selective manner, when it should take action on the human rights situation in particular countries. The annex to this letter provides details of the status of the Philippines under each criterion.

Since President Rodrigo Duterte assumed office in June 2016, the human rights situation in the Philippines has undergone a dramatic decline. Extrajudicial executions committed in the context of the war on drugs continue to take place with total impunity. The High Commissioners report found, in line with previous findings from civil society, that the killings related to the anti-drug campaign were widespread and systematic, and that at least 8,663 people had been killed, with other estimates, including from the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, of more than triple that number.

Attacks against human rights defenders and critics of the government including activists, journalists, church leaders, trade union leaders, indigenous and peasant leaders and individuals who are members of groups affiliated with the political left are frequent and persistent. Human rights defenders who have spoken out in the HRC against the war on drugs and other human rights violations have faced reprisals from the government. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) verified the killings of 208 human rights defenders, journalists and trade unionists, including 30 women, between January 2015 and December 2019.[4] More recently on 17 August gunmen shot dead Zara Alvarez, a legal worker for the human rights group Karapatan, and on 10 August assailants brutally murdered Randall Echanis, a leader of the peasant group Anakpawis and longtime activist.

The OHCHR also found that civil society organizations and the media faced constant intimidation, police raids, arbitrary arrests, criminal charges and prosecutions, and shutdowns.[5] In June 2020, a Manila court convicted for libel journalists Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos Jr., both of the news website Rappler, which had been the subject of long-running harassment and threats from the Duterte government because of its reporting on the anti-drug campaign. Most recently, in early July, the Philippine Congress most of whose members are allied with President Duterte voted to deny the renewal of the broadcast franchise of ABS-CBN, the countrys largest TV and radio network, after years of explicit threats from President Duterte in part because of its critical reporting on the war on drugs. The recently passed Anti-Terrorism Law will institutionalize the governments abuse of power and will create an environment in which attacks on civil society and media will be perpetuated. In his 2020 State of the Nation Address, President Duterte once again reiterated his intention to reimpose the death penalty. Bills to reintroduce the punishment are currently being reconsidered before Congress.

To date, there has been virtually no accountability for unlawful killings committed by police and their associates or for the other above-mentioned violations. As noted in the High Commissioners report, persistent impunity for human rights violations is stark and the practical obstacles to accessing justice within the country are almost insurmountable.[6] Families of victims express total helplessness in describing their inability to obtain justice for their loved ones, citing the enormous obstacles to filing cases, the continued difficulty of obtaining police or autopsy reports, and the immense fear of retaliation they experience. The climate of total impunity leaves police and other unidentified gunmen, widely believed to be associated with law enforcement agencies, able to commit further extrajudicial executions without consequence.

President Dutertes administration has undermined institutions that have attempted to address impunity at the national and international level and thwarted independent investigations, including in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The governments withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, following the 2018 launch of a preliminary examination into crimes against humanity allegedly committed by the Philippine government in the context of the war on drugs, shows yet another way in which the authorities have sought to evade accountability.

Not only has the government sought to evade accountability, but the President and other high-level officials have continued to encourage killings and given assurances to perpetrators that they would enjoy impunity for such killings.[7] The High Commissioners report found that rhetoric from the highest levels of the government has been pervasive and deeply damaging, and that some statements have risen to the level of incitement to violence.[8]

During the interactive dialogue at the 44th session of the HRC, the Philippine Justice Secretary announced the creation of a government panel to review more than 5,600 cases of alleged extrajudicial killings in the country.[9] Unfortunately, the Philippine government has failed to ensure this panel will be independent or impartial, notably because it will be led by the Department of Justice and will have among its members the very agencies including the Philippine National Police and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency accused of being behind these human rights violations and directly implicated in the war on drugs. Any review findings by the panel must also be evaluated and finalized by other government agencies involved in the anti-drug campaign. The well-documented fears of retaliation experienced by victims and their families in the Philippines will further undermine the credibility of government-led reviews. Accordingly, it is our organizations assessment that this panel is the latest attempt by the Duterte administration to evade international scrutiny for violations rather than a sincere attempt to put an end to these human rights violations and foster national accountability.

The HRC resolution A/HRC/41/2 on the Philippines adopted in July 2019 was an important first step to address the concerning human rights situation in the country, but a more robust response is necessary to deter further killings and other human rights violations and ensure a measure of accountability. In the absence of further Council action, the Philippine government will likely be emboldened to continue and escalate its violent anti-drug campaign and other serious rights violations, including reprisals against human rights defenders and civil society organizations, while the pervasive fear among victims and their families will only increase. Given the failure of the Philippine authorities to stop or effectively investigate crimes under international law and punish those responsible, we urge your delegation to work towards the adoption of a resolution to ensure that the Philippines remains on the agenda of the HRC and to create an independent, impartial, and effective investigation into extrajudicial executions in the context of the war on drugs and other human rights violations committed since 2016. The creation of such a mechanism is the only credible next step that the HRC can take to address the ongoing human rights crisis in the Philippines.

With assurances of our highest consideration,

[1] Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Philippines, UN Doc. A/HRC/44/22, 4 June 2020, paras 85 & 88.

[4] OHCHR Report, 4 June 2020, para 50.

[5] OHCHR Report, 4 June 2020, paras 49-59, and para 83.

[6] OHCHR report, 4 June 20020, para 83.

[7] In his 4th State of the Nation Address on 27 July 2020, President Duterte used human rights language to justify his war on drugs and violations seen under his administration. The President also threatened to kill suspected drug offenders, warning that he will be the enemy of criminals who harm the public, saying bodies will pile up if they return to their ways. In this context, the announcement that the Government will launch a domestic investigation at HRC44 lacks any kind of credibility.

[8] OHCHR Report, 4 June 2020, para 77.

Link:

Philippines: Letter to member and observer States of the United Nations Human Rights Council - Human Rights Watch

Is What’s Happening in the Philippines a Genocide? – TalkingDrugs

Just over two years ago, I found myself upstairs of a seedy karaoke bar on the northeast outskirts of Manila. Sat opposite me was a man dressed all in black, with a black balaclava and a backpack with a bullet hanging off one of the zippers. Midway through our meeting he reached into his backpack, pulled out a handgun and laid it on the table. Keep that friggin barrel away from me, I thought.

This man was a hired killer, paid by a higher power to do their dirty work.

Yes, we have a lot of jobs in during Dutertes time, almost every day but not killing every day, sometimes I just drive up on a motorbike to verify the target, he said. No, I dont feel guilty because they are criminals. I have no problem killing them. Every time theres a job I get paid and treat my friends. We dont have any problems with any other group because no-one knows about us. Our boss is an army general, military, so we are protected.

Im an ex-convict-turned-writer, born in Russia but living in the UK. It occurred to me that growing up in Europe was an accident of birth: if I was brought up here, in the slums of Manila, it could have been me staring down the barrel of his gun. In 2013 I was convicted by Her Majestys court and served 2 years for pushing pot to my fellow students; in the Philippines, as of 2019 as many as 29,000 suspected users and dealers might have been slain in a bloody war on drugs.

It all started four years ago. Rodrigo Duterte, aka Duterte Harry or the Punisher, is a cartoon villain the leader of the Philippines who got voted into office in June 2016 on the tough-on-crime ticket. Duterte was a political outsider, claiming he stood for the common man while rubbing shoulders with the elites. He represented hope to a nation battered by typhoons, war, crime, corruption and poverty. Anyone unhappy with the status quo could vote for him. And they did.

To be sure, the Philippines had a crime problem. Many lived in extreme poverty, turning to drugs as an escape or to make a living. Kingpins controlled entire barangays (neighbourhoods) protected by police and politicians, who were often elbow-deep in the business themselves. Foreign crime syndicates, including Chinese triads and Mexican narcos, were involved.

Filipinos had had enough and were looking for someone to blame: those people were people who use drugs, which in the Philippines usually means either weed or crystal meth (shabu). These are the people, Duterte says, which cause all the trouble. His answer was to kill them all.

"Do the lives of 10 of these criminals really matter?" he said. "If I am the one facing all this grief, would 100 lives of these idiots mean anything to me?"

Ostensibly, the campaign against drugs began with Project Tokhang or knock and plead, where police went door-to-door like heavily-armed Jehovahs Witnesses and begged suspects to change their ways. What this meant in practise is if you got one of those house calls, and youre not lucky enough to be herded into an overpacked prison, it meant youre on a list and the authorities know where you are.

The first way to die is what they call a buy-bust operation: that is, an undercover agent or a stool pigeon comes up to you and tries to score. Next thing you know, youve had your brains redecorate the wall and the officers inevitably find a firearm or a sachet of meth to cover up whatever it is theyre doing.

More common are the mysterious, vigilante-style killings carried out by those like the man in the balaclava. Originally, death squads executed communist rebels in a ruthless, Latin American-style counterinsurgency during the Cold War. Now, the same tactics have been turned on people who use drugs. Hitmen on the polices payroll, or sometimes the police themselves, aim to reduce the number of Filipinos taking drugs admittedly, by reducing the number of Filipinos.

The anti-drug campaign encourages barangays to submit lists of drug users, and the profiles of a lot of those arrested are also submitted to the government, Jacqueline Ann De Guia, public affairs officer for the Commission on Human Rights, told me. Its not uncommon to hear those who died were originally part of the surrenderees or on lists from communities. Theres a lack of guarantee from the police and people can use it to get back at their enemies. Intelligence-gathering is a police not community function.

In other words, even if youve already handed yourself in and admitted using or selling, that wont save you. Youre much more likely to meet your maker if youre poor: Dutertes admitted the millionaires snorting white lines on their yachts arent his primary targets. Its shabu, the poor mans cocaine, thats the scourge of society.

"A year or more of shabu use would shrink the brain of a person and therefore he is no longer viable for rehabilitation," Duterte told his officers.

Walking around Manila, watching everyone crowding into jeepneys (redecorated army trucks from WWII) and tuk-tuks, going about their day, if you hadnt read the news you wouldnt even know there was anything going on. The murder of tens of thousands of men, women and even children is outrageously evil by any standards, but there might be something even more sinister happening here.

No-one wants to be known as that guy who tried to wipe out entire nations Hitler ruined that for everyone so they fall back on semantics as their last line of defence. Turkey prefers calling what it did to Armenians mass killings, as if that makes forced marches through the desert any less bad. So ideas on what exactly constitutes genocide vary. Drug users are not an ethnic, religious or sexual minority, but does that really matter? Mass murders by communist regimes such as the Khmer Rouge or far-right juntas in Argentina and Indonesia are often described as genocides, but most of their victims were picked for their supposed political beliefs.

You could say that unlike your race or sexuality, using prohibited pick-me-ups is a choice. But theres a few problems with that. First of all, its debatable how much choice someone seriously addicted actually has (as anyone whos tried quitting smoking will attest). Then theres a hint of the rape apologists mentality: so-and-so led an immoral lifestyle, and they had it coming. Its true of course that a small number of users (acting on chemical influence or desperation) harm themselves and others, but most do not I certainly didnt know many. When that is the case, if youre despised and treated like a criminal, is it really surprising when you succumb to the label? Meanwhile, the majority of drug-related homicides arent committed by methed-up lunatics on a rampage, but gangsters settling business. Most people just sit around getting high wasting time perhaps, but not causing trouble. The war on drugs is like a dictator putting down a revolt, massacring innocent villagers because a few of their neighbours were rebels.

Many genocides or mass killings, crimes against humanity, whatever you want to call them follow a similar pattern, which we can see not only in the Philippines but the war on drugs across the globe:

To be clear: what's happening in the Philippines is not even close to the butchery of Rwanda or the horrors of the Holocaust. But it also fits the pattern. Liketyrants across the world, Dutertes found himself a group no-one cares about on whom he could blame all of societys ills. His us vs them rhetoric has singled out drug users as vile lowlifes that must be exterminated.

If I become president, there would be no such thing as bloodless cleansing, he promised in a campaign speech. My God, I hate drugs. And I have to kill people because I hate drugs.

Drug users are an easy target because few of us make a distinction between casual use and addiction (though wed make that distinction between having a glass of wine in the evening and full-blown alcoholism), or ask why those suffering from addiction do they things they do. Its much easier to blame a sinister force - dope, cartoonishly evil pushers, or an individuals poor choices - than deal with the issues of poverty, hopelessness and social exclusion. A lot of those so-called addicts are compensating for serious mental illness or trauma, so accusing them of being lowlifes and freaks isnt helping.

But neither are they inherently weak individuals, implying their deaths are the result of well-deserved, Nazi-like social Darwinism. The peoples champ, Manny Pacquiao, has admitted trying every substance under the sun, but had he been doing that now he may not have lived long enough to be the hero we all know and love. What if it was your brother, your sister, your daughter thats next? Oh sure, I know they wouldn't do such a thing", but hey, I was top of my class and look where I ended up.

Most arent even criminals. None of my customers used to steal. Those that do, steal because they need money. You know who else steals because they need money? A lot of crime is rooted in inequality. Shall we go around blasting everyone under minimum wage? If you can't produce a bank statement POW, sucker! Drunkards cause a lot of trouble too, while the drink slowly destroys their bodies. hey you with the Coors Light! BANG!!!

In fact the serious crime rate in the Philippines, as in most of the world, had been dropping over the past few years, falling 26% in 2014 under President Aquino. By contrast under Duterte, the murder rate climbed ridiculously high, jumping to 3,760 in the first three months of his term compared to 2,359 that same time in 2015. The whole war on drugs was based on false pretences. And yet.

Hitler massacred three million [sic] Jews, Duterte once said at a press conference. Now, there are three million drug addicts. Id be happy to slaughter them.

This demi-Fhrer is in charge of a country of 100 million people.

But Filipinos dont seem to mind. In a survey last year, 82% said they were happy with the anti-drug bloodbath. Its not so much Dutertes whipped them up into a frenzy as on this poor, conservative, Catholic island; the idea of compassion to drug users, which took a long time to get going even in liberal countries, simply doesnt cross the public mind. That and the crime rate has fallen (again), which begs the question: how many summary executions does it take to stop getting your iPhone nicked?

Its the only way, sir, one of my fixers told me. Before, you couldnt walk down this street at night.

OK, Dutertes terrified the muggers into staying home. But its not muggers specifically that drew his ire its shabu users and sellers, one or two of whom incidentally may have been muggers but the rest of whom would have been innocent.

Colonel Romeo Caramat was a police chief north of Manila when 32 people were killed over a single bloody day in 2017.

Shock and awe definitely did not work, he told Reuters in an interview. Drug supply is still rampant.

Caramat estimates that hundreds died while he was chief at Bulacan and though many resisted arrest, they were all low-level dealers or users. While theres less crime overall than there was before, the dope supplys as consistent as ever. When 370 kilos of meth were found in a Chinese drug lords flat, it turned out that was just the leftovers he had tonnes stashed elsewhere. Seizures rarely count as successes for every five kilos intercepted, theres fifty kilos going another way. They make a good photo-op for the cops, though.

In November 2019, Duterte appointed his fierce political rival, Vice President Leni Robredo, as co-chair of the Inter-Agency Committee Against Illegal Drugs(ICAD), giving her access to classified reports and the power to change policy, after she said his strategy wasnt working. Prove it, he said. She produced a report, using the polices own data, that over the past three years only 1% of the nations shabu supply and the dirty cash from its sales had been taken out of circulation. Duterte fired her after three weeks.

In other words, theres been no quantifiable victory in the campaign, and a ruthless leader slaughtered 30k of his own people to win a popularity contest. Even in the era of coronavirus, the slaughter continues and Duterte is now under investigation for crimes against humanity. Guys, mass killings of vulnerable people who need help because a few might have broken the law will not be looked upon kindly in the history books. After the Holocaust the world said, Never again. But this time, the world doesnt seem to care.

* Niko Vorobyov is a government-certified (convicted) drug dealer turned writer and author of the book Dopeworld, about the international drug trade. You can follow him on Twitter @Lemmiwinks_III

Read the original post:

Is What's Happening in the Philippines a Genocide? - TalkingDrugs

Breaking the Bloody Mexican Drug Cartels – Reason

When the Mexican legislature meets this fall, it is poised to pass a marijuana legalization bill. The legislation will legalize cannabis for all usesrecreational, medical, industrialand will create a Mexican Cannabis Institute to grant licenses for the cultivation, processing, sale, import, export, and research of marijuana. The country's president and ruling political party have both endorsed the initiative, and it has already been approved by three Senate committees.

The bill's backers hope it will curb the influence of Mexico's drug cartels. Marijuana accounts for upwards of half of the cartels' revenues, which are estimated to range between $20 and $50 billion dollars annually.

The past year has been the bloodiest yet in Mexico's war against the cartels. When security forces in the city of Culiacan tried to arrest the son of drug lord El Chapo Guzmn in October 2019, they found themselves outnumbered and outgunned by the Sinaloa Cartel. In June, gangsters ambushed Mexico City's police chief with 400 rounds of ammunition from semi-automatic rifles; in July, cartel gunmen massacred 26 residents of a drug rehab center in Guanajuato.

In the past decade, Mexico has suffered 250,000 homicides because of the drug war. Whole swaths of the country are now controlled by organized crime, including the states of Guerrero, Michoacan, Morelos, and Tamaulipas. The Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) has killed more than 100 officials in the state of Jalisco alone, including federal, state, and local policemen, soldiers, mayors, and city council members. In June, it killed a federal judge and his wife. A U.S. Army Intelligence report estimates that over a six-year period, 150,000 of the Mexican army's 250,000 soldiers deserted, finding higher wages in the drug industry.

As Mexico's president from 2000 to 2006, Vicente Fox was a dutiful foot soldier in Washington's War on Drugs. But now Fox has been telling Time magazine that we should end prohibition "to take all the production chain out of the hands of criminals."

Drugs, Fox added, are "bad for your health, and you shouldn't take them. But, ultimately, this is the responsibility [of] citizens."

Fox has been for legalization for a while. "We should look at it as a strategy to strike at and break the economic structure that allows gangs to generate huge profits in their trade, which fuels corruption and increases their areas of power," he wrote from his ranch in 2010. A decade later, he hopes this marijuana bill will be the first step toward legalizing all drugs.

Mexico is the latest in a series of Latin American countries to reject the U.S.'s approach to drug policy. Uruguay sits on a transit route for marijuana and cocaine. When Jose Mujica was elected president there in 2009, he cast a wary eye on the drug cartels that had taken control of nearby Paraguay. He knew they could easily seize Uruguay as well.

One of Mujica's first initiatives was to legalize marijuana, anticipating that all drugs might eventually follow. Latin American presidents had held back from legalization out of fear of retaliation by the United States. But by this time, several states in the U.S. had liberalized their marijuana laws. That helped give Latin Americans cover to opt out of the drug war themselves.

In 2009, the Argentine Supreme Court declared in a landmark ruling that it was unconstitutional to prosecute citizens for possessing drugs for their personal use. And in 2012, Colombia's president, Juan Manuel Santos, suggested that the legalization of all drugs might be in order. Two years later, his country eased its prohibitionist stance by ceasing aerial fumigation of the coca crop. Four years after that, Colombia's Constitutional Court legalized recreational cannabis.

The insurgencies that have terrorized Colombia for decades have all been fueled by the illegal drug trade, says Daniel Raisbeck, who ran for mayor of Bogot, Colombia, in 2015 and is a senior fellow at the Reason Foundation (which publishes this magazine). In 1979, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) were militarily irrelevant, with a rag-tag army of around 800 troops. But in 1982, it made the strategic decision to take part in the drug trade. The FARC very quickly became very rich. By the end of the 1990s, it had around 20,000 troops.

Raisbeck himself lost a family member when the Medelln Cartel shot down a Boeing 727 passenger aircraft in 1989 in an attempt to assassinate a presidential candidate who was supposed to be on board. "This was but one of the many senseless, ruthless, and vicious acts of terror that I remember from my childhood," Raisbeck wrote in 2014.

Pedro Trujillo, a professor of international relations at Universidad Francisco Marroqun in Guatemala City, lost two brothers to heroin overdoses. Trujillo thinks they might have been alive to this day if there had been clinics where his brothers could take safe, legal doses of the drug while getting addiction counseling. Trujillo proposes "legalization in combination with education about the dangers of drug use."

Latin America's wave of support for legalization comes at a time when there is growing skepticism in the United States about the drug war's efficacy, even among conservative lawmakers. In 2019, 91 Republicans joined 229 Democrats to pass legislation that gave marijuana businesses full access to the American banking system.

The drug war's beneficiaries have been armed criminals, from the FARC to the Mexican cartels to the Taliban. When Prohibition ended in 1933, so did much of the criminal violence that haunted the United States during the Prohibition era. Latin Americans have good reason to think the same thing will happen in their countries if they end narco-prohibition.

See the original post here:

Breaking the Bloody Mexican Drug Cartels - Reason

EDITORIAL: Legal pot to the rescue? – York Dispatch

Dispatch Editorial Board Published 12:06 p.m. ET Aug. 26, 2020

James MacWilliams prunes a marijuana plant that he is growing indoors in Portland, Maine. Photo By Robert F. Bukaty(Photo: Associated Press)

Marijuana legalization in the U.S. hasfor yearsbeenone economic downturn from widespread adoption.

Enter the coronavirus.

Gov. Tom Wolf's call Tuesday for the legalization of recreational pot certainly wasn't a shocker. Wolf's said that before and his lieutenant governor, John Fetterman, is an outright advocate for legalized weed.

Fetterman's lobbying effort is rightly focused on the egregiously disproportionate effect marijuana enforcement has had on Black and brown communities.

Seemingly every available data set only reinforces Fetterman's argument: The criminalization of marijuana justified decades ago throughracist tropes and fear mongering forces minorities, who don't use the drug more than white Americans,into the criminal justice system at rates that are neither acceptable nor reasonable.

More: A windfall or up in smoke?: Revenue picture hazy for states looking to legalize marijuana

More: 'End ... this ridiculous and racist war on cannabis': Closer Look

The War on Drugs, perhaps by design, targets Black communities.

But the strongest argument isn't always the most politically viable.

Wolf's claim Tuesday focusing solely on the potential tax boon should the economically battered state legalize recreational marijuana use tugs at Republicans' purse strings and, thereby, their supposed Reaganistic sensibilities.

What's yet to be seen is if Republicans, owners of the state Legislature, actually meant all the bluster about "financial responsibility" and "balanced budgets."

State revenues plunged following Wolf's mandated business shutdowns. The 2019-20 budget, a once promising financial cycle, closed in July with a$3.2 billion shortfall, reported Spotlight PA. And to say the piecemeal reopening has been sluggish would be an understatement.

Gov. Tom Wolf talks with a group during his press conference at PA CareerLink in York Tuesday, July 28, 2020. Wolf was highlighting the importance of job-finding resources in light of the unemployment cause by the COVID-19 outbreak in the state. Bill Kalina photo(Photo: Bill Kalina, The York Dispatch)

Wolf's Republican opponents in the Legislature have blasted his closure orders, and his use of executive power, largely because the damage done to business and industry.

At least, on this point, everyone can agree that the financial effects are widespread and could, much like the 2008 market crash, do lasting damage to Pennsylvania's budget.

Like a man on a carrot-loving mule, Wolf on Tuesday dangled an estimated $90 million in front of Republicans' collective noses. What's yet to be seen is just how stubborn lawmakers really are.

It's likely the responses from the legislative majority will be at one time predictable and tired. They'll talk about "the children," while moving to ax key social programs. They'll distort studies about traffic fatalities, which remain inconclusive, in Colorado and Washington state, where marijuana has for years been legal. They'll roll out leaders of police organizations who, for decades, have made a cottage industry out of"educating" children about drug use through fear and hyperbole instead of facts and reason.

And they'll score a point with the lack of available road-side sobrietytesting available to officers conducting traffic stops.

But, at he end of the day, Pennsylvania makes no bones about taxing its peoples' vices. Casinos, booze and cigarettes are obvious examples.

Relative to those three sins, marijuana seems tame.

That's not to say pot is without its downfalls. Smoking it is carcinogenic, researchers say. Its use could have long-lasting effects on young brains, studies suggest.

But anyone who believesmarijuana isn't already widely available and easily accessible should go bridge shopping in Brooklyn.

Society has given up on the failed drug war of the past 60 years. Most Americans realize that marijuana's pitfalls are minor next to the other vices society already accepts, and the costs of enforcement are too high.

And, frankly, the state needs the cash.

Read or Share this story: https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/editorials/2020/08/26/editorial-legal-pot-rescue/3442081001/

Continue reading here:

EDITORIAL: Legal pot to the rescue? - York Dispatch

Britte McBride stepping down from Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, hopes her legacy will be in crea – MassLive.com

Britte McBride is stepping down from her seat on the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, saying that she feels it is the right time to assess her next steps.

I took this appointment to contribute to the establishment of a sound regulatory structure for the state and Im really proud of the work that weve done, but after a lot of thought it just feels like its the right time for me to step back and to assess what my next step is going to be, McBride told MassLive in an interview Thursday. You kind of step back occasionally and assess where you are and for me, its that moment in time.

McBride, who holds the public safety seat on the commission, which regulates Massachusetts marijuana industry, said shell now explore her options and does not have a specific opportunity lined up.

Im really passionate about public policy, I love being a problem solver and I get a lot of joy out of the challenge of building things, which is why this job really spoke to me and why this appointment, I think, really fit with who I am professionally, McBride said. It was something novel and challenging and there were certainly a lot of problems that needed to be solved and a lot of issues that needed to be addressed, so I dont know what the next thing is going to be but Im hoping Ill land on something that combines those elements.

An exact date for McBrides departure is not yet clear, but it could be in October. The commissioner said she is committed to staying on until the current regulatory process is complete and until the seat former commissioner Kay Doyle left earlier this year is filled.

McBride said she feels her biggest contribution to the commission has been in the creation of a regulatory framework.

At the earliest stages of drafting those regulations alongside Commissioner Doyle, that provided the foundation that we have only built upon, she said. That framework does things like prioritizing public safety, it does things like mitigating perceived risks, which I think lends credibility and trust in our legalized market.

The commissioner said she hopes her legacy in the role will be in taking a balanced approach to creating public policy.

Im hoping that I helped to ensure the safety of patients, consumers and employees, McBride said.

But, I also hope that moving forward, as people look at what were doing from a regulatory perspective, McBride continued, I just I really truly believe that by implementing a comprehensive regulatory structure, as weve done, that were promoting an industry thats responsible, its sustainable and durable, and thats really important because that industry in Massachusetts will be able to pivot with minimum pain when the day comes that federal legalization happens and I think that the day probably is coming when federal legalization will happen.

Before being appointed to the commission, McBride previously served as legal counsel to the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety within the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, deputy counsel to the Massachusetts Senate, and spent seven years as an assistant attorney general in the Attorney Generals office, where she also served as chief of the Policy and Government Division. Shes a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross and Suffolk University Law School.

The office of Attorney General Maura Healey appointed McBride to the commission in 2017. Her term on the commission was slated to end next year.

Doyle, who left the commission in May, had a term slated to end days from now on Aug. 31. That is also the day Commissioner Shaleen Titles term ends.

Titles role on the commission is appointed by a majority vote of the governor, attorney general and treasurer and receiver. The appointing authorities recently had applications open for the governance and social justice seats on the commission, with a due date of Aug. 25. The Cannabis Control Commission on Thursday did not have further information about Titles seat.

Commissioner Jennifer Flanagans term expires Aug. 31, 2021, and Chairman Steven Hoffmans term runs through Aug. 31, 2022.

McBride said she hopes the public safety seat will be filled by someone with high ethical standards, who brings perspective to the role and is able to work collaboratively.

I hope that its somebody that picks up the mantle of making sure that public safety and public health is a priority and is reflected throughout our regulations and I clearly believe that the attorney general is going to put somebody into this seat who will carry forth that methodology and that philosophy, she said.

Looking ahead, there is more work to be done in terms of public safety and the marijuana industry broadly. McBride said she would like to see the creation of a state standards laboratory for testing, the development of specialized coursework at higher education institutions with scholarships and more incubator spaces.

McBride had been looking at the creation of a task force to address sales of marijuana in the traditional market and hopes it will remain a priority with creative thinking on how to address the issue.

When the commissioners were first appointed in 2017, they shared a borrowed office space and started to build the regulatory agency from the ground up. Today, the commission has a headquarters in Worcesters historic Union Station and is an agency of around 65 employees. The states legal marijuana industry has generated more than $122 million in tax revenue in its first two years.

McBride said she feels the commission has put into place one of the most comprehensive regulatory structures of any state with legal marijuana, working to address the illicit market by adopting policies like a marijuana delivery license. Applications for that license became available earlier this year and are currently limited to applicants who have been disproportionately affected by the war on drugs.

While the contributions so far have been significant, McBride said she feels its time for new voices to be added to the conversations.

McBride said shes enjoyed meeting and talking with people through her role on the commission, as well as working closely with colleagues.

I would be remiss if I didnt call out the hard work and the fair-mindedness of the people that make up this commission and just the joy of working with them, she said. Its been a learning experience and I will always treasure it.

Related Content:

See more here:

Britte McBride stepping down from Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, hopes her legacy will be in crea - MassLive.com

Attack of the tomato killers: The Police State’s war on weed and backyard gardens – Augusta Free Press

By John W. Whitehead

They came again this morning at about 8:00 oclock. A large cargo-type helicopter flew low over the cabin, shaking it on its very foundations. It shook all of us inside, too. I feel frightened I see how helpless and tormented I am becoming with disgust and disillusionment with the government which has turned this beautiful country into a police state I feel like I am in the middle of a war zone.Journal entry from a California resident describing the governments aerial searches for marijuana plants

Backyard gardeners, beware: tomato plants have become collateral damage in the governments war on drugs, especially marijuana.

In fact, merely growing a vegetable garden on your own property, or in a greenhouse on your property, orshopping at a gardening storefor gardening suppliesincredibly enoughcould set you up for a drug raidsanctioned by the courts.

Its happened before.

After shopping for hydroponic tomatoes at their local gardening store, a Kansas family found themselves subjected to a SWAT team raid as part of a multi-state, annual campaign dubbed Operation Constant Gardener, in whichpolice collected the license plates of hundreds of customers at the gardening storeand then investigated them for possible marijuana possession.

By investigated, I mean that police searched through the familys trash. (You can thank the Supreme Court and their1978 ruling inCalifornia v. Greenwoodfor allowing police to invade your trash can.) Finding wet glob vegetation in the garbage, the cops somehow managed to convince themselvesand a judgethat it was marijuana.

In fact, it was loose-leaf tea, but those pesky details dont usually bother the cops when theyre conducting field tests.

Indeed, field tests routinely read positive for illegal drugs even when no drugs are present. According to investigative journalist Radley Balko, its almost as if these tests come up positive whenever the police need them to.A partial list of substances that the tests have mistaken for illegal drugs would include sage, chocolate chip cookies, motor oil, spearmint, soap, tortilla dough, deodorant, billiards chalk, patchouli, flour, eucalyptus, breath mints, Jolly Ranchers and vitamins.

Theres a long list of innocent ingredients that could be mistaken for drugs and get you subjected to a raid, because thats all it takesjust the barest whiff of a suspicion by police that you might be engaged in criminal activityto start the ball rolling.

From there, these so-called investigations followthe usual script: judge issues a warrant for a SWAT raid based on botched data, cops raid the home and terrorize the family at gunpoint, cops find no drugs, family sues over a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, and then the courts protect the cops and their botched raid on the basis of qualified immunity.

It happens all the time.

As Balko reports, Police have broken down doors, screamed obscenities, andheld innocent people at gunpoint only to discover that what they thought were marijuana plants were really sunflowers, hibiscus, ragweed, tomatoes, or elderberry bushes. (Its happened with all five.)

Surely, you might think, the government has enough on its hands right nowpolicing a novel coronavirus pandemic, instituting nationwide lockdowns, quelling civil unrests over police brutalitythat it doesnt need to waste time and resources ferreting out pot farmers.

Youd be wrong.

This is a government that excels at make-work projects in which it assigns at-times unnecessary jobs to government agents to keep them busy or employed.

In this case, however, the make-work principle (translation: making work to keep the police state busy at taxpayer expense) is being used to justify sending police and expensive military helicopterslikely equipped with sophisticated surveillance and thermal imaging devicesonexploratory sorties every summeragain at taxpayer expensein order to uncover illegal marijuana growing operations.

Often, however, what these air and ground searches end up targeting are backyard gardeners growing tomato plants.

Just recently, in fact, eyewitnesses in Virginia reported low-flying black helicopters buzzing over rural and suburban neighborhoods as part of a multi-agency operation to search for marijuana growers. Oftentimes thesejoint operations involve local police, state police and the Army National Guard.

One woman reported having her tomato plants complimented by the 7 cops that pulled up in my yard in unmarked SUVs, after a helicopter hovered over our house for 20 minutes this morning. Another man reported a similar experience from a few years ago when police showed up inunmarked SUVs with guns pulled. Then the cops on the ground argued with the helicopter because the heat signature in the copter didnt match what was growing.

Back in 2013, an aerial surveillance mission spotted what police thought might be marijuana plants. Two days later, dozens of city officials, SWAT team, police officers and code compliance employees, and numerous official vehicles including dozens of police cars and several specialized vehicular equipment, including helicopters and unmanned flying drones, descended on The Garden of Eden, a 3.5-acre farm in Arlington, Texas, for a10-hour raid in search of marijuanathat turned up nothing more than tomato, blackberry and okra plants.

These aerial and ground sweeps have become regular occurrences across the country, part of the governments multi-million dollar Domestic Cannabis Eradication Program. Local cops refer to the annual military maneuvers as Eradication Day.

Started in 1979 as a way tofund local efforts to crack down on marijuana growersin California and Hawaii, the Eradication Programwent national in 1985, right around the time the Reagan Administrationenabled the armed forces to get more involved in the domestic war on drugs.

Writing forThe Washington Post, Radley Balko describes how these raids started off, with the National Guard, spy planes and helicopters:

The project was called the Campaign Against Marijuana Production, or CAMP In all, thirteen California counties were invaded by choppers, some of them blaring Wagners Ride of the Valkyries as they dropped Guardsmen and law enforcement officers armed with automatic weapons, sandviks, and machetes into the fields of California In CAMPs first year, the program conducted 524 raids, arrested 128 people, and seized about 65,000 marijuana plants. Operating costs ran at a little over $1.5 million. The next year, 24 more sheriffs signed up for the program, for a total of 37. CAMP conducted 398 raids, seized nearly 160,000 plants, and made 218 arrests at a cost to taxpayers of $2.3 million.

The areas larger growers had been put out of business (or, probably more accurately, had set up shop somewhere else), so by the start of the second campaign in 1984, CAMP officials were already targeting increasingly smaller growers. By the end of that 1984 campaign, the helicopters had to fly at lower and lower altitudes to spot smaller batches of plants. The noise, wind, and vibration from the choppers could knock out windows, kick up dust clouds, and scare livestock. The officials running the operation made no bones about the paramilitary tactics they were using.They considered the areas they were raiding to be war zones.In the interest of officer safety, they gave themselves permission to search any structures relatively close to a marijuana supply, without a warrant. Anyone coming anywhere near a raid operation was subject to detainment, usually at gunpoint.

Right around the same time, in the mid-1980s, the federal government started handing out grants to local police departments to assist with their local boots-on-the-ground war on drugs. These grants (through the Byrne Grant program and COPS program, both of which started to be phased out under George W. Bush, only to be re-upped by Barack Obama) could be used to pay for additional police personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance and information systems. However, studies show that while these federal grantsdid not improve police effectiveness or drug deterrence, they did incentivize SWAT team raids.

But how do you go from a war on drugs to SWAT-style raids on vegetable gardens?

Connect the dots, starting with the governments war on marijuana, the emergence of SWAT teams, the militarization of local police forces through the federal 1033 Program, which allows the Pentagon to transfer vast amounts of military equipmentmachine guns and ammunition, helicopters, night-vision gear, armored carsto local police departments, and the transformation of American communities into battlefields: as always, it comes back to the make work principle, which starts with local police finding ways to justify the use of military equipment and federal funding.

Each year, thegovernment spends between $14 and $18 million funding helicopter sweeps and police overtime to help the states track down illegal marijuana plants. These sweeps are even beingcarried out in states where its now legalto grow marijuana.

The sweeps work like this: Local police, working with multiple state agencies including the National Guard, carry out ground and air searches of different sectors.Air spotters flying overhead in helicopters relay their findings to police on the ground, who then carry out a search-and-destroy mission.

Mark my words: the use of police drones will make these kinds of aerial missions even more common.

For the most part, aerial surveillance is legal. As Arthur Holland Michel writes forThe Atlantic: When it comes to law enforcement,police are likewise free to use aerial surveillance without a warrant or special permission. Under current privacy law, these operations are just as legal as policing practices whereby an officer spots unlawful activity while walking or driving through a neighborhood.

There have been a few notable exceptions.

In 2015, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled thatsurveillance from a low-flying helicopter conducting an aerial search for marijuana by state police and the national guard was illegalunder the U.S. Constitution. The court reasoned that when low-flying aerial activity leads to more than just observation and actually causes an unreasonable intrusion on the groundmost commonly from an unreasonable amount of wind, dust, broken objects, noise, and sheer panicthen at some point courts are cand require a warrant before law enforcement engages in such activity. The Fourth Amendment and its prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures demands no less.

In Philip Cobbs case, helicopter spotters claimed to have seen two lone marijuana plants growing in the wreckage of a fallen oak tree on the Virginia natives 39-acre family farm.

Cobbs noticed the black helicopter circling overhead while spraying the blueberry bushes near his house. After watching the helicopter for several moments, Cobbs went inside to check on his blind, deaf 90-year-old mother. By the time he returned outside,several unmarked police SUVs had driven onto his property, and police (ten in all) in flak jackets, carrying semi-automatic weapons and shouting unintelligibly, had exited the vehiclesand were moving toward him.

Of course, it was never about the two pot plants.

What the cops were really after wasan excuse to search Cobbs little greenhouse, which he had used that spring to start tomato plants, cantaloupes, and watermelons, as well as asters and hollyhocks, which he planned to sell at a roadside stand near his home. The search of the greenhouse turned up nothing more than used tomato seedling containers.

Nevertheless, police charged Cobbs with misdemeanor possession of marijuana for the two plants they claimed to have found. Eventually, the charges were dismissed but not beforeThe Rutherford Institute took up Cobbs case, which revealed that police hadnt even bothered to secure a warrant before embarking on their raid of Cobbs propertya raid that had to cost taxpayers upwards of $25,000, at the very leastpart of their routine sweep of the countryside in search of pot-growing operations.

Two plants or two hundred or no plants at all: it doesnt matter.

A SWAT team targeted one South Carolina man for selling $50 worth of pot on two different occasions.The Washington Postreports: The SWAT team broke down Bettons door with a battering ram, then fired at least 57 bullets at him, hitting him nine times. He lost portions of his gallbladder, colon, bowel and rectum, and is paralyzed from the waist down. He also suffered damage to his liver, lung, small intestine and pancreas. Two of his vertebrae were damaged, and another was partially destroyed. Another bullet shattered his leg. After security footage showed that most of what police said about the raid was a lie, the copssettled the case for $2.75 million.

Monetary awards like that are the exception, however.

Most of the time, the cops get away with murder and mayhem. Literally.

Bottom line: no amount of marijuana is too insignificant if it allows police to qualify for federal grants and equipment and lay claim to seized assets (theres the profit motive) under the guise of fighting the War on Drugs.

SWAT teams carry outmore than 80,000 no-knock raids every year. The vast majority of these raids are to serveroutine drug warrants, many times for crimes no more serious than possession of marijuana.

Although growing numbers of states continue to decriminalize marijuana use and9 out of 10 Americans favor the legalization of either medical or recreational/adult-use marijuana, the governments profit-driven War on Drugswaged with state and local police officers dressed in SWAT gear, armed to the hilt, and trained to act like soldiers on a battlefield, all thanks to funding provided by the U.S. government, particularly the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)has not abated.

Since the formation of the DHS post-9/11, hundreds of billions of dollars in grants have flowed to local police departments for SWAT teams, giving rise to a police industrial complex that routinely devastates communities, terrorizes families, and destroys innocent lives.

No longer reserved exclusively for deadly situations,SWAT teams are now increasingly being deployed for relatively routine police matters, with some SWAT teams being sent out as much as five times a day. Nationwide, SWAT teams have been employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances: angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a brief sampling.

Unfortunately, general incompetence, collateral damage (fatalities, property damage, etc.) and botched raids tend to go hand in hand with an overuse of paramilitary forces.

In some cases, officers misread the address on the warrant. In others, they simply barge into the wrong house or even the wrong building. In another subset of cases, police conduct a search of a building where the suspect no longer resides.

SWAT teams have even on occasion conducted multiple, sequential raids on wrong addresses or executed search warrants despite the fact that the suspect is already in police custody. Police have also raided homes on the basis of mistaking the presence or scent of legal substances for drugs. Incredibly, these substances have included tomatoes, sunflowers, fish, elderberry bushes, kenaf plants, hibiscus, and ragweed.

All too often, the shock-and-awe tactics utilized by many SWAT teams only increases the likelihood that someone will get hurt with little consequences for law enforcement, even when the raids are botched.

Botched SWAT team raids have resulted in the loss of countless lives, including children and the elderly. Usually, however, the first to be shot are the family dogs.

SWAT raids are usually carried out late at night or shortly before dawn. Unfortunately, to the unsuspecting homeownerespecially in cases involving mistaken identities or wrong addressesa raid can appear to be nothing less than a violent home invasion, with armed intruders crashing through their door.

Thats exactly what happened toJose Guerena, the young ex-Marine who was killed after a SWAT team kicked open the door of his Arizona home during a drug raid and opened fire. According to news reports, Guerena, 26 years old and the father of two young children, grabbed a gun in response to the forced invasion but never fired. In fact, the safety was still on his gun when he was killed. Police officers were not as restrained. The young Iraqi war veteran was allegedly fired upon 71 times. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home.

The problems inherent in these situations are further compounded by the fact that SWAT teams are granted no-knock warrants at high rates such that the warrants themselves are rendered practically meaningless.

This sorry state of affairs is made even worse by U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have essentiallydone away with the need for a no-knock warrant altogether, giving the police authority to disregard the protections afforded American citizens by the Fourth Amendment.

Clearly, as I make clear in my bookBattlefield America: The War on the American People,something must be done.

When the war on drugsa.k.a. the war on the American peoplebecomes little more than a thinly veiled attempt to keep SWAT teams employed and special interests appeased, its time to revisit our drug policies and laws.

You take the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, all the rights you expect to havewhen they come in like that, the only right you have is not to get shot if you cooperate.They open that door, your life is on the line, concluded Bob Harte, whose home was raided by a SWAT team simply because the family was seen shopping at a garden store, cops found loose tea in the familys trash and mistook it for marijuana.

Our family will never be the same, said Addie Harte, recalling the two-hour raid that had police invading their suburban home with a battering ram and AR-15 rifles. AsThe Washington Postreports:

Bob found himself flat on floor, hands behind his head, his eyes locked on the boots of the officer standing over him with an AR-15 assault rifle. Are there kids? the officers were yelling. Where are the kids? And Im laying there staring at this guys boots fearing for my kids lives, trying to tell them where my children are, Harte recalled later in a deposition on July 9, 2015. They are sending these guys with their guns drawn running upstairs to bust into my childrens house, bedroom, wake them out of bed.

It didnt matter that no drugs were foundnothing but a hydroponic tomato garden and loose tea leaves. The search and SWAT raid were reasonable, according to the courts.

Theres a lesson here for the rest of us. As Bob Harte concluded: If this can happen to us, everybody in the country needs to be afraid.

Follow this link:

Attack of the tomato killers: The Police State's war on weed and backyard gardens - Augusta Free Press

Under Trump, Republicans are now the party of prison reform – Washington Examiner

Set to take the stage at the Republican National Convention tonight is Alice Marie Johnson, the grandmother once incarcerated for life for her nonviolent participation in a drug trafficking scheme since freed from prison by President Trump. The reason the first time offender, who spent her 21 years in prison becoming an ordained minister and certified hospice worker, languished in prison presumably for life? The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which was co-sponsored and partially authored by one Joe Biden.

The difference on display between Trump and Biden's legacies regarding the criminal justice system and the effect on their parties could not be more unprecedented or stark. Half a century after the GOP began to wage the war on drugs, Trump has effectively remade the Republican Party into that of criminal justice reform.

Trump may tweet poetic about law and order and, weirdly enough, claim that drug dealers should face the death sentence. And Biden may be the one beholden to a party that refuses to call the violent riots in Kenosha and Portland just that, violent riots. But as a matter of pure policy, Trump is significantly more reform-minded than his Democratic challenger. Sure, he and the rest of the GOP may believe in throwing the book at those violating basic existing laws against arson and theft, but the past four years have proven that it's the Republican Party that wants a legal code that provides fewer reasons to call the police.

Most notable is the First Step Act, spearheaded by Republicans and lobbied by Jared Kushner and prominent conservatives such as Jim DeMint and evangelical activists, which resulted in the first real prison sentencing reform in generations. The second most notable achievement ought to be the JUSTICE Act, the police reform bill authored by Tim Scott, which was killed by Democrats in the Senate even as millions of their constituents were taking to the streets to demand that they do something in the aftermath of the police killing of the unarmed George Floyd. And furthermore, slowly but surely, Republicans are generating significantly more momentum to decriminalize marijuana federally than Democrats, given that Biden's staunch anti-pot policy pretty much kills any hopes Democrats have of relaxing drug policy for at least the next four years.

All of this is aided by the fact that Trump's record indicates that he's been privately pro-pot for decades, and his prominent allies are right now. Although Trump has teased cracking down on drug deals, as far back as 30 years ago, Trump ardently slammed lawmakers for failing to legalize drugs. Now, he has two of the most pro-pot members of Congress, Cory Gardner and Matt Gaetz, lobbying him to embrace legalization.

And it's highly possible that he will, at least if he wins reelection. Trump is reportedly fearful that state drug decriminalization and legalization measures will boost Democratic turnout, but I wouldn't be so sure. After all, although Democrats support marijuana legalization by a greater margin than Republicans, the overwhelming majority of Republican voters support marijuana legalization, with their trendlines following Democrats. In fact, the divide is primarily bifurcated on generational lines, with two-thirds of the Silent Generation opposing legalization and at least two-thirds of every subsequent generation supporting it.

So what if Trump has said dumb stuff about criminal justice and punishing drug offenders? Based solely on his actions and his allies, he's the most pro-reform president in history, a divergence from Biden only highlighted by the former vice president's decision to tap Kamala Harris, who locked up nonviolent drug offenders while California attorney general, as his own running mate. It's no coincidence that top Trump associates such as Kellyanne Conway and Rudy Giuliani used her drug record as a battering ram against the Biden ticket Republican voters simply agree.

Trump's message on criminal justice ought to write itself: Joe and Kamala abused their political power to punish nonviolent drug offenders, but they're happy to let left-wing terrorists shoot up and burn down America's businesses and cities. By contrast, Trump will restore law and order to the streets and let you light up in peace.

Go here to read the rest:

Under Trump, Republicans are now the party of prison reform - Washington Examiner

The Shaky Foundation of Trump’s Pose As a Criminal Justice Reformer – Reason

Joe Biden's long history of promoting draconian sentences, hard-line anti-drug policies, and proliferating death penalties is an easy target for any politician who is serious about criminal justice reform. But there is little evidence that description applies to President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly slammed Biden as "the chief architect ofmass incarceration and the War on Drugs" while presenting himself as an opponent of excessively punitive policiesa major theme of this week's Republican National Convention.

Trump's bona fides as a reformer consist of two accomplishments. First, he supported the FIRST STEP Act, a 2018 law that included some modest but significant drug sentence reductions. Second, he has issued 25 pardons and 11 commutations, some of which seem to reflect a sincere belief in rehabilitation and a genuine concern about unjust penalties. Most famously, Trump freed Alice Marie Johnson, a nonviolent, first-time offender who received a life sentence for her role in a Memphis-based cocaine distribution ring. Johnson, whom the president introduced during his State of the Union speech last year, was featured in a Trump campaign ad during this year's Super Bowl and is scheduled to speak at the Republican convention on Thursday night.

Although it did not go as far as many reformers would have liked, the FIRST STEP Act, which passed with overwhelming support in the House and Senate, was a clear improvement that freed thousands of drug war prisoners, and Trump deserves credit for backing it. The fact that he has used his clemency powers not only to help his cronies but to ameliorate some real injustices is also laudable. Barack Obama, who eventually commuted a record 1,715 sentences, approved just one petition during his first term. But when it comes to his plans for a second term, Trump has said little about criminal justice, and what he has said is inconsistent with the image he is trying to project.

The second-term agenda that Trump unveiled this week, like the "Law and Justice" section of his campaign website, does not mention criminal justice reform. But it does list five points under the heading "Defend the Police," a rejoinder to the "Defund the Police" movement. Trump's wish list does not inspire confidence in his commitment to reversing Biden's mistakes.

Trump wants to "fully fund and hire more police and law enforcement officers," which sounds an awful lot like a central element of the "1994 Biden Crime Bill" (as the former vice president proudly calls it). Yet Trump says that law epitomizes the Democratic nominees's role in promoting mass incarceration and should make African Americans think twice about voting for Biden. "Anyone associated with the 1994 Crime Bill will not have a chance of being elected," Trump tweeted last year. "In particular, African Americans will not be able to vote for you. I, on the other hand, was responsible for Criminal Justice Reform, which had tremendous support, & helped fix the bad 1994 Bill!"

Trump wants to "increase criminal penalties for assaults on law enforcement officers." He does not explain why current penalties are inadequate or how he would change the state laws that prescribe them. Perhaps Trump has in mind laws that treat assaults on police as hate crimes, which result in arbitrary sentence enhancements that are predictably deployed against members of the same minority group that Trump says has disproportionately suffered from the policies Biden championed. Here, too, Trump sounds like the Biden of the 1980s and '90s, who was keen to show that Democrats could be just as mindlessly "tough on crime" as Republicans.

Trump wants to "prosecute drive-by shootings as acts of domestic terrorism." That would be inconsistent with the current federal definition of terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." It does not make much sense to put violence between urban gangs in the same category as the ideologically motivated 9/11 attacks or 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. But again, the point is emotional rather than logical, reflecting the same mentality that gave us the ever-escalating criminal penalties Trump faults Biden for supporting.

Trump wants to "bring violent extremist groups like ANTIFA to justice," which seems unobjectionable until you contemplate how members of that ad hoc, decentralized, and vaguely defined movement are to be identified. Punishing people for their alleged membership in a group rather than their individual actions is a recipe for indiscriminate penalties of the sort that Trump intermittently condemns.

Trump wants to "end cashless bail and keep dangerous criminals locked up until trial." That proposal is a direct swipe at a reform widely supported by critics of the criminal justice system, who say people should not be imprisoned prior to trial simply because they cannot afford bail, which punishes them without a conviction, impairs their ability to mount a defense, and pressures them into plea deals that otherwise would be less appealing. By describing defendants as "dangerous criminals," Trump erases the presumption of innocence and ignores all the defendants, including alleged drug offenders, who are "locked up until trial" even though they do not plausibly pose a threat to the general public.

Unlike Trump, whose campaign website does not address criminal justice reform in any substantive way, Biden has a lot to say on the subject. He has repudiated the mandatory minimums and death penalties he once supported, saying they should be abolished. He also wants to eliminate theirrational sentencing disparity between the smoked and snorted forms of cocaine, which was created by a 1986 law that Biden wrote and resulted in strikingly unequal treatment of black defendants. That gap was reduced by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, a law signed by Obama and supported by Biden that casts doubt on Trump's claim that only he can deliver "real criminal justice reform."

While continuing to resistthe repeal of federal marijuana prohibition, Biden now calls fordecriminalizing cannabis consumption and automatically expunging "all prior cannabis use convictions" (neither of which would have much of an impact at the federal level, since the Justice Department rarely prosecutes low-level marijuana cases). He also says states should be free to legalize marijuana, which is similar to the position Trump has implied he supports and has taken in practice.

One need not believe that Biden's conversion is completely sincere to recognize that the current climate of opinion within the Democratic Party would make reverting to his old drug-warrior instincts politically difficult. Trump, by contrast, is trying to have it both ways, assuring unreconstructed conservatives that he will be tougher on crime than Biden while telling moderates he understands that criminal penalties are frequently arbitrary and disproportionate. Reconciling those seemingly contradictory messages may not be possible, and it surely would require more thoughtfulness than Trump has demonstrated so far.

Read the rest here:

The Shaky Foundation of Trump's Pose As a Criminal Justice Reformer - Reason

Cages Dont Always Have Bars: How Reforms Swelled the Carceral State – Filter

Place Maya Schenwar and Victoria Law together on a street corner in an impoverished neighborhood and theyll see examples of a new and expanded carceral system in every direction they look.

A man walks toward them and the journalists spot an ankle bracelet, monitoring his location electronically. Several members of a group across the street are on probation, and Schenwar and Law visualize numbers floating above the mens heads, counting down the years until theyre free from the ever-present threat of incarceration. Behind Schenwar and Law, inside an apartment building, a woman stares out the window, confined under house arrest.

Down at the other end of the street, a pair of beat cops whistle as they walk. They look friendly enough but, as Schenwar and Law explain in their new book, Prison by Any Other Name: The Harmful Consequences of Popular Reforms (The New Press, 2020), the officers represent a violent expansion of policing that is widening US authorities net to control ever-greater numbers of people.

Other reforms that we talk about in the book, theyre less visible, Schenwar told Filter in a telephone interview. Theyre about hiding people away.

Were expanding the number of people under the physical control of the state.

These include mandated-treatment facilities that house people arrested for drug possession, for example, and psychiatric hospitals that hold people apprehended for mental health crises. All of these things that abolition activist Mariame Kaba calls, the Somewhere Else, Schenwar continued.

Were expanding the number of people under the physical control of the state, Law said in the same interview. Without the options of the Somewhere Else, They might have been given some kind of sentence that was looser and that maybe did not involve as many requirements, Law added. And so this [push for out-of-prison alternatives] is actually expanding the number of people who are caught.

Schenwar, the editor-in-chief of Truthout, and Law, a freelance journalist (who has written for Filter) and cofounder of NYC Books Through Bars, have written a spiritual successor to Michelle Alexanders The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. It includes a foreword by Alexander. Focusing less directly on racebut maintaining a required awareness of systemic racismPrison by Any Other Name loosely picks up at the prison walls where The New Jim Crow left off.

The book details an ever-creeping expansion of the prison-industrial complex, beyond barbed-wire fences, into peoples communities, schools and the very homes in which they live. It notes that the number of people in America under electronic monitoring increased from 53,000 in 2005 to 125,000 in 2015.

This would not be okay even if during the same period, the numbers of people in jails and prisons had decreased (they did not over the whole period, despite declines toward the end). The goal of reforms should be fewer people caught up in the system and indeed, its total transformation, not the same number transferred from one form of correctional control to another.

These varying manifestations of the criminal punishment system raise the question of what defines a prison, Schenwar and Law write in the book. There is unique gravity to an actual prison sentence, the violence of locking a human being in a cage. Yet the system is broader than the buildings called prisons. Manipulation, confinement, punishment, and deprivation can take many formsforms that may be less easily recognized as the violence they are.

Drug courts are trying, sentencing, and confining people who in many cases wouldnt otherwise be incarcerated.

Take the example of drug courts.

As the opioid-involved overdose crisis of the 2000s replaced the crack epidemic of the 1980s and early 90s, the impacted populations in the spotlight initially shifted from Black people to white. Thats resulted in a so-called kinder, gentler War on Drugs, and encouraged politicians, like Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, to embrace drug courts as a treatment-based alternative to prison. But the extent to which drug courts are less violent than incarceration is highly debatable, the book argues.

Instead of simply providing an alternative for people who would otherwise be sent to prison, drug courts are trying, sentencing, and confining people who in many cases wouldnt otherwise be incarcerated, it explains.

The existence of courts designed to handle minor drug-related charges has been shown to encourage police to make those types of arrestsa kind of if you build it, they will come phenomenon, the book continues. Police know these courts exist to handle an increase in small-time drug cases, and so they are more likely to make small-time drug arrests. As Denver district court judge Morris B. Hoffman stated, It is clear that the very presence of drug courts is causing police to make arrests in, and prosecutors to file, the kinds of ten- and twenty-dollar hand-to-hand drug cases that the system simply would not have bothered with before.

And then theres this: Approximately half of people sentenced to a program through drug court dont finishand the ones that dont often end up with harsher jail or prison sentences than if they hadnt gone the drug court route in the first place.

Schenwar and Law place this effectwidening the net, they call itat the center of everything wrong with the current trajectory of prison reform.

They [politicians] love the idea of diversion, Schenwar said. But you still arrest people for drug offences, you still criminalize drugs, you still criminalize all kinds of actions that may result from drug use or addiction. But instead [of prison], you funnel people into this alternate system because somehow it will help people by providing quote-unquote treatment.

And then when people violate the terms of their drug-court sentencewhich happens so often because those terms are very rigid and very strictthen often the penalty is incarceration, and often it is the maximum sentence, she continued.

Prison by Any Other Name was released against the urgent backdrop of the Black Lives Matter movements second wave. Both Schenwar and Law advocate for the abolition of the entire penal systemarguing that whats needed for the creation of a more just society is wider access to quality education, improved options for employment, a drastically better healthcare system that includes mental health services, and other holistic reforms.

When she died of an overdose, she was in an abstinence-based drug court program.

Lending authority, they both come to the books topics from personal experience.

Victoria, or Vikki as shes known to friends, was once on probation, the book reads. At sixteen, Vikki was arrested for several counts of armed robbery and gun possession, all of which are violent felony charges She was ultimately sentenced to five years of probation.

Schenwar told a different story. For me, this issue is very personal because my sister was in and out of jails and prisons for about 15 years and then in and out of all kinds of alternatives: electronic monitoring, drug-treatment centers and all kinds of things, she said.

She was in drug court in February when she died, Schenwar continued. When she died of an overdose, she was in an abstinence-based drug court program.

Schenwar explained that her sister was mandated to remain abstinent or risk jail time. She did remain off drugs, for a while. But then, when she eventually relapsed, her tolerance was lower than she realized. If her sister had been offered something better tailored to her as an individual, maybe the outcome would have been different, Schenwar said, anger audible in her voice.

Drug court played a role in her killing, she added. It was not her survival that counted in this system. It was whether she was following the law.

Photograph by Jrmy-Gnther-Heinz Jhnick via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

More:

Cages Dont Always Have Bars: How Reforms Swelled the Carceral State - Filter