InYourArea Community

Exeter Quakers are hosting a socially distanced peace vigil on Sunday, August 9, from 10:45am until 11:15am, at the Exeter Peace Tree in Southernhay

A service marking 75 years since the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki is being held in Exeter, Devon.

Exeter Quakers are hosting a socially distanced peace vigil on Sunday, August 9, from 10:45am until 11:15am.

The vigil will be held at the Exeter Peace Tree in Southernhay, opposite the United Reform Church, exactly 75 years since the second atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city.

The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9 1945 killed up to a quarter of a million people, half of them instantly, leaving shadows of some people etched on the ground.

A spokesperson from the Exeter Quakers said: Ever since they have been a reminder of the immorality of nuclear weapons.

The vigil will take place in front of the Japanese Cherry Tree planted by the Lord Mayor of Exeter in February 2005 to mark Exeter joining mayors of towns and cities around the world, including 90 in the UK, to declare a commitment to work for a nuclear free world.

The organisation, based in Hiroshima, declares: We pledge to make every effort to create an inter-city solidarity, transcending national boundaries and ideological differences, in order to achieve the total abolition of nuclear weapons and avert the recurrence of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedies.

The spokesperson added: As Quakers we hold working for peace as one of our core testimonies and have been prominent in the peace movement in Britain and around the world.

The event will be introduced by Exeter Quaker Laura Conyngham, who will recall her powerful visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

She said: While I was at the tomb, a group of citizens asked me to lay a bouquet for a photograph to illustrate a guidebook for tourists. I felt utterly guilty.

For further information contact Ian Martin on 07980 301058 or Laura Conyngham on 01363 773000.

See the latest news, information, conversations and much more, all tailored to your neighbourhood, in your InYourArea live feed here.

Read the original here:

Exeter vigil will mark 75th anniversary of Hiroshima bomb - In Your Area

Although there was a demonstration Saturday in the historic Woodstock Square calling for the abolition of ICE, it might have looked a little different than previous protests and rallies that have been held earlier this year.

People still held signs, saying "America Runs on Immigrants," "Humans, not Aliens" and demanding the end of McHenry County's contract with ICE.

However, protest organizer Tony Bradburn said Saturday's event was a little less "rah-rah" and more about learning and growing.

"ICE is not just about the borders," Bradburn said. "ICE is right here in McHenry County."

Through its agreement with the U.S. Marshals Service, McHenry County earns $95 a day for each ICE detainee held at the McHenry County Jail.

Sponsoring organizations of Saturday's protest included Activists for Racial Equity (Crystal Lake and Surrounding Communities), Elgin in Solidarity with Black Lives, Standing up Against Racism (Woodstock), McHenry Direct Action, Warp Corps of Woodstock and Tree of Life Unitarian Universalist: Social Justice.

"We want to make sure that people know about the stories of the voiceless," Bradburn said.

One of the stories told by Bradburn, submitted by someone before the rally, was about someone who's father was deported in 2013, when they were 10.

This person had to celebrate their quinceanera and graduation without their dad.

Several other people told stories at Saturday's rally, documenting tales of those who were afraid to get domestic violence help because they were undocumented, of a 15-year-old who spent their first Christmas in the U.S. in a detention center, and one person who said it would cost them $10,000 to become documented.

Luis Aguilar, a teacher in McHenry High School District 156, said a lot of his students are Hispanic, and some of them are DACA recipients, or DREAMers, who commit to work, school or the armed forces.

When he tells students there's an ICE detention center in Woodstock, he can see the fear reflect off their eyes, Aguilar told attendees.

"We must recognize that any profit made off of that detention center is made off of human misery," he said.

Amanda Garcia, an immigration lawyer from Crystal Lake, said people do not have a good impression of a community that supports an ICE detention facility.

Garcia spent 18 months working in McHenry County Jail, visiting there twice a week to provide legal orientations to those who did not have immigration attorneys.

When taking their information down, Garcia would ask where they lived before they were detained," she said.

"McHenry, Woodstock, Crystal Lake, Elgin, Carpentersville. They would tell me all the little towns they came from, and I knew where they were because that's where I go grocery shopping. That's where I live. That's where I come to spend the Saturday," Garcia said. "So these are real people in our community."

Adi Jimenez, of Woodstock, said she wanted to support immigrants in the community.

"I know a lot of people who are affected by this," she said. "They're afraid to go out and stand up for themselves because they don't know what's going to happen."

This is why Jimenez said she wants to use her privilege from being born in the U.S. to stand up for people.

" [ICE] is attacking a lot of people that don't really deserve to be targeted," she said. "There are a lot of children right now that are locked up in cages without their family members without their parents. They're just all alone and It's just really sad."

Woodstock resident Mariam Figueroa held a sign with the Bible verse Isaiah 1:17 written on it, which read "Learn to do right, speak justice defend the oppressed."

"This verse is so significant for why it's important to abolish ICE," she said. "People are coming, children, mothers without protection. They're seeking asylum, but they're turned away. But to be Christ-like, to be a Christian, means to help them.

"To be a real Christian, you need to really love and embrace everyone, even if they're different than you," Figueroa said. "Even if you're not a Christian, to love everyone is essential."

Haidy Perez, from Crystal Lake, said she has a lot of family who are immigrants and DACA recipients.

"ICE is something our country really doesn't benefit from anymore," Perez said. "If anything, I would say it is more fear-mongering than it is protecting us."

Perez said her father, although he is in the U.S. legally, has still gotten questions about his background and been detained.

"We're a nation of immigrants," she said. "Everyone comes from different backgrounds. I just feel like ICE has targeted my community and has really struck fear into the hearts of innocent people."

A resolution to cancel the intergovernmental agreement between McHenry County and ICE is on the agenda of the next Law and Government Committee meeting for the McHenry County Board, at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday.

At the event, attendees were encouraged to call members of the committee to encourage them to end the contract, and were given sheets of paper with their contact information.

Lillian Purich, with McHenry Direct Action, was disappointed with the response she got when she called McHenry County Board Member Bob Nowak.

She said when he picked up, he said: "What the [expletive] is going on?"

"Then I went to start talking and he just hung up," Purich said. "It's just not what I was expecting. You'd think if someone was on the board they'd be a bit more welcoming with a phone call from someone from the public."

Requests for comment from Nowak were not returned.

Organizers told people to be respectful, and only call board members from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m, Purich said.

She's not discouraged, however, adding that it just makes her want to call more.

"It's horrible that families are being torn apart from each other," Purich said.

View post:

Locals call for end to ICE contract with McHenry County - Northwest Herald

ABritish police officer uses a Taser during training. Photo:Finnbarr Webster / Alamy Live News

Taser use by British police forces in Manchester and London has increased rapidly, posing a growing threat to life, a new report published by Resistance Lab warns.

The report details how police use of the electric stun guns has increased by more than 500 percent in England and Wales over the last ten years, with particular focus on Manchester and London. Using police use of force statistics from the Home Office, the report states that the Metropolitan Polices use of Tasers increased by 49 percent in the last year, while use by Greater Manchester Police increased by 73 percent. Both figures are higher than the national average of 39 percent. In Greater Manchester, the number of Taser incidents rose from 832 in 2017/18 to 1,442 incidents in 2018/19. Greater Manchester also had the second-highest use rate of Tasers of any police force in England and Wales, other than the Met.

Resistance Lab, a Manchester-based group of academics and activists working to confront state violence, warns that this increase in Taser use poses a growing threat to life. This is in part due to the risk of cardiac complications associated with the weapon.

Police use of Tasers also disproportionally affects Black people. According to Home Office stats, highlighted by the report, Black people are four times more likely to be Tasered by police than white people.

The report comes at a time when increased scrutiny has been placed on police treatment of Black people following the death of George Floyd in the US. The pandemic has also resulted in an increased use of police force. The number of stop and searches has risen dramatically during the pandemic, and BAME people are more likely to be fined under coronavirus legislation than white people.

In June, rapper Wretch32 shared a video on Twitter of his 62-year-old father, Millard Scott, being Tasered by police in his home. The video was widely circulated at the time, drawing criticism for the perceived unnecessary use of a weapon. In an interview with ITV News, Scott said: Im lucky to be alive.

The only people who have invaded our space are the Metropolitan Police, he continued. The only people who seem to ignore the guidelines put out there are the Metropolitan Police. It seems at this moment in time we are being singled out and targeted.

Dr. Kerry Pimblott, author of the study and lecturer in international history at the University of Manchester, told VICE News: Since the introduction of the weapon in 2003, at least 18 people have died following Taser usage by police and many more have sustained serious injury and lasting trauma. These individuals and their families have, in many cases, fought protracted battles to secure justice and to alert the wider public to the very real threat to life that these weapons pose in the hands of police.

Unfortunately, an examination of the Home Offices own use of force data indicates that these warnings have not been heard, she continued. Tasers are being rolled out to more and more frontline officers around the country and their use is becoming increasingly routinised.

Resistance Lab states that more cases in which members of the public suffer serious injury or death from Tasers are to be expected, and is calling for the abolition of the weapon.

VICE News contacted the Metropolitan Police. A spokesperson said: Taser is a vital tool in keeping safe both members of the public and police officers. Officers undergo rigorous training before they are allowed to use Taser and are required to pass an annual refresher course to ensure they remain competent in its use.

Officers know and expect to be held to account for their actions. We welcome scrutiny around the use of Taser, and examine our processes regularly to ensure it is being used in an appropriate manner. We also work close [sic] with policing nationally to discuss and take forward matters that have an impact on policing across the UK and link in with our dedicated firearms and Taser independent advisory group members for their valuable help and guidance. We always take concerns about disproportionality seriously and this forms part of our regular scrutiny within the Met around the use of Taser.

Looking closely at London Taser data from the Home Office reveals many incidents in which Tasers were deployed by police officers who had not received official training. According to Gavin Haynes, an independent researcher of policing, a breakdown of the stats reveals 98,017 incidents where Tasers were used by officers who were not recorded as being Taser trained. This is larger than the number of officers who were recorded as Taser trained who used the weapon (63,002 cases). Out of those 63,002 incidents, 16,816 occurred when officers were not recorded to be carrying the weapon while on duty.

VICE News also contacted Greater Manchester Police for comment but had not received a response at the time of publishing.

Read this article:

Vast Increase in Police Taser Use a Threat to Life, Report Warns - VICE

By now, almost everyone recognizes that large gatherings in confined, indoor spaces risk spreading the Coronavirus pandemic. Nonetheless, 23 states are currently conducting or planning to soon conduct in-person bar exams for new applicants for licenses to practice law. Even with precautions, putting hundreds of people in indoor spaces together for many hours at a time creates serious risks of exacerbating the pandemic.

Admittedly, the danger is smaller because most bar exam takers are young and healthy. However, there are still some older bar applicants, such as lawyers moving from one state to another, who need to be licensed in their new homes. And, of course, some young exam takers have health conditions or weakened immune systems, that make them especially vulnerable, as well. In addition, exam takers could potentially spread the disease to others, including some who are older or otherwise more vulnerable to Covid.

I am not one to say that all seriously risky activities should be avoided so long as the pandemic continues. There is, I think, a strong case for moving forward with those that create enormous benefits that cannot be achieved in another way. That, however, is not true of the bar exam, where there is the obvious alternative of "diploma privilege"giving bar cards to anyone who has graduated from an accredited law school. Four states Utah, Washington, Oregon, and Louisiana, have adopted this approach in various forms, joining the state of Wisconsin, which has had it for in-state law schools for years. Other states should follow this example.

The standard argument against diploma privilege is that the bar exam requirement is needed to protect consumers from incompetent lawyers. But there is no evidence that bar exams actually achieve that goal, as opposed to serving as a barrier to entry that protects incumbents in the profession from competition. The quality of legal services in Wisconsin has not suffered from its longstanding diploma privilege policy. Bar records indicate that attorneys in that state have disciplinary records similar to those in other states.

Such results are not surprising. The truth is that the bar exam is a test of arcane memorization, not a test of whether the applicant is likely to be a good attorney. That's why, as my co-blogger Orin Kerr puts it, "when it [the exam] is over you can forget everything you just learned."

For that reason, I have long advocated the abolition of bar exams, most recently here:

The reason why you can "forget everything" immediately after the exam is that very little of the material on the exam is actually needed to practice law. It's a massive memorization test that functions as a barrier to entry, not a genuine test of professional competence. That strengthens the case for my view that the bar exam should simply be abolished.

My general view on bar exams is that they should be abolished, or at least that you should not be required to pass one in order to practice law. If passing the exam really is an indication of superior or at least adequate legal skills, then clients will choose to hire lawyers who have passed the exam even if passage isn't required to be a member of the bar. Even if a mandatory bar exam really is necessary, it certainly should not be administered by state bar associations, which have an obvious interest in reducing the number of people who are allowed to join the profession, so as to minimize competition for their existing members.

Defenders of bar exams argue that consumers would otherwise have little or no way to tell whether a given lawyer is competent or not. But, in reality, there are many other signals to determine that. Often, clients hire not a specific lawyer, but a firm. In that event, the firm's reputation is a signal of quality, and firms have an incentive to protect that reputation by avoiding the hiring of incompetents. Even with solo practitioners, quality can be discerned by consulting past clients, and a variety of other mechanisms.

Legal scholar Gillian Hadfield has an excellent article making the case that barriers to information can be further reduced by eliminating prohibitions on the corporate practice of law. If corporations were allowed to provide basic legal servicesas they currently do with many other professional services, such as accountingthat would reduce cost and also make it easier to signal quality. When you hire H&R Block to do your taxes, you are relying on the overall reputation of the firm, not on that of the specific person who handles your case. Legal services can work similarly.

These methods are not perfect. But they are likely to be far better than relying on bar exam passage as a signal of quality, since the latter is really just a test of memorization.

One possible alternative to "diploma privilege" is simply postponing bar exams, as some states have done. But that prevents thousands of recent law graduates from earning an income in the meantimeand blocks clients from using their services. If states are unwilling to forego the bar exam entirely, they should at least provide temporary diploma privilege for a period of, say, three years, by which time the pandemic is likely to be over, and bar exams can be safely administered.

Online bar exams are another possible solution. The obvious objection to them is that it is extremely difficult to prevent cheating on an online "closed book" exam. It may well be impossible to ensure that a test-taker doesn't have study guides or reference books with her as she takes the exam. That doesn't bother me too much, because I believe bar exams are a sham credential in any case. But even I recognize there is some unfairness in a format that rewards those most willing to cheat. In addition, not everyone has access to software and internet connections that are likely to be reliable through many hours of exam taking.

On balance, online exams seem preferable to in-person ones, or to keeping law school graduates in limbo until in-person exams become safer. But diploma privilege is a better approach than either.

For those states that stubbornly insist on holding in-person exams during a pandemic, I am tempted to revive my "modest proposal" for bar exam reform (first developed many years ago):

Members of bar exam boards and presidents and other high officials of state bar associations should be required to take and pass the bar exam every year by getting the same passing score that they require of ordinary test takers. Any who fail to pass should be immediately dismissed from their positions. And they should be barred from ever holding those positions again untilyou guessed itthey take and pass the exam.

After all, if the bar exam covers material that any practicing lawyer should know, then surely the lawyers who lead the state bar and administer the bar exam system itself should be required to know it. If they don't, how can they possibly be qualified for the offices they hold? Surely it's no excuse to say that they knew it back when they themselves took the test, but have since forgotten. How could any client rely on a lawyer who is ignorant of basic professional knowledge, even if he may have known it years ago?

Of course, few if any bar exam officials or state bar leaders could pass the bar exam without extensive additional study (some might fail even with it). This material isn't on the exam because you can't be a competent lawyer if you don't know it. It's there so as to make it more difficult to pass, thereby diminishing competition for current bar association members..

My proposed reform wouldn't fully solve this problem. But it could greatly diminish it. If bar exam board members and bar association leaders were required to take and pass the exam every year, they would have strong incentives to reduce the amount of petty trivia that is tested. After all, anything they include on the exam is something they themselves will have to memorize! As prominent practicing lawyers, however, they presumably are already familiar with those laws that are so basic that any attorney has to know them; by limiting the exam to those rules, they can minimize their own preparation time. In this way, the material tested on bar exams might be limited to the relatively narrow range of legal rules that the average practicing lawyer really does need to know.

If the knowledge tested on bar exams is so important that we must ensure all practicing lawyers know iteven at the risk of exacerbating a deadly pandemicthen surely that principle applies with extra force to prominent leaders of the legal profession, particularly those responsible for setting professional standards for others. By this reasoning, they should have to take the exam on the same terms as they impose on new bar applicants. If that means taking an in-person exam during a pandemic, then so be it!

On balance, however, I will not insist on this idea, so long as the pandemic continues. I recognize that many bar association leaders are likely to be at special risk, due to age and health conditions. The "modest proposal" might be a useful reform under normal conditions. But it would be wrong to impose it now.

We should not require bar leaders to risk their lives and health for no good reason. But they, in turn, should not impose such risks on others.

Finally, critics may argue that, as a law professor, I have a self-interest in promoting "diploma privilege." My brief response is that I have also long advocated abolishing or at least reducing the requirement that all lawyers attend ABA-accredited law schools, as well. I have also long advocated a variety of other reforms that would have the effect of reducing the demand for law school education and legal services generallymost notably reducing the number and complexity of laws. I don't claim diploma privilege is the optimal regulatory regime, merely that it's superior to system under which lawyers are required to both have a diploma and pass a worthless bar exam.

Original post:

The Case for Replacing the Bar Exam With "Diploma Privilege" - Reason

Anti-monarchy group, Republic, have referred the Royal Foundation to the Charity Commission, claiming money given to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's charity endeavours was an "inappropriate use of charitable funds". The Duke of Sussex's response to the accusation was said to have "made more of this story than necessarily warranted".ITV Royal Rota podcast hosts Chris Ship and Lizzie Robinson noted the difference in responses between the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

A spokesperson for Kate and William said: "The grants made to Sussex Royal were to support the charitable work of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

They were fully in line with governance requirements and were reported transparently.

Prince Harry issued a significantly longer response through his legal team.

Ms Robinson said that they may have felt that due to the nature of the accusations they wanted to provide a further comment.

READ MORE:Camilla, Duchess' hidden message in 'specially made' outfit revealed

She told listeners: "A lot of people have said the response made more of this story than necessarily warranted.

"The Royal Foundation's had two lines. That deals with it, and it goes away.

"But by putting out paragraph after paragraph, there is much more that can then be reported and said about this.

"So it's sort of adding fuel to the fire."

Excerpts from Harry's statement include saying it was "deeply offensive to see false claims made about the Duke of Sussex and his charitable work".

They continued: "It is both defamatory and insulting to all the outstanding organisations and people he partnered with.

"To suggest otherwise in unequivocally wrong and will be acted on accordingly with the weight of the law."

DON'T MISSHow Sophie Wessex is 'following footsteps' of Princess Anne new focus[EXCLUSIVE]Meghan Markle fury: Duchess 'draws line' at baby Archie being pictured[FURY]Prince Philip health: Fit and healthy Duke ambles unaided down steps[VIDEO]

Mr Ship said: "Republic isn't going to put out reports or press releases that support the monarchy.

"It's whole purpose is for the abolition of the monarchy, I don't know why Harry was so surprised about that.

"It is the job of pressure groups to create publicity around their cause, and they have successfully done that. Or you could say Harry has successfully done that."

A legal letter will be issued to Republic in due course.

The Charity Commission put out a statement saying they have not made any determination of wrongdoing.

Go here to read the rest:

Prince Harry warned rash action will 'add fuel to fire' after Duke 'surprised' by backlash - Express

The news comes soon after the Governments recent pledge to invest 1.7 billion into repairing local roads and speeding up work on major road networks.

The 60mphlimit in roadworks is likely to have the biggest impact in areas where smart motorways are being introduced. New safety measures, including the abolition of dynamic hard shoulder sections and an increase in the number of Highways England traffic officer patrols, have been introduced on smart motorways in response to concerns over their safety.

Jim OSullivan, chief executive of Highways England, said: All of our research shows that road users benefit from 60mph limits in roadworks. They have shorter journey times and feel safe.

Road users understand that roadworks are necessary, but they're frustrated by them. So testing 60mph has been about challenging the norm while ensuring the safety of our people working out there and those using our roads.

For all the latest reviews, advice and new car deals, sign up to the What Car? newsletterhere

Smart motorways are a response to increasing congestion on UK motorways; they use cameras and remotely-controlled speed limit signs to control the flow of traffic, and many allow cars to be driven on the hard shoulder either all or some of the time.

The thinking behind them is toadd an extra 33% of capacity to our motorway network at a fraction of the cost in money and to the environment of physically adding another lane to every stretch of motorway. They also improve traffic flow, helping to compensate for the 2 billion a year that the UKs economy losesdue to congestion caused by long-term underinvestment in roads and increased traffic volume.

Go here to see the original:

Motorway roadworks speed limit raised to 60mph - What Car?

I've been down too many years. I've been raped and assaulted. This ain't nothing new, C Jay Smith told her attorneys in March of 2019. Smith, a Black transgender woman currently incarcerated at San Quentin Prison, has served over two decades behind barsalways among men. She would have been eligible for parole in 2023, but now faces up to 10 extra years behind bars, for what she says were infractions correctional officers gave her unfairly, as a form of retaliation for coming forward about being severely and consistently harassed and sexually assaulted by fellow prisoners. Now, shes suing California prison officials for the alleged retaliation, and for claims that officers continually refused to investigate her reports of assault.

The complaint filed by Smiths attorneys against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is extensive. Nearly forty pages long, it lays out how, when Smith first arrived at a CDCR Reception Center 1998, she was raped by multiple male inmates consecutively over the course of four days. It then goes on to detail her 22 year history of incarceration in mens prison, which includes indecent exposure and lewd sexual acts by many men in custody and another instance of rape by other prisoners.

In early March, Smith told her Mental Health Primary Clinician that she was being repeatedly sexually harassed and assaulted by another prisoner who raped her seven years prior. Her report initiated a mandatory investigation. But instead of starting a process to determine whether Smith needed additional protections, the complaint states that prison guards interrogated her for hours and referred to her with transphobic slurs. The guards caged Ms. Smith like an animal, verbally berated her, threatened her with physical assault, sexually harassed and assaulted her, and issued her multiple fabricated Rules Violations Reports (RVR) riddled with glaring inconsistencies and due process violations, the complaint reads.

I just want to walk out of prison one day, Smith told her attorneys last year. I dont want to be rolled out of here.

Smiths experiences are endemic to trans women, and particularly trans women of color, in the prison system. A 2007 report looking at sexual assault in Californias prisons found that the rate of sexual assault for trans women was 13 times higher than for men in the same prisons. Other studies have found that correctional staff themselves can be a major obstacle to preventing sexual violence in prisons because of their lack of acceptance of trans people, tolerance of sexual violence, unwillingness to intervene, and lack of interest in informing inmates about its prevalence. But a new law seeks to change the experiences of people like C Jay in the state of California.

State Bill 132, the Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act, would require that prisons appropriately gender and house incarcerated people based on their identity and preferences. It would further require that trans people have their perception of health and safety given serious consideration. The bill is currently in the assemblys appropriations committee after being passed by the state senate in May. All legislative business in California must conclude by August 31st, which means SB 132 could be passed in a matter of weeks. California State Senator Scott Wiener, who proposed the bill, said hes hopeful about its chances of passing, but cant yet be sure that it will.

California is not alone in considering gender based reforms in prisons to protect transgender people. New York, Washington DC, Massachusetts and Connecticut have already taken similar legal and informal steps. But in an abolitionist future, SB 132 is caught in a familiar paradox of either going too far, or not far enough. Jennifer Orthwein, one of Smiths attorneys, said Smiths experience is common.Their first time down, theres generally a hazing that happens, she said. Trans women are assaulted when they get inside, then its a matter of navigating safety once theyre inside.

The extremely limited research on incarcerated trans people reveals that trans prisoners in general endure disproportionate levels of sexual assault. A 2015 report found that trans respondents who had been held in jail, prison, or juvenile detention in 2014 were over five times more likely to be sexually assaulted by facility staff than the U.S. population in jails and prisons, and over nine times more likely to be sexually assaulted by other inmates. Meanwhile, national incident-level data has shown that when trans prisoners are sexually assaulted by another prisoner, the incident is more likely to involve weapons yet less likely to evoke medical attention if needed.

Senator Wiener says this particular form of violence is precisely what SB 132 seeks to stem. Trans women in particular are at such high risk for severe violence, he said. Transgender community members and advocates came to speak with Wiener years ago about the horrific experiences of trans people in California prisons, and opened his eyes to issues such as lack of healthcare access, to being misgendered, to staff using the wrong pronouns, to the housing issue. Wiener believes SB 132 provides a corrective. While trans people are incarcerated, SB132 will ensure they be treated with the dignity that they deserve, he said.

But activists, and Smiths own lawyers, know that SB 132which relies on legal compliance, training, and cultural change within the prison industrywalks a fine line between cosmetic and seismic change. Especially at a time when closing prisons and defunding police has become a part of the national political conversation, some greet reforms like SB132 with reservation.

Part of that skepticism comes from the fact that prison guards, like those who allegedly perpetrated much of Smiths trauma, would be the ones tasked with implementing SB132. Thats not necessarily promising, considering that 37 percent of trans people who served time in jail reported having been harassed by correctional officers.

We see this [retaliation] all the time, Orthwin said, particularly with trans women who raise concern and dissent over their safety.

Felicia Medina, Smiths other attorney, added: The fact that people [outside of prisons] think theyre safer with police or corrections officers who function like a gang to terrorize people kills me.

Still, activists see the importance for such reforms as a form of harm reduction. Freddie Francis is a member of the Transgender Advocacy Group (TAG), a coalition based in California that supports, advocates for, and organizes with members of the trans community behind bars with the long-term vision of abolishing all carceral systems. Francis is also one of the many organizers who have been pushing for SB132 in the last few years. Its been complicated, they said, but [SB132] has the potential to set the stage for how trans people are imprisoned on a national basis.

At the same time, Francis is concerned. [SB132] makes me nervous because I dont want people in institutions to get the impression that there is a safe, just, or humane way to imprison people.

Eric Stanley, a longtime community organizer and co-editor of the landmark anthology Captive Genders, which traces the relationship between transness and the prison industrial complex, agrees. Is the thing were fighting for the thing that we have to be fighting against in five years? they asked.

Still, Stanley added: "If this is something people inside really want or ask for, its something we have to support."

Bamby Salcedo, the CEO and President of the TransLatin@ Coalition, spent 14 years in and out of prison. For her, abolition is a dream and SB132, which she helped create, is a reality. How can we support individuals who are incarcerated? she asked. Many who have life sentences will continue to be incarcerated. We do our best to support them until we finally get to the abolition of the prison industrial complex.

A staggering one in every two Black transgender people has been behind bars. Such statistics highlight the myriad pipelines to prison that trans people of color face, and the reasons that trans activists of color are fighting for widescale changefrom decriminalizing sex work, to gaining access to housing and education. This week, Salcedo became one of only two people she knows in her community to have earned a masters degree.

Salcedo wants to see a sweeping systems-level overhaul. Im hoping that people understand the fact that our community continues to be criminalized because of who we are and how we have to resort to street economies to survive and get arrested and incarcerated, she said. Next, were going to push for what is just, what our communities deserve, and to seek the dignity we deserve.

Similar to Salcedo, Medina said Smith is a leader who protects other trans women incarcerated at San Quentin. Her life before incarceration was of marginalization and oppression, Medina added. She never should have been locked up to begin with.

Read the original post:

Trans Women Are Still Being Held in Men's Prisons. Is Changing That Enough? - VICE

A federal officer tells the crowd to move while dispersing a protest in front of the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse on July 21, 2020, in Portland, Oregon. State and city elected officials have called for the federal officers to leave Portland as clashes between protesters and federal police continue to escalate.Nathan Howard / Getty ImagesNote: This is a rush transcript and has been lightly edited for clarity. Copy may not be in its final form.

Kelly Hayes: As Black Lives Matter protests continue to play out around the country, images of protesters squaring off with police in Portland have inflamed debates about peacefulness, violence and respectability. Some liberal figures have argued that Trumps law and order narrative is facilitated by imagery of police dueling with protesters, and that unity will be needed to halt the march of fascism. Such critics have pointed to the riots of the late 60s, claiming that the Civil Rights Movement was derailed by those who resorted to violent tactics in the streets.

As someone who has been calling on people for years to lock arms against the threat of fascism, regardless of personal difference, I can appreciate some of the sentiments behind these assertions. But I, too, see some tired historical patterns at work. It is very easy, as Nathan J. Robinson recently wrote in Current Affairs, to blame groups whose actions frustrate us for larger outcomes that disappoint us. This phenomenon can be observed in arguments that particular riots derailed the Civil Rights Movement, despite innumerable efforts to derail civil rights organizing, and a disastrous presidential campaign waged by Hubert Humphrey against Richard Nixon. Some people have blamed those who riotously rebelled against anti-Black violence for Nixons election, despite the many factors working in Nixons favor, including Humphreys incompetence as a candidate.

We are seeing a similar narrative being spun now. Even though Biden is not a terribly formidable opponent, we are told that if Trump wins, it will be the fault of people who threw soda cans at police after being brutalized and terrorized their entire lives, rather than the fault of people who have enabled Trump, and those who paved the path to his violence. We are told that if Trump wins, it will be the fault of Black protesters, and others acting against the anti-Black violence of the state, rather than the violence of white supremacy itself.

Never miss the news and analysis you care about.

We have similarly seen claims that the L.A. Rebellion of 1992 led to a newfound enthusiasm for mass incarceration and austerity among Democrats, even though such accelerations had been well underway throughout the 1980s. Even historic romanticizations of the idea of general strikes a tactic we may well need in order to remove Trump often strip away the reality that the labor movement is, itself, rooted in a great deal of rebellion and historical violence. But blaming rioters for the outcomes of presidential elections is much worse than whitewashing the history of the labor movement in the U.S. Because blaming those with the least power for what unfolds at the highest levels of government is an abdication of responsibility.

Why would I trust someone who paints the marginalized as the problem because they are demonized? Why would I trust people who say that our communities must be controlled in a manner that demonization dictates? Demonizing people while demanding their votes is, to put it mildly, a flawed strategy. Its also absurd. When water sits too long on the stove and boils over, do we lecture the water for jumping out of the pot? Black people are tired of being murdered without consequence. They are tired of employing all manner of protest, only to be briefly applauded or spit at, and then cast aside. Decrying a lack of nonviolent direct action training among people who are tossing plastic bottles at police will not transform them into Alinsky-style organizers which also shouldnt be the goal.

It takes a certain belief in liberal politics to blame those who benefit the least from such politics for the failures of the Democratic Party. Many of us are unlikely to survive another four years of Trump without winding up in a cage. Many will not survive at all. There are horrors ahead regardless of who wins, to be sure, but the importance of derailing fascism is not lost on me. But how the Democrats win, and who is ground under or sold out in the process matters. I will not sanctify this system to save it from a fascist because burying the truth about how we got here will not help us escape.

Folks who have positioned leftists as the problem in this moment have found an easy mark in Portland and this is true of both conservatives and liberals who are taking aim at direct actions that they consider violent. Portland is largely white, which allows people to attack the actions of protesters without directly criticizing Black protesters around the country who may also have destroyed property or thrown objects at police. But the targeted goal is the same: to foster the idea that good liberals arent like that, so centrists should relate to them and share their goals.

Liberals are demanding cooperation from the left and from the most oppressed people in the U.S., not just at the polls, where our executive options are extremely limited, but also in how we endure an era of collapse. The idea that unrest can be kept at bay as a society falters is folly. Unrest will be part of the current political moment. Pivots in energy and expression are important, because narratives are easily lost amid chaos, but if unrest is the key to Trumps victory, then liberals need to figure out how to leverage unrest, and the potential for unrest, to their own advantage, because they simply do not have the power to wish it away.

I will organize for collective survival and for collective liberation, but as someone who wants to dismantle the oppressions that uphold this system, I will not play into ahistorical notions of what these institutions are, in order to rally people to protect them. I will not insult Black and Native people who have righteously rebelled by asking them to pledge allegiance to a country that has violently excluded them from its social contract since its bloody inception. I believe that marginalized people are capable of processing the need for a united front, and if I am wrong about that, it wont be because the mythological unity that some are proposing would have persuaded people.

I do think imagery of street fights between Trumps fed squads and protesters could help reelect Trump. But Trump will also win if this political moment becomes a duel between liberals and the left over respectability and peacefulness. I think this is a good time to examine the lessons of history and also to ask questions. Why did people in the 1960s riot rather than uniformly committing to nonviolence? How did nonviolence fail them? How did white people who demanded an adherence to nonviolence fail them? Was measuring the utility of their efforts in electoral outcomes alone true to the needs or the aims of Black people? Why are some liberals so sure that it was the riots of the late 60s, as opposed to a historically inevitable white fatigue around Black-led protest, or the horribly run campaign to elect Humphrey, that delivered us to Nixon? History is a progression of events, but it is also a jumble of actions and reactions that cannot be cleanly divorced from each other.

Trump sows chaos. Liberals attacking the left over a peacefulness that will not come is part of that chaos, although to them, it may feel like order because it is an effort to impose order. In an unjust society, restoring order is often the work of maintaining injustice. If you want people who are inclined to break things, to do something else, then organize something meaningful and invite people to direct their energies there.

Lets hold direct actions that invite people to do more than just show up for the next march. Lets plan actions that invite people to defend tenants from eviction. Lets invite people to actions that become blockades against ICE. Lets invite people to actions that encourage networks of care in our communities, where we meet our neighbors and align against the forces that are harming them. Militancy has a place, and that place is the discipline with which we sustain one anothers survival. Because even larger storms are looming in the distance, and we need to be anchored to one another when they arrive.

As an organizer, I will not ask people to claim unity where it does not exist. I will not ask people to pledge allegiance to anything or romanticize anything that would kill them. I will not tell people they must publicly fetishize social contracts that were never meant to include them and rarely have.

What I will do is tell people that living to fight another day is always part of my strategy, and that come what may, and whatever tactics we must employ we are worth it. The things we believe in are worth it. The future that could be is worth it. And survival is worth it, because without that, there is nothing else. So whether we are taking on police violence, evictions, federal relief, ableism or any of the other issues we must face, when I step into the fray, I am inviting folks to join me in an act of survival in the pursuit of collective liberation. So lets dream new worlds into being with the protests we stage, and lets survive together, so that we might live to see those dreams realized in a freer, more beautiful world.

To those of you who are in the streets protesting, whether you are marching, setting up mutual aid tents or squaring off with Trumps feds, my heart is with you, and with everyone who would be there if they could. Onward to Black liberation, the destruction of capitalism and white supremacy, and the abolition of the prison industrial complex. Until next time, Ill see you in the streets.

Go here to see the original:

"Unrest" Is Not the Enemy. Fascism Is. - Truthout