Conservatives across the state of Florida celebrated on Tuesday night after control of the Sarasota County School Board shifted from liberal to conservative.

Bridget Ziegler, Robyn Marinelli, and Timothy Enos were all endorsed by Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and were all victorious Tuesday night in their elections for the Sarasota School board.

Various conservatives in the state touted the victories and suggested they represented a shift against Critical Race Theory and other "woke" policies that DeSantis and Republicans in Florida have railed against.

"Sarasota School Board had a 3-2 liberal majority," Christina Pushaw, rapid response director for DeSantis's reelection campaign, tweeted on Tuesday night. "Today @RonDeSantisFL endorsed candidates won and flipped the school board so its now 4-1 anti wokes indoctrination and pro parental rights."

CHARLIE CRIST WINS DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, WILL TAKE ON DESANTIS IN NOVEMBER

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks at a press conference to announce the expansion of a new, piloted substance abuse and recovery network. (Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

"All three of our endorsed candidates in Sarasota County, Florida have WON their elections.," the 1776 Project Pac tweeted. "We just flipped the school board from a 3-2 liberal majority to 4-1 conservative."

DESANTIS TOUTS 'RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS' IN FLORIDA GOV RACE: 'WE HAVE THE WIND AT OUR BACK'

Former Associated Press editor Ted Bridis tweeted Tuesday night that 25 conservative school board candidates supported by DeSantis won elections.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks to the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit on July 22, 2022. (Sarah Freeman/Fox News)

DeSantis also had a big night in Miami Dade County where conservative school board candidates also took control.

"The 1776 Project PAC was successful across the state of Florida," Ryan Girdusky, founder of the 1776 Project PAC, told Fox News Digital. "This shows what happens when conservatives like the 1776 Project PAC, Moms for Liberty, and Gov. DeSantis team up behind great candidates. Florida today, the country."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Andrew Mark Miller is a writer at Fox News. Find him on Twitter @andymarkmiller and email tips to AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com.

Link:

DeSantis-backed candidates flip Florida school board from liberal to ...

Zoom out

Global Freedom

Internet Freedom

Democracy Status

Year 1973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030

Country All countriesAngolaArgentinaArmeniaAustraliaAzerbaijanBahrainBangladeshBelarusBrazilCambodiaCanadaChinaColombiaCubaEcuadorEgyptEstoniaEthiopiaFranceGeorgiaGermanyHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranItalyJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKyrgyzstanLebanonLibyaMalawiMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoMyanmarNigeriaPakistanPhilippinesRussiaRwandaSaudi ArabiaSingaporeSouth AfricaSouth KoreaSri LankaSudanSyriaThailandThe GambiaTunisiaTurkeyUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamZambiaZimbabweAfghanistanAlbaniaAntarcticaAustriaBurundiBelgiumBeninBurkina FasoBulgariaThe BahamasBosnia and HerzegovinaBelizeBoliviaBruneiBhutanBotswanaCentral African RepublicSwitzerlandChileCte d'IvoireCameroonDemocratic Republic of the CongoRepublic of the CongoCosta RicaCyprusCzech RepublicDjiboutiDenmarkDominican RepublicAlgeriaEritreaSpainFinlandFijiFalkland IslandsGabonGhanaGuineaGuinea-BissauEquatorial GuineaGreeceGuatemalaGuyanaHondurasCroatiaHaitiIrelandIraqIsraelJamaicaKuwaitLaosLiberiaLesothoLithuaniaLuxembourgLatviaMoldovaMadagascarNorth MacedoniaMaliMontenegroMongoliaMozambiqueMauritaniaNamibiaNigerNicaraguaNetherlandsNorwayNepalNew ZealandOmanPanamaPeruPapua New GuineaPolandPuerto RicoNorth KoreaPortugalParaguayQatarRomaniaWestern SaharaSouth SudanSenegalSolomon IslandsSierra LeoneEl SalvadorSomaliaSerbiaSurinameSlovakiaSloveniaSwedenEswatiniChadTogoTajikistanTurkmenistanTimor-LesteTrinidad and TobagoTaiwanTanzaniaUruguayVanuatuWest BankYemenCrimeaMonacoAndorraKosovoLiechtensteinPalestineSan MarinoSomalilandAbkhaziaTransnistriaSouth OssetiaNagorno-KarabakhGaza StripBarbadosComorosGrenadaDominicaKiribatiMauritiusMicronesiaPalauSamoaSo Tom and Prncipe St. Kitts and NevisSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSt. LuciaTongaMaldivesCabo VerdeNorthern CyprusSeychellesTuvaluMarshall IslandsHong KongIndian KashmirPakistani KashmirTibetAntigua and BarbudaMaltaNauruEastern Donbas

Status

Trend

2021 was the 16th consecutive year of decline in global freedom.

Not Free

Partly Free

Free

From 2020 to 2021

Less free More free

3+

1-2

0

1-2

3+

Although global internet freedom declined for the 12th straight year in 2021-22, a record 26 countries recorded improvements.

Score: 0-39

Score: 40-69

Score: 70-100

From 2021 to 2022

Less free More free

3+

1-2

0

1-2

3+

In 2020, a record low 10 of 29 countries were classified as democracies.

Consolidated Authoritarian Regime

Semi-Consolidated Authoritarian Regime

Transitional or Hybrid Regime

Semi-Consolidated Democracy

Consolidated Democracy

From 2020 to 2021

Less free More free

2+

1

0

1

2+

Read the rest here:

Explore the Map | Freedom House

Women who advocated for women's right to vote

First suffragettes

Later groups

Key people

A suffragette was a member of an activist women's organisation in the early 20th century who, under the banner "Votes for Women", fought for the right to vote in public elections in the United Kingdom. The term refers in particular to members of the British Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), a women-only movement founded in 1903 by Emmeline Pankhurst, which engaged in direct action and civil disobedience.[1][2] In 1906, a reporter writing in the Daily Mail coined the term suffragette for the WSPU, derived from suffragist (any person advocating for voting rights), in order to belittle the women advocating women's suffrage.[3] The militants embraced the new name, even adopting it for use as the title of the newspaper published by the WSPU.[3]

Women had won the right to vote in several countries by the end of the 19th century; in 1893, New Zealand became the first self-governing country to grant the vote to all women over the age of 21.[6] When by 1903 women in Britain had not been enfranchised, Pankhurst decided that women had to "do the work ourselves";[7] the WSPU motto became "deeds, not words". The suffragettes heckled politicians, tried to storm parliament, were attacked and sexually assaulted during battles with the police, chained themselves to railings, smashed windows, carried out a nationwide bombing and arson campaign, and faced anger and ridicule in the media. When imprisoned they went on hunger strike, to which the government responded by force-feeding them. The first suffragette to be force fed was Evaline Hilda Burkitt. The death of one suffragette, Emily Davison, when she ran in front of the king's horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby, made headlines around the world. The WSPU campaign had varying levels of support from within the suffragette movement; breakaway groups formed, and within the WSPU itself not all members supported the direct action.

The suffragette campaign was suspended when World War I broke out in 1914. After the war, the Representation of the People Act 1918 gave the vote to women over the age of 30 who met certain property qualifications. Ten years later, women gained electoral equality with men when the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 gave all women the right to vote at age 21.

Although the Isle of Man (a British Crown dependency) had enfranchised women who owned property to vote in parliamentary (Tynwald) elections in 1881, New Zealand was the first self-governing country to grant all women the right to vote in 1893, when women over the age of 21 were permitted to vote in all parliamentary elections.[6] Women in South Australia achieved the same right and became the first to obtain the right to stand for parliament in 1895.[9] In the United States, white women over the age of 21 were allowed to vote in the western territories of Wyoming from 1869 and in Utah from 1870.

In 1865 John Stuart Mill was elected to Parliament on a platform that included votes for women, and in 1869 he published his essay in favour of equality of the sexes The Subjection of Women. Also in 1865, a women's discussion group, The Kensington Society, was formed. Following discussions on the subject of women's suffrage, the society formed a committee to draft a petition and gather signatures, which Mill agreed to present to Parliament once they had gathered 100 signatures.[10] In October 1866, amateur scientist Lydia Becker attended a meeting of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science held in Manchester and heard one of the organisors of the petition, Barbara Bodichon, read a paper entitled Reasons for the Enfranchisement of Women. Becker was inspired to help gather signatures around Manchester and to join the newly formed Manchester committee. Mill presented the petition to Parliament in 1866, by which time the supporters had gathered 1499 signatures, including those of Florence Nightingale, Harriet Martineau, Josephine Butler and Mary Somerville.[11]

In March 1867, Becker wrote an article for the Contemporary Review, in which she said:

It surely will not be denied that women have, and ought to have, opinions of their own on subjects of public interest, and on the events which arise as the world wends on its way. But if it be granted that women may, without offence, hold political opinions, on what ground can the right be withheld of giving the same expression or effect to their opinions as that enjoyed by their male neighbours?[12]

Two further petitions were presented to parliament in May 1867 and Mill also proposed an amendment to the 1867 Reform Act to give women the same political rights as men, but the amendment was treated with derision and defeated by 196 votes to 73.[13]

The Manchester Society for Women's suffrage was formed in January 1867, when Jacob Bright, Rev. S. A. Steinthal, Mrs. Gloyne, Max Kyllman and Elizabeth Wolstenholme met at the house of Dr. Louis Borchardt. Lydia Becker was made Secretary of the Society in February 1867 and Dr. Richard Pankhurst was one of the earliest members of the Executive Committee.[14] An 1874 speaking event in Manchester organised by Becker, was attended by 14-year-old Emmeline Goulden, who was to become an ardent campaigner for women's rights, and later married Dr Pankhurst becoming known as Emmeline Pankhurst.[15]

During the summer of 1880, Becker visited the Isle of Man to address five public meetings on the subject of women's suffrage to audiences mainly composed of women. These speeches instilled in the Manx women a determination to secure the franchise, and on 31 January 1881, women on the island who owned property in their own right were given the vote.[16]

In Manchester, the Women's Suffrage Committee had been formed in 1867 to work with the Independent Labour Party (ILP) to secure votes for women, but, although the local ILP were very supportive, nationally the party were more interested in securing the franchise for working-class men and refused to make women's suffrage a priority. In 1897, the Manchester Women's Suffrage committee had merged with the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) but Emmeline Pankhurst, who was a member of the original Manchester committee, and her eldest daughter Christabel had become impatient with the ILP, and on 10 October 1903, Emmeline Pankhurst held a meeting at her home in Manchester to form a breakaway group, the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU). From the outset, the WSPU was determined to move away from the staid campaign methods of NUWSS and instead take more positive action:[17]

It was on October 10, 1903 that I invited a number of women to my house in Nelson Street, Manchester, for purposes of organisation. We voted to call our new society the Women's Social and Political Union, partly to emphasise its democracy, and partly to define its object as political rather than propagandist. We resolved to limit our membership exclusively to women, to keep ourselves absolutely free from party affiliation, and to be satisfied with nothing but action on our question. 'Deeds, not words' was to be our permanent motto.

The term "suffragette" was first used in 1906 as a term of derision by the journalist Charles E. Hands in the London Daily Mail to describe activists in the movement for women's suffrage, in particular members of the WSPU.[19][20][21] But the women he intended to ridicule embraced the term, saying "suffraGETtes" (hardening the 'g'), implying not only that they wanted the vote, but that they intended to 'get' it.[22] The non-militant suffragists found favour in the press, as they were not hoping to get the franchise through 'violence, crime, arson and open rebellion'.[23]

At a political meeting in Manchester in 1905, Christabel Pankhurst and millworker, Annie Kenney, disrupted speeches by prominent Liberals Winston Churchill and Sir Edward Grey, asking where Churchill and Grey stood with regards to women's political rights. At a time when political meetings were only attended by men and speakers were expected to be given the courtesy of expounding their views without interruption, the audience were outraged, and when the women unfurled a "Votes for Women" banner they were both arrested for a technical assault on a policeman. When Pankhurst and Kenney appeared in court they both refused to pay the fine imposed, preferring to go to prison to gain publicity for their cause.[24]

In July 1908 the WSPU hosted a large demonstration in Heaton Park, near Manchester with speakers on 13 separate platforms including Emmeline, Christabel and Adela Pankhurst. According to the Manchester Guardian:

Friends of the women suffrage movement are entitled to reckon the great demonstration at Heaton Park yesterday, arranged by the Women's Social and Political Union, as somewhat of a triumph. With fine weather as an ally the women suffragists were able to bring together an immense body of people. These people were not all sympathisers with the object, and much service to the cause must have been rendered by merely collecting so many people and talking over the subject with them. The organisation, too, was creditable to the promoters...The police were few and inconspicuous. The speakers went by special [tram]car to the Bury Old Road entrance, and were escorted by a few police to several platforms. Here the escorts waited till the speaking was over, and then accompanied their respective charges back to the special car. There was little need, apparently, for the escort. Even the opponents of the suffrage claim who made themselves heard were perfectly friendly towards the speakers, and the only crowding about them as they left was that of curiosity on the part of those who wished to have a good look at the missioners in the cause.[25]

Stung by the stereotypical image of the strong minded woman in masculine clothes created by newspaper cartoonists, the suffragettes resolved to present a fashionable, feminine image when appearing in public. In 1908 the co-editor of the WSPU's Votes for Women newspaper, Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence,[26] designed the suffragettes' colour scheme of purple for loyalty and dignity, white for purity, and green for hope.[27] Fashionable London shops Selfridges and Liberty sold tricolour-striped ribbon for hats, rosettes, badges and belts, as well as coloured garments, underwear, handbags, shoes, slippers and toilet soap.[4] As membership of the WSPU grew it became fashionable for women to identify with the cause by wearing the colours, often discreetly in a small piece of jewellery or by carrying a heart-shaped vesta case[28][4] and in December 1908 the London jewellers, Mappin & Webb, issued a catalogue of suffragette jewellery in time for the Christmas season.[29] Sylvia Pankhurst said at the time: "Many suffragists spend more money on clothes than they can comfortably afford, rather than run the risk of being considered outr, and doing harm to the cause".[4] In 1909 the WSPU presented specially commissioned pieces of jewellery to leading suffragettes, Emmeline Pankhurst and Louise Eates.[29]

The suffragettes also used other methods to publicise and raise money for the cause and from 1909, the "Pank-a-Squith" board game was sold by the WSPU. The name was derived from Pankhurst and the surname of Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, who was largely hated by the movement. The board game was set out in a spiral, and players were required to lead their suffragette figure from their home to parliament, past the obstacles faced from Prime Minister H. H. Asquith and the Liberal government.[30] Also in 1909, suffragettes Daisy Solomon and Elspeth McClelland tried an innovative method of potentially obtaining a meeting with Asquith by sending themselves by Royal Mail courier post; however, Downing Street did not accept the parcel.[31]

1912 was a turning point for the suffragettes, as they turned to using more militant tactics and began a window-smashing campaign. Some members of the WSPU, including Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence and her husband Frederick, disagreed with this strategy but Christabel Pankhurst ignored their objections. In response to this, the Government ordered the arrest of the WSPU leaders and, although Christabel Pankhurst escaped to France, the Pethick-Lawrences were arrested, tried and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. On their release, the Pethick-Lawrences began to speak out publicly against the window-smashing campaign, arguing that it would lose support for the cause, and eventually they were expelled from the WSPU. Having lost control of Votes for Women the WSPU began to publish their own newspaper under the title The Suffragette.[32]

The campaign was then escalated, with the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to post box contents, smashing windows and eventually detonating bombs, as part of a wider bombing campaign.[33] Some radical techniques used by the suffragettes were learned from Russian exiles from tsarism who had escaped to England.[34] In 1914, at least seven churches were bombed or set on fire across the United Kingdom, including Westminster Abbey, where an explosion aimed at destroying the 700-year-old Coronation Chair, only caused minor damage.[35] Places that wealthy people, typically men, frequented were also burnt and destroyed whilst left unattended so that there was little risk to life, including cricket pavilions, horse-racing pavilions, churches, castles and the second homes of the wealthy. They also burnt the slogan "Votes for Women" into the grass of golf courses.[36] Pinfold Manor in Surrey, which was being built for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, was targeted with two bombs on 19 February 1913, only one of which exploded, causing significant damage; in her memoirs, Sylvia Pankhurst said that Emily Davison had carried out the attack.[36] There were 250 arson or destruction attacks in a six-month period in 1913[36] and in April the newspapers reported "What might have been the most serious outrage yet perpetrated by the Suffragettes":

Policemen discovered inside the railings of the Bank of England a bomb timed to explode at midnight. It contained 3oz of powerful explosive, some metal, and a number of hairpins the last named constituent, no doubt to make known the source of the intended sensation. The bomb was similar to that used in the attempt to blow up Oxted Railway Station. It contained a watch with attachment for explosion, but was clumsily fitted. If it had exploded when the streets were crowded a number of people would probably have been injured.[37]

There are reports in the Parliamentary Papers which include lists of the 'incendiary devices', explosions, artwork destruction (including an axe attack upon a painting of The Duke of Wellington in the National Gallery), arson attacks, window-breaking, postbox burning and telegraph cable cutting, that took place during the most militant years, from 1910 to 1914.[38] Both suffragettes and police spoke of a "Reign of Terror"; newspaper headlines referred to "Suffragette Terrorism".[39]

One suffragette, Emily Davison, died under the King's horse, Anmer, at The Derby on 4 June 1913. It is debated whether she was trying to pull down the horse, attach a suffragette scarf or banner to it, or commit suicide to become a martyr to the cause. However, recent analysis of the film of the event suggests that she was merely trying to attach a scarf to the horse, and the suicide theory seems unlikely as she was carrying a return train ticket from Epsom and had holiday plans with her sister in the near future.[40]

In the early 20th century until the outbreak of World War I, approximately one thousand suffragettes were imprisoned in Britain.[41] Most early incarcerations were for public order offences and failure to pay outstanding fines. While incarcerated, suffragettes lobbied to be considered political prisoners; with such a designation, suffragettes would be placed in the First Division as opposed to the Second or Third Division of the prison system, and as political prisoners would be granted certain freedoms and liberties not allotted to other prison divisions, such as being allowed frequent visits and being allowed to write books or articles.[42] Because of a lack of consistency between the different courts, suffragettes would not necessarily be placed in the First Division and could be placed in the Second or Third Division, which enjoyed fewer liberties.[43]

This cause was taken up by the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), a large organisation in Britain, that lobbied for women's suffrage led by militant suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst.[44] The WSPU campaigned to get imprisoned suffragettes recognised as political prisoners. However, this campaign was largely unsuccessful. Citing a fear that the suffragettes becoming political prisoners would make for easy martyrdom,[45] and with thoughts from the courts and the Home Office that they were abusing the freedoms of the First Division to further the agenda of the WSPU,[46] suffragettes were placed in the Second Division, and in some cases the Third Division, in prisons, with no special privileges granted to them as a result.[47]

Suffragettes were not recognised as political prisoners, and many of them staged hunger strikes while they were imprisoned. The first woman to refuse food was Marion Wallace Dunlop, a militant suffragette who was sentenced to a month in Holloway for vandalism in July 1909.[42] Without consulting suffragette leaders such as Pankhurst,[48] Dunlop refused food in protest at being denied political prisoner status. After a 92-hour hunger strike, and for fear of her becoming a martyr,[48] the Home Secretary Herbert Gladstone decided to release her early on medical grounds.[46] Dunlop's strategy was adopted by other suffragettes who were incarcerated.[49] It became common practice for suffragettes to refuse food in protest for not being designated as political prisoners, and as a result they would be released after a few days and could return to the "fighting line".[50]

After a public backlash regarding the prison status of suffragettes, the rules of the divisions were amended. In March 1910, Rule 243A was introduced by the Home Secretary Winston Churchill, allowing prisoners in the Second and Third Divisions to be allowed certain privileges of the First Division, provided they were not convicted of a serious offence, effectively ending hunger strikes for two years.[51] Hunger strikes began again when Pankhurst was transferred from the Second Division to the First Division, inciting the other suffragettes to demonstrate regarding their prison status.[52]

Militant suffragette demonstrations subsequently became more aggressive,[46] and the British Government took action. Unwilling to release all the suffragettes refusing food in prison,[49] in the autumn of 1909, the authorities began to adopt more drastic measures to manage the hunger-strikers. In September 1909, the Home Office became unwilling to release hunger-striking suffragettes before their sentence was served.[50] Suffragettes became a liability because, if they were to die in custody, the prison would be responsible for their death. Prisons began the practice of force-feeding the hunger strikers through a tube, most commonly via a nostril or stomach tube or a stomach pump.[49] Force-feeding had previously been practised in Britain but its use had been exclusively for patients in hospitals who were too unwell to eat or swallow food. Despite the practice being deemed safe by medical practitioners for sick patients, it posed health issues for the healthy suffragettes.[48]

The process of tube-feeding was strenuous without the consent of the hunger strikers, who were typically strapped down and force-fed via stomach or nostril tube, often with a considerable amount of force.[42] The process was painful, and after the practice was observed and studied by several physicians, it was deemed to cause both short-term damage to the circulatory system, digestive system and nervous system and long-term damage to the physical and mental health of the suffragettes.[53] Some suffragettes who were force-fed developed pleurisy or pneumonia as a result of a misplaced tube.[54] Women who had gone on hunger strike in prison received a Hunger Strike Medal from the WSPU on their release.[55]

In April 1913, Reginald McKenna of the Home Office passed the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill Health) Act 1913, or the Cat and Mouse Act as it was commonly known. The act made the hunger strikes legal, in that a suffragette would be temporarily released from prison when their health began to diminish, only to be readmitted when she regained her health to finish her sentence.[42] The act enabled the British Government to be absolved of any blame resulting from death or harm due to the self-starvation of the striker and ensured that the suffragettes would be too ill and too weak to participate in demonstrative activities while not in custody.[49] Most women continued hunger striking when they were readmitted to prison following their leave.[56] After the Act was introduced, force-feeding on a large scale was stopped and only women convicted of more serious crimes and considered likely to repeat their offences if released were force-fed.[57]

In early 1913 and in response to the Cat and Mouse Act, the WSPU instituted a secret society of women known as the "Bodyguard" whose role was to physically protect Emmeline Pankhurst and other prominent suffragettes from arrest and assault. Known members included Katherine Willoughby Marshall, Leonora Cohen and Gertrude Harding; Edith Margaret Garrud was their jujitsu trainer.

The origin of the "Bodyguard" can be traced to a WSPU meeting at which Garrud spoke. As suffragettes speaking in public increasingly found themselves the target of violence and attempted assaults, learning jujitsu was a way for women to defend themselves against angry hecklers.[58] Inciting incidents included Black Friday, during which a deputation of 300 suffragettes were physically prevented by police from entering the House of Commons, sparking a near-riot and allegations of both common and sexual assault.[59]

Members of the "Bodyguard" orchestrated the "escapes" of a number of fugitive suffragettes from police surveillance during 1913 and early 1914. They also participated in several violent actions against the police in defence of their leaders, notably including the "Battle of Glasgow" on 9 March 1914, when a group of about 30 Bodyguards brawled with about 50 police constables and detectives on the stage of St Andrew's Hall in Glasgow. The fight was witnessed by an audience of some 4500 people.[60]

At the commencement of World War I, the suffragette movement in Britain moved away from suffrage activities and focused on the war effort, and as a result, hunger strikes largely stopped.[61] In August 1914, the British Government released all prisoners who had been incarcerated for suffrage activities on an amnesty,[62] with Pankhurst ending all militant suffrage activities soon after.[63] The suffragettes' focus on war work turned public opinion in favour of their eventual partial enfranchisement in 1918.[64]

Women eagerly volunteered to take on many traditional male roles leading to a new view of what women were capable of. The war also caused a split in the British suffragette movement; the mainstream, represented by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst's WSPU calling a ceasefire in their campaign for the duration of the war, while more radical suffragettes, represented by Sylvia Pankhurst's Women's Suffrage Federation continued the struggle.

Prominent British-Indian suffragette Sophia Duleep Singh, the third daughter of the exiled Sikh Maharajah Duleep Singh, campaigned for support for the British Indian Army and lascars working in the Merchant Navy. She also joined a 10,000-woman protest march against the prohibition of a volunteer female force. Singh volunteered as a British Red Cross Voluntary Aid Detachment nurse, serving at an auxiliary military hospital in Isleworth from October 1915 to January 1917.[65][66][67][68]

The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, which had always employed "constitutional" methods, continued to lobby during the war years and compromises were worked out between the NUWSS and the coalition government.[69] On 6 February, the Representation of the People Act1918 was passed, enfranchising all men over 21 years of age and women over the age of 30 who met minimum property qualifications,[70][71] gaining the right to vote for about 8.4million women.[71] In November 1918, the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 was passed, allowing women to be elected into parliament.[71] The Representation of the People Act 1928 extended the voting franchise to all women over the age of 21, granting women the vote on the same terms that men had gained ten years earlier.[72]

The 1918 general election, the first general election to be held after the Representation of the People Act 1918, was the first in which some women (property owners older than 30) could vote. At that election, the first woman to be elected an MP was Constance Markievicz but, in line with Sinn Fin abstentionist policy, she declined to take her seat in the British House of Commons. The first woman to do so was Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor, following a by-election in November 1919.

In the autumn of 1913, Emmeline Pankhurst had sailed to the US to embark on a lecture tour to publicise the message of the WSPU and to raise money for the treatment of her son, Harry, who was gravely ill. By this time the suffragettes' tactics of civil disorder were being used by American militants Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, both of whom had campaigned with the WSPU in London. As in the UK, the suffrage movement in America was divided into two disparate groups, with the National American Woman Suffrage Association representing the more militant campaign and the International Women's Suffrage Alliance taking a more cautious and pragmatic approach[73] Although the publicity surrounding Pankhurst's visit and the militant tactics used by her followers gave a welcome boost to the campaign,[74] the majority of women in the US preferred the more respected label of "suffragist" to the title "suffragette" adopted by the militants.[75]

Many suffragists at the time, and some historians since, have argued that the actions of the militant suffragettes damaged their cause.[76] Opponents at the time saw evidence that women were too emotional and could not think as logically as men.[77][78][79][80][81] Historians generally argue that the first stage of the militant suffragette movement under the Pankhursts in 1906 had a dramatic mobilising effect on the suffrage movement. Women were thrilled and supportive of an actual revolt in the streets. The membership of the militant WSPU and the older NUWSS overlapped and were mutually supportive. However, a system of publicity, Ensor argues, had to continue to escalate to maintain its high visibility in the media. The hunger strikes and force-feeding did that, but the Pankhursts refused any advice and escalated their tactics. They turned to systematic disruption of Liberal Party meetings as well as physical violence in terms of damaging public buildings and arson. Searle says the methods of the suffragettes harmed the Liberal Party but failed to advance women's suffrage. When the Pankhursts decided to stop their militancy at the start of the war and enthusiastically support the war effort, the movement split and their leadership role ended. Suffrage came four years later, but the feminist movement in Britain permanently abandoned the militant tactics that had made the suffragettes famous.[82][83]

After Emmeline Pankhurst's death in 1928, money was raised to commission a statue, and on 6 March 1930 the statue in Victoria Tower Gardens was unveiled. A crowd of radicals, former suffragettes and national dignitaries gathered as former Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin presented the memorial to the public. In his address, Baldwin declared:

"I say with no fear of contradiction, that whatever view posterity may take, Mrs. Pankhurst has won for herself a niche in the Temple of Fame which will last for all time".[84]

In 1929 a portrait of Emmeline Pankhurst was added to the National Portrait Gallery's collection. In 1987 her former home at 62 Nelson Street, Manchester, the birthplace of the WSPU, and the adjoining Edwardian villa (no. 60) were opened as the Pankhurst Centre, a women-only space and museum dedicated to the suffragette movement.[85] Christabel Pankhurst was appointed a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1936, and after her death in 1958 a permanent memorial was installed next to the statue of her mother.[86] The memorial to Christabel Pankhurst consists of a low stone screen flanking her mother's statue with a bronze medallion plaque depicting her profile at one end of the screen paired with a second plaque depicting the "prison brooch" or "badge" of the WSPU at the other end.[87] The unveiling of this dual memorial was performed on 13 July 1959 by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir.[88] The Pankhurst's name and image and those of 58 other women's suffrage supporters are etched on the plinth of the statue of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square, London that was unveiled in 2018.[89]

In 1903, the Australian suffragist Vida Goldstein adopted the WSPU colours for her campaign for the Senate in 1910 but got them slightly wrong since she thought that they were purple, green and lavender. Goldstein had visited England in 1911 at the behest of the WSPU. Her speeches around the country drew huge crowds and her tour was touted as "the biggest thing that has happened in the women movement for sometime in England".[90] The correct colours were used for her campaign for Kooyong in 1913 and also for the flag of the Women's Peace Army, which she established during World War I to oppose conscription. During International Women's Year in 1975 the BBC series about the suffragettes, Shoulder to Shoulder, was screened across Australia and Elizabeth Reid, Women's Adviser to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam directed that the WSPU colours be used for the International Women's Year symbol. They were also used for a first-day cover and postage stamp released by Australia Post in March 1975. The colours have since been adopted by government bodies such as the National Women's Advisory Council and organisations such as Women's Electoral Lobby and other women's services such as domestic violence refuges and are much in evidence each year on International Women's day.[91]

The colours of green and heliotrope (purple) were commissioned into a new coat of arms for Edge Hill University in Lancashire in 2006, symbolising the university's early commitment to the equality of women through its beginnings as a women-only college.[92]

During the 1960s, the memory of the suffragettes was kept alive in the public consciousness by portrayals in film, such as the character Mrs Winifred Banks in the 1964 Disney musical film Mary Poppins who sings the song "Sister Suffragette" and Maggie DuBois in the 1965 film The Great Race.[93] In 1974 The BBC TV series Shoulder to Shoulder portraying events in the British militant suffrage movement, concentrating on the lives of members of the Pankhurst family was shown around the world. And in the 21st century the story of the suffragettes was brought to a new generation in the BBC television series Up the Women, the 2015 graphic novel trilogy Suffrajitsu: Mrs. Pankhurst's Amazons and the 2015 film Suffragette.[94]

In recognition of having meetings at the Royal Albert Hall in London, the Suffragettes were inducted into the Hall's Walk of Fame in 2018, making them one of the first eleven recipients of a star on the walk, joining Eric Clapton, Winston Churchill, Muhammad Ali and Albert Einstein, among others who were viewed as "key players" in the building's history.[95]

In February 2019, female Democrat members of the US Congress dressed predominantly in white when attending President Trump's State of the Union address. The choice of one of the colours associated with the suffragettes was to signify the women's solidarity.[96]

See Template:Women's suffrage in Scotland

^ The Oxford English Dictionary has this, "Originally a generic term, suffragist came to refer specifically to those advocates of women's suffrage who campaigned through peaceful, constitutional measures, in distinction to the suffragettes who employed direct action and civil disobedience."

Holton, Sandra Stanley (2002). Suffrage Days: Stories From the Women's Suffrage Movement. London and New York: Routledge. p.253.

See more here:

Suffragette - Wikipedia

In David Mamets film State and Main, a Hollywood big shot tries to shortchange a set hand by offering him an associate producer credit on a movie. A screenwriter overhears the exchange and asks, Whats an associate producer credit? The big shot answers: Its what you give your secretary instead of a raise.

The practice of land acknowledgmentpreceding a fancy event by naming the Indigenous groups whose slaughter and dispossession cleared the land on which the audiences canaps are about to be servedis one of the greatest associate-producer credits of all time. A land acknowledgment is what you give when you have no intention of giving land. It is like a receipt provided by a highway robber, noting all the jewels and gold coins he has stolen. Maybe it will be useful for an insurance claim? Anyway, you are not getting your jewels back, but now you have documentation.

Long common in Canada and Australia, land acknowledgment is catching on in the United States and already de rigueur in certain circles. If you have seen enough of theseI have now watched dozens, sometimes more than one at the same eventyou learn to spot them before the speaker even begins acknowledging. In many cases the tone turns solemn and moralizing, and the speakers posture stiff, as if preparing to read a confession at gunpoint. One might declare before, say, a corporate sales retreat: We would like to respectfully acknowledge that the land on which we gather to discuss the new line of sprinkler systems is in Mikmaki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mikmaq. The acknowledgment is almost always a prepared statement, read verbatim, because like all spells it must be spoken precisely for its magic to work. The magic in this case is self-absolution: The acknowledgment relieves the speaker and the audience of the responsibility to think about Indigenous peoples, at least until the next public event.

From the May 2021 issue: Return the national parks to the tribes

Thanksgiving relies on a cartoon version of the settlement of the Americas, focusing on a moment of concord between victim and gnocidaire. Land acknowledgments are similarly confected to stroke the sentiments of mostly non-Indigenous audiencesthis time by enabling their preening self-criticism.

Earlier this month, Microsofts annual Ignite conference began with a land acknowledgment so bewildering to viewers that it went briefly viral. But it was not abnormal among statements of this sort. The emcee acknowledged that the companys headquarters, one square mile of land outside Seattle, was occupied by the Sammamish, Duwamish, Snoqualmie, Suquamish, Muckleshoot, Snohomish, Tulalip, and other coast Salish people... since time immemorial. She noted that the tribes are still there but offered no connection between the past and today. Few if any of the baffled viewers would deny the historic presence of these peoples amid the sacred groves that later produced PowerPoint and Clippy, the Microsoft Word mascot. But in the absence of context, the effect of this parade of names was to suggest that for thousands of years the Indigenous peoples were crammed onto the Microsoft campus uncomfortably like canned salmon, doing who knows what, until Bill Gates arrived in the late 20th century to turn them into programmers.

Maybe it is a victory for Indigeneity to have the name Muckleshoot even mentioned at a Microsoft conference. By far the most common defense of land acknowledgments is that they harm no one, and they educate Americans about a hidden history that took place literally where they stand. Do they not at least do that?

No, not even a little. It is difficult to exaggerate the superficiality of these statements. What do members of the acknowledged group hold sacred? What makes them unique and identifies them to one another? Who are they, where did they come from, and where are they going? The evasion of these fundamental questions is typical. The speaker demonstrates no knowledge of the people whose names he reads carefully off the sheet of paper. Nor does he make any but the most general connection between the event and those people, other than an ancient one, not too different from the speakers relationship with the local geology or flora.

At ceremonies and events in my home city of New Haven, Connecticut, I have heard acknowledgment that we are on Quinnipiac land. This statement is never accompanied by mention of the basic fact that the Quinnipiac all but ceased to exist as a people more than 150 years ago, and there is no currently recognized Quinnipiac tribe. I suspect that few in the audience know this, and that few of the speakers do. (There is an Algonquian Confederacy of the Quinnipiac Tribal Council. Its leader, Iron Thunderhorse, is currently in prison in Texas for rape, and projected to be released in 2051, at the age of 107. He is half-Italian, was born William Coppola, and according to a legal filing by the Texas prison authority, was not listed as Native American on at least one of his purported birth certificates.)

Some people argue that land acknowledgments are gestures of respect. Im not sure one can show respect while also being indifferent to a peoples existence. The statements are a counterfeit version of respect. Teen Vogue put it well, if unintentionally: Land acknowledgment is an easy way to show honor and respect to the indigenous people. A great deal of nonsense about identity politics could be avoided by studying this line, and realizing that respect shown the easy way is just as cheap as it sounds. Real respect occurs only when accompanied by time, work, or something else of value. Learning basic facts about a particular tribe might be a start.

Most of these acknowledgments are considered (by the speakers, anyway) moral acts, because they bear witness to crimes perpetrated against Native peoples and call, usually implicitly, for redress. If you enjoy moral exhibitionism, to say nothing of moral onanism, land acknowledgments in their current form will leave you pleasured for years to come. (Cartoon history serves this purpose well; reality, less so. Do you acknowledge the Quinnipiac, or the tribes they at times allied with the English to fight? Or both?) The acknowledgments never include any actual material redressreturn of land, meaningful corrections of wrongs against Indigenous communitiesor sophisticated moral reckoning. Nor is there an easy way to reckon with this past. In the early 1600s, as many as 90 percent of the Quinnipiac were wiped out, along with other coastal Native Americans, by chicken pox and other diseases imported by Europeans. How does one assign blame for the spread of disease, hundreds of years before anyone knew diseases were something other than the wrath of God? (Does China owe Europe reparations for the Black Death, which came, like COVID-19, from Hubei? Or should China take two Opium Wars and call it even?)

Without time, work, or actual redress, the land acknowledgment that implies a moral debt amounts to the highwaymans receipt. To acknowledge Indigenous homelands and to return those lands are related, but the former alone allows for rhetoric without further action, Dustin Tahmahkera, a professor of Native American cultural studies at the University of Oklahoma, told me. If Microsoft truly felt bad about the location of its offices, it could move its operations to soil less blood-soaked. (There arent many such places, alas.) Not every Microsoft conference needs to be an announcement of a real-estate deal. But if Microsoft is going to acknowledge a debt, it should also pay it.

Read: How to acknowledge a shameful past

If the practice of land acknowledgment persists, it should do so in a version less embarrassing to all involved. I would propose restricting such acknowledgments to forms and occasions that preserve their dignity and power.

Follow these rules, and object to any land acknowledgments that violate them:

These reforms in land acknowledgment would leave plenty of cynicism to go aroundnearly all warranted, I think. Land acknowledgments are a classic culture-war issue, Nick Estes, an American-studies professor at the University of New Mexico, told me via email. They can be a pantomime of caring or outrage mostly by professional class elites and educational institutions. Meanwhile, he asked, what of the real issues facing Indigenous peopleshousing, employment, child removal, generational poverty, lack of adequate healthcare, police violence, racism, and erasure; in other words, real colonialism?

Land acknowledgments are just words, and words can distract from real issues, in particular the ultimate one, which is Native American tribal sovereignty. But some words are honest, even loving, and others are hollow and nauseating. As an American, and as a once and future member of an audience at ceremonies and events, I would be thankful for more of the former and fewer of the latter.

Read the original here:

Land Acknowledgments Are Just Moral Exhibitionism

Brett Guthrie's leafy orchard has been a constant on Sydney's western fringe, growing fruit for generations.

As he drives out of the family farm, he's astounded by how rapidly the scenery has changed, from farmland and green pastures to housing developments.

"It's creeping and definitely coming toward us," he said.

He's part of the Western Sydney food bowl, a $600 million business, which makes up three quarters of Sydney's agricultural activity.

But the farmland is at risk,as Sydney's south-west and north-west undergoes a rapid transition.

An extra 833,000 more people are expected to call Western Sydney home in the coming two decades.

There are some difficulties in quantifying the changing landscape, with Australian Bureau of Statistics land-use definitions changing over time.

But a Western Sydney University (WSU) study estimatesup to 60 per centof farming land in Sydney's west and outer suburbshas already been lost in the last decade.

In the local government areas (LGAs) of The Hills Shire and Blacktown, around 40 per centof agricultural land has been lost in the last five years.

In Camden, south-westof Sydney, researchers found a quarter of agricultural land was lost in that period.

Mr Guthrie feels it's vital for agricultural land to remain in the Sydney basin.

"If we keep doing what we're doing now, we're going to find that creep keeps on coming in and we're going to find less and less productive agricultural land," he said.

"Once it's gone, it's gone forever."

WSU Associate Professor Awais Piracha said growers and farmers are incentivised to sell up or try and rezone their land, with the price difference between rural and residential use increasing to up to 200 per centin parts of the west.

"We have had a policy direction which encourages residential development at the fringe," Dr Piracha said.

"From 2010 onward, we have been much more liberal with land releases in Western Sydney ... because of that we have much more new development taking place."

Australian Farm Institute general manager, Katie McRobert, said the price discrepancy between farming and residential landmakes it more likely families will sell off their farms.

"It's almost inevitable that when you come to that decision, 'what do we do next with the farm? How do we how do we pass this on? And what do we do within our family?' It's going to be a sell decision," she said.

"That's what's going to benefit the children financially, so they don't feel that they have an option."

Oran Park, in the Camden LGA, is one such suburb experiencing a significant growth in new homes.

State government planning data predicts Camden's population will grow by 83 per centin the next 20 years.

Thousands of new homes are expected to be built in Oran Park, and neighbouring Catherine Fields and Leppington, over the next five years.

Tim Reid, general manager of Edgewater Homes NSW, has been at the coalface of significant demand for housing in the area.

"We're seeing massive amounts of mums and dads, first and second home buyers looking for properties in the area.

"That comes with the employment in the area ... this south-west corridor is a big driver of employment.

"People want to be close to where they work, they also want to be close to where their kids go to school, and where their families can interact with the community."

Ms McRobert feels the importance of the Sydney food bowl is often understated.

"People don't expect that a lot of food that they eat is coming from the Sydney bowl, the value of food that's produced around Sydney is really very important to the agricultural economy," she said.

"Most of the LGAs in Sydney, who host agriculture, they don't actually have a specific agricultural strategy in place.

"If you don't have that strategy, it's very easy to make ad hoc decisions and hand things over to developers very quickly."

Although there have been some moves to protect agricultural land in outer and rural suburbs, Dr Piracha feels much of Sydney's agricultural land could disappear in the coming decades.

"That's the direction we are going in, and it's quite likely to happen in my view, because we have been losing it very fast," he said.

A spokesperson for the NSW Department of Planning and Environmentsaid about 1,560 hectares of land had been set aside for "industrial-scale agriculture purposes" as part of the future Western Sydney Aerotropolis.

They said the agribusiness precinct would generate 10,000 jobs and "continue to provide food securityand supply to Sydney".

The government's new agritourism policy had also cut tape to allowingfarmers to diversify their income through ventures like farm stays and cafes, they said.

Read the original post:

Rising populations and development in Sydney's west threatens food bowl - ABC News

Land of Dreams contains both one of Randy Newmans all-time best and worst songs making for a rather interesting artistic portrait, indeed.

But well get to these songs in a moment. For now, its worth mentioning that, when it was released, Land of Dreams raised eyebrows when it was announced that Newman who always wrote in character and used that device as a way to shine a light on some of the uglier parts of the American psyche was writing autobiographical songs.

Well, not exactly. After the opening three songs that draw (at times, somewhat loosely) on his childhood, Newman went back to his familiar songwriting mode. But these three songs take a more personal look at a child experiencing the things, such as religion, racism, and bullying, that Newman often wrote about on previous records. In the first song, Dixie Flyer, we get a striking portrait of his grandmother, Her dress as black as a crow in a coal mine, before we find out that her Southern Jewish family is trying to pass as Christian. The second song, New Orleans Wins the War frames the Souths well-documented historical amnesia in a hazy, Technicolor memory: Blue, blue morning, blue, blue day/All your bad dreams drift away. The third song, Four Eyes, has an amazing introduction that captures just how fucking scary a parents tough-love pep talk sounds to a child before his first day of school, which, of course, does nothing to ease the pain of being taunted by his peers.

Then, the masterpiece. Bad News from Home is an under-three-minute blast of hard-boiled noir. Over an ominous, circular chord progression, the hapless narrator watches the betrayal in front of him with a nightmarish vividness:

At the end of this bone-white gravel road

They both lie sleeping on a feather bed

And her hairs as black as the sky at night

But her eyes are gray like the moon

A career highlight, Newman never wrote anything like this song, before or since.

Yet he never wrote anything as spectacularly bad as Masterman and Baby J. What is intended to be a late-80s parable about escaping the horrors of ghetto life devolves rapidly when Newman tries to imitate the vocal cadences of an aspiring Black rapper and, if that doesnt completely sink the song, the overdone turntable scratching surely does.

That Newman was also known for having lengthy bouts of writers block perhaps explains how he could be conflicted about where to take a song. Bad News makes the wise decision to leave us with the narrators simmering rage: You can run but you cant hide . . . You said you loved me, but I know you lied. On the other hand, Masterman exhibits Newmans penchant for taking highly conceptual satire to perverse lengths in a not very flattering light.

Slotted in between Newmans best and worst song is Roll with the Punches, which uses the anachronistic imagery of a minstrel show in a far more toxic way than the kinder, gentler treatment on New Orleans Wins the War. As the narrator in Roll with the Punches, Newman voices a conservative patriots typically self-serving argument for the American Dream and, as it turns out, the narrator is introducing a Black child tap dancer, who is being crassly marketed as an entertainment act. This imaginative historical narrative appeared to scandalize those used to the cool amorality of sex, drugs, and rock n roll. The album reviewer for Rolling Stone called Roll with the Punches, one of [Newmans] most disturbing portraits of callowness.

Another problem is Newmans unsuccessful attempts to hide some of his weirder ideas in the plain sight of contemporary production trends. The song that follows Masterman, Red Bandana, an unholy mess of chirpy synth sounds, only really took off when he stripped it down and played it at a show in the 2000s that I saw he hammered home with delight the bluesy riff, even shouting to the crowd as the final note faded, That was dirty!

What saves Land of Dreams from getting no more than a mixed review is Newmans going big at the end. If Trouble in Paradise, his last album, made five years earlier, closed with a profoundly anti-nostalgic elegy for Vietnam, Newman closes Land of Dreams with I Want You to Hurt Like I Do, a strychnine-laced ballad that takes dead aim at the pathos of We Are the World that 1985 spectacle of sappy liberal do-goodness. Here is another monster produced by the land of dreams, a guy whose strongest feelings are manifested by abandoning others.

I Want You to Hurt, of course, can have a between-the-lines reading as commentary on Newmans own failed relationships, as if only by fanning the flames of his own self-hatred can he face the cultural void of the George H.W. Bush years. But, hey, thats life as a sardonic songwriter. Newman goes as far as to remind us, in the title of the preceding song that cries crocodile tears for the hardships of NPR listeners everywhere: Its Money That Matters.

See the original post here:

Year of the Month: Randy Newmans LAND OF DREAMS Produces Nightmares - The-Solute

Where are the defenders of Kanye Wests right to speak out on television and on social media? The newest censors in our land are the moguls who own the newspapers and TV stations and social networks like Twitter and Meta; they proudly de-platform the rants of the Kanye Wests.

I was among the lucky who got to hear West, the Black dissident, on Tucker Carlsons Fox News Channel show when West mocked those who criticized his having worn a White Lives Matter t-shirt. I heard his contentious viewpoints about Jews, some of whom think they have a right to dictate the terms and prohibitions of our discourse about vexing social justice issues if and when an advocate utters the J-word. I disagreed with most of what West had to say, but Im glad I got to hear it from the horses mouth.

Who do these modern-day censors think themselves to be, and why do they think that the readers of tweets and watchers of the Idiot Box need their protection from the rants of the weirdest and wildest provocateurs of our times?

The modern-day censors think that banning the wild West from our TV screens and his angry voice from our social media outlets is the civically responsible solution. Why not deplatform hate speech? Because their rules are arbitrary, and their goalposts, ever-moving. Today theyre banning Kanye; yesterday they banned speakers on our college campuses who spoke up for Palestinian rights, or on behalf of Zionism, and the defenders of Anita Bryant, the fierce opponent of gay rights.

It was on the college campus where literal barricades were erected against hearing the speeches of renegade lecturers who decried censorship of any kind, where the advocates of political correctness were welcomed and the purveyors of anti-racism were cheered; they condemned the works of authors like Mark Twain whose Huckleberry Finn cleverly and prodigiously used the N-word.

Kanye West attends the "The Greatest Lie Ever Sold" Premiere Screening on Oct. 12, 2022 in Nashville, Tennessee. (Jason Davis/Getty Images for DailyWire+)

That Mark Twains books and the author himself was anti-racist did not much matter to the zealots who think the best thing about freedom and speech is purging controversial ideas and bad words from our conversations. Gone and just about forgotten are the great defenders of free speech stalwarts like Nat Hentoff, the now-deceased author whose columns and books argued that odious ideas and so-called hate speech not only deserved to be heard and read, but should never be banned outright in our literature or public arenas. Rather, they should be answered.

Hentoff was one who favored bringing onerous, offensive ideas into the open where they could be confronted instead of hidden or squelched as bad ideas. In a democracy, practiced in a truly open discussion, the instinct to bury our viewpoint differences is the equivalent of errant nonsense.

Weekdays

Catch up on the days top five stories every weekday afternoon.

But not even the American Civil Liberties Union took Hentoffs side when he excoriated its leaders for passing rules that would have prohibited its dissident board members from expressing to the public their opposition to pompous, errant positions.

Even then, Hentoff and his free speech colleagues were a dwindling legion, especially on the college campus and on television. I remember a time when Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan were invited onto television talk shows to pronounce their ideology and to protest Black incursions on everything sacred and white. Occasionally, a Black nationalist would be invited onto TV and to the campuses to complain about whites studied silence about supposed Jewish foes of Black power and intact Black communities.

Not every day did we see the likes of Louis Farrakhan or Black anti-Semites on our TV screens or in major media but occasionally, they got heard and seen, and their books and venomous preachments read and debated. Airing such putrid sentiment and contested opinions used to be the fashion of the colleges and social media.

Yes, I understand the legal argument that Twitter and Facebook, as private companies, have a right to craft and enforce so-called community standards and ban people who turn their platforms into uncivil environments. I am speaking to the wider wisdom of such an approach, not to its legality. The First Amendment surely does not require owners of our media to let in trouble-making speakers. (West may try to avoid the problem by buying Parler, another social media platform; well see if he can build that into a true free-for-all.)

But where are the owners of mass media who used to welcome fierce and contentious disagreements about social events and civic matters? Are there none (other than Elon Musk) who want to hear what others think and say who disagree with them and the body politic?

Stifling free expression in any widely available forum is un-American. Not every social media platform, newspaper or TV station will choose a free forum for programming choices, but some, at least one, should be a purveyor of free, unfettered speech (with warnings to their audience, if they want). If racists or anti-Semites make it on the platform, so what? Neither Jewish nor Blacks blood is so thin we cant stomach hearing what our foes think of us and themselves by way of fake superiority.

Meyers is president of the New York Civil Rights Coalition.

More:

Where are the liberal defenders of Kanye West's freedom to speak? - New York Daily News

By John J. Duncan Jr.

duncanj@knoxfocus.com

Last week I wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court cases in the 1960s which banned prayer and Bible reading in public schools.

In the prayer case, all three levels of the New York Courts trial, appellate, and supreme had ruled in favor of allowing nondenominational prayers, but they were reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. That decision in 1962 and one the next year went contrary to several earlier Supreme Court opinions.

In Zorach v. Clauson in 1952, the court said, We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.

That opinion was written by the super-liberal Justice William O. Douglas. He added that it was ridiculous to believe there should be a separation of church and state in every conceivable way: A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the court opens each session: God save the United States and this Honorable Court.

One of the things I enjoyed the most when I was in Congress was showing people around the Capitol when I had time. I was always grateful for my job and I loved (and still love) history.

In fact, I took most of my electives at UT in history and could have had a degree in history if I had been in the College of Liberal Arts.

I remember one anti-communist physics professor at UT who told me he had voted to change the name of that college to the College of Arts and Sciences because he was neither a liberal nor an artist.

People were frequently surprised when I told them every session of the House and Senate was opened with prayer. They were even more surprised when I showed them the prayer room just off the rotunda in the center of the Capitol and told them that there were House and Senate prayer groups that met each week in the Capitol when in session.

I had the privilege of sitting on the platform during eight presidential inaugurations, and everyone had both opening and closing prayers.

I think it is sad that we give our national leaders the privilege of prayer and Bible reading in the nations capitol but we dont give that same privilege to the nations school children.

Also, it seems to me that the problems of this country have grown bigger just about every year since prayer and Bible reading were banned in our public schools.

I know that most children probably didnt pay much attention or get much out of it when hearing prayers or Bible verses in school. But it sent a very important message to children that there was a higher power in charge or who was there to help during tough times later in life.

And who could know when a child might have come to school hurting in some way because of an argument between parents, a divorce, or a death in the family who might have been comforted by a prayer or a Bible verse?

We have had great technological progress since the 60s, but in many personal, moral, and human ways, we have often regressed. We certainly have much more crime (murders, violence, etc.), more family breakups, and more personal breakdowns.

In 2nd Chronicles 7:14, the Bible says: If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and heal their land.

We need healing in this country today, both as individuals and as a nation. And we need more prayer in our government, in our schools, and in our homes.

I remember hearing a prayer by my friend John Wood, the former pastor of Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church. He prayed for everyone there, of course, but then added that he was praying especially for those who were not there and who thought they didnt need prayer, and thus needed it most of all.

Go here to see the original:

Supreme Court On Prayer And Bible Reading II - The knoxville focus

While the current global atmosphere seems quite bleak for American-style liberal democracy, the anti-Hijab movement in Iran is a surprising pushback out of the blue. This is happening amidst the rise of conservative tendencies across the world that are feeding a strong current of right-wing politics. Much of this is a result of rampant globalization and immigration.

However, the Iranian paradox emerges from the fact that the waves of globalization could never fully hit the Iranian shores especially after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Its seclusion continued even after the triumph of US-led free-market capitalism in the early 1990s. The situation was further exacerbated after the US imposed heavy sanctions on the country in 2011.

Iran as an economy and society therefore is yet to experience the forces of globalization like the rest of the world after the fall of Communism. In that sense, it is around three decades behind, and continues to maintain its pre-globalization virginity somewhat.

The anti-hijab movement has to be viewed from a larger perspective than what a merely feminist prism can offer us. The death of the 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in the custody of the Iranian morality police has only acted as a trigger to release a gamut of bottled-up forces in the country. Going by the lyrics of a song that has emerged as the anthem of this movement, the common anxieties include the embarrassment of an empty pocket, a command economy, students and their future, yearning for a normal life, a forced paradise, imprisoned talents and so on.

Much of the unrest clearly has to do with Irans struggling economy and high levels of unemployment amongst the educated youth. As per the countrys latest census (2016-17), the unemployment rates for men and women aged 25-29 were 34.6 percent and 45.7 percent, respectively. This has largely been a result of overbearing state bureaucracy and the dominance of state enterprises, both of which have stifled the growth of the private sector.

Besides, Irans oil-centric economy has been more of a curse than a blessing when it comes to inequality in the country. Its fruits, even after the removal of the Shah in 1979, have been enjoyed by a minority Iranian elite. The sector continues to be dominated by state enterprises that are notorious for corruption, red tape and controversial contracting. Rather than boosting productivity and growth of the sector, successive governments have kept the oil prices low in the domestic market, thus using it as an instrument for populist politics. Even the most promising sector of the economy therefore hasnt been able to generate a healthy rate of jobs for the youth.

When Donald Trump reimposed the sanctions in 2018, the crude oil exports instantly halved. Under American pressure, dozens of European firms exited Iran, leaving thousands of educated youth unemployed. Eventually, the Covid-19 pandemic further weakened the economy and resulted in the further loss of at least 7 million jobs.

The death of Mahsa Amini therefore was a trigger that released a massive current of socio-economic tensions bottled up in Iran for years. Much of this was a result of external pressure applied by the West to gradually implode the Iranian system. But a lot must also be attributed to the lack of an imaginative policy of the regime which failed to share the fruits of the countrys resources amongst the population.

Although the movement has so far been limited to urban Iran, it is gradually beginning to spread to smaller towns of the country. The protesting youth are actually using this opportunity to demand the complete ouster of the regime. If this materializes, it will have far-reaching implications beyond Irans national boundaries.

Indian authorities in Kashmir for one, would be watching the developments very closely. They would love to press home the advantage if such an ouster were to materialize. The authorities realize that liberal-democracy has much better chances to gain a foothold in Kashmir as compared to hardline nationalism. Ironically, while liberals are abhorred by the right-wing in the rest of India, in Kashmir they could become the means of introducing lasting stability.

The authorities have already warmed up to this idea and have made a steady start in this direction. The government has lately been inaugurating movie theatres, promoting fashion shows, shopping malls and liquor outlets, which form the economic and cultural paraphernalia of an urban, liberal-democratic order. As separatist politics seems to be receding from the landscape, the government realizes that this space could be filled effectively by a large liberal constituency which will act as a storm-breaker against potential waves of fundamentalism in the future. A sprawling population of liberals will also see the Indian system as a protective outer shell for the preservation of their values, lifestyles and businesses.

The tiny, green shoots of liberal-democracy have in fact already started to become visible in the valley. Kashmir since the land reforms of 1970s, has seen the emergence of an affluent, upwardly mobile middle class. Over 30000 students from J&K travel abroad for studies every year, mostly to Europe. Srinagar now has a thriving culture of startups, cafes and high fashion, which is quite remarkable for a relatively small, non-metropolitan city. The millennial and Gen-Z influencers, especially female, have taken to social media quite actively and fearlessly. These are indications of a gradually ripening substratum for a liberal-democratic outlook to take root in the valley.

Luckily for Indian authorities, the triumph of the Iranian movement will be received with a sense of gratification, if not jubilation, in the Sunni-majority Kashmir. It therefore has the potential of capturing the imagination of the youth and giving a significant impetus to the budding liberal forces in the valley. Ironically, while the liberal forces across the world are retreating, in Kashmir these could actually hold the key for a politically stable future. Indian authorities would love to capitalize on this unique opportunity, pretty much along similar lines as successive governments in the past have patronized Kashmirs moderate and composite Sufi culture.

[Photo by Brett Morrison from Los Angeles, CA, USA, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons]

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

Danish Zahoor is a Jammu & Kashmir (India) based Educator and Columnist. His areas of focus are Geopolitics, Conflict, Energy, National Security and Diplomacy.

Excerpt from:

Whats Driving the Iranian Revolts and What it Means for Kashmir - The Geopolitics

Yesterday, Delta Air Lines (NYSE:) announced it invested $60 million in Joby Aviation and the could increase up to $200 million. Joby Aviation is a leading electric air taxi startup which is offering a home-to-airport service. Delta has entered a "mutually exclusive" contract with the start-up across the US and the UK for five years, with an option to extend it. The stock finished the day down 1.97%.

At a briefing, Joby CEO JoeBen Bevirt gave reporters an example of his company's service to customers. A trip from Manhattan to JFK Airport, which can be as long as 50 minutes in old-fashioned earthbound travel, can take as little as 10 minutes with a Joby five-passenger aircraft. Bevirt also said the cost would be comparable to an Uber ().

However, as exciting as all that sounds, it is unclear how it will boost Delta's profits. Firstly, the airline is not the only one pursuing air taxi to airport service. Second, there is still considerable regulatory red tape and it is unknown when the service will begin. Delta is due to report on Thursday.

Based on 11 Wall Street Analysts on Tipranks, the average price target for the stock is $45.15, a 56.55% upside, within the next 12 months.

I don't think that will happen, but even if it does, I expect the stock price to fall at least to $25, if not retest $20, first.

The stock completed a second consecutive H&S continuation pattern. A return move successfully confirmed the second one's integrity. The throwback formed a rising flag, bearish after the preceding five straight day selloff. The H&S continuation pattern reflects a failed attempt for a bottom, and a flag projects a continued selloff. The rising range is a rest period after a whirlwind shocked short sellers. They increased demand when they covered these shorts, causing the flag to rise. The ongoing supply drowned out available demand pushing it below the flag. That penetration signals to all those who exited short positions that the party is not over, attracting new short sellers.

The H&S target is set by measuring from the head of $35.79 to the pattern's breakout point of $30.53, triggering a $5.26 move, targeting $25.27.

There are two target interpretations for the flag, conservative, to its first decline end, and a liberal one which includes its ultimate low.

The conservative measure, from the Sept. 20, $33.27 high, to the Sept. 26, $28.01 low, is a $5.26 move (ironically, precisely the same as the H&S) from its $29.40 point of breakout, setting a $24.14 target. However, although the price penetrated the flag bottom, it could still retest its high.

The liberal measure is a $6.07 move from the same high to the $27.20 low on Oct. 3, measuring from the same breakout point to $21.13.

Conservative traders should wait for the flag penetration to reach below $28, then successfully retest its integrity before considering a short.

Moderate trades would be content with a lower low, then wait for a throwback for a better entry if not added confirmation.

Aggressive traders may short according to their strategy. Here's an example:

Trade Sample - Aggressive Short

Disclaimer: The author has no positions in any securities mentioned in this article.

See original here:

Chart Of The Day: Will Delta Air Lines Crash Land Towards $20? - Investing.com

Letter-writerDIANNE DEANEs rates notice is causing her distress. The unimproved value of her land has jumped 50 per cent and shes as mad as hell

I WAS distressed to receive my rates notice for 2022 to find that the valuation of the unimproved value of my land had increased by around 50 per cent in just one year.

I agree with Ron Edgecombe, of Evatt, in his concern over the ACT Unimproved Land Valuation increases (Letters, CN October 6), but its not only units that are being treated unfairly.

My rates for a medium-size block are now $4324 a year, almost doubling in the last seven years. My fixed income in retirement certainly hasnt doubled in the same period.

Its not as if the increase in rates offers any increase in services. Instead, potholes are not fixed, grasslands are overgrown to the extent they cant be used (unless you are a horse or kangaroo), health and mental health services, the education budget and public housing have all declined.

I object to an inflated valuation of my land that I believe is based primarily on two factors: the need for the ACT government to pay for its useless extensions to the tram, and the governments failure to make new land available to match the pace of demand and thus greatly inflating the cost of new land, which in turn also helps pay for the tram.

What a tidy solution to years of mismanagement and misplaced priorities of this government!

I urge those concerned with this rude grab for money to lodge a written objection with the Commissioner for ACT Revenue at revenue.act.gov.au/rights-and-obligations.

Its too late to wait until the next election to give this government the message. Do it now.

Dianne Deane, via email

DRIVING south along Athllon Drive, as I pass over Sulwood Drive, I am greeted by a sign that says: We are duplicating this road.

It has been there since before the last ACT election, now some two years hence.

What has happened in the fulfilment of this statement? Nothing!

It is testament to yet another unfulfilled election promise from the Labor/Greens. Perhaps it is a dual-use sign usable at the next election thats cost-saving economy for you!

Would the ACT government either get on with the job, or perhaps be more honest about it, and remove the sign!

Graham Harper, Wanniassa

I RECENTLY returned from a holiday in WA and had the opportunity to use Perths public transport system.

What a contrast with the shambolic system here.

First of all, the bus drivers accept cash and interstate visitors can pay that way if they are not there long enough to justify buying a pass. They recognise interstate Seniors Cards, too.

With the diabolical debt that the ACT government has got the territory into (ref Stanhope & Ahmed in various editions of CityNews), you would think they would see the importance of ending a stupid policy that bleeds revenue and resumed accepting cash on our bus system.

But no, covid must be a much more virulent strain here than in the West!

Another massive difference between the two transport systems is that in Perth, bus services on weekends are a little less frequent than on Monday to Friday with 10-15-minute intervals being commonplace and 30 minutes in the evenings. Compare that with the two hour intervals we have had to suffer on weekends in Canberra on non-Rapid routes for two years.

We cant afford a better service despite the outrageous property rates because of the governments arrogant refusal to recognise the outrageous disruption and cost of extending light rail.

Colin Lyons, Weetangera

FEDERAL Liberal Party vice-president and Sky News regular Tina McQueen comes across as rather Putinesque (No coming back for Libs without those lefties, citynews.com.au, October 5).

Any teal-tinged voter who is wondering about supporting the Liberal Party, or any moderate-leaning party member aiming for future party preselection, would be running yet another mile away from the party by now.

Many would also have reason to be suspicious about the true credentials, beliefs and motivations of future Liberal female candidates in particular.

So far, the ACT Liberals, who are also on a rocky path to resurrection, have not shown intestinal fortitude to stand up to Ms McQueens damning and controlling comments about ridding the party of lefties, and only welcoming good conservatives.

Or did too many local members and MLAs instead attend the Conservative Political Action Conference Australia at the beginning of October and remain in thrall of the presentations made by McQueen, Nigel Farage, former Trump associates, Australian right-wing politicians and commentators, arch-conservative lobby groups and think-tanks?

Sue Dyer, Downer

DEAR Dr Douglas MacKenzie (Letters, CN October 6), as a true believer I know that you will continue to crow about the Labor Partys ascendancy to the government benches, but to quote a 600-year-old French quotation: The king is dead long live the king.

Let your mate Albo get on with his job and hope that all will be well with the world for the next few years.

Dave Jeffrey, Farrer

I HAVE received a five-and-a-half-page statement from the ACT Revenue Office showing what I owe but nowhere does it show what I have paid.

As your columnist Paul Costigan (Canberra Matters) often states, this government shows an outrageous disrespect and inefficiency in dealing with Canberrans.

Imagine if the statements of my bank or body corporate didnt show the amounts Ive paid over the period covered by the statements. Who does the ACT Revenue Office take us for?

By the way, I must point out another inept, new way this government is choosing to serve its constituents, namely, not supplying the name of the officer who sends you a letter.

Instead it says Delegate of the Commissioner for ACT Revenue Operations. It might sound impressive to them, but not to us.

Vivien Munoz, Holt

RICK Forsters arguments in favour of the monarchy are so old hat Im surprised he didnt also regurgitate the tedious, If it aint broke, dont fix it.

While listing the terrible nature of republics, he failed to mention how the world has also seen many bad monarchs and monarchies over the centuries.

In our own lifetimes, British monarchs have done little or nothing to prevent us from falling into catastrophic times, to avoid disastrous economic downturns, or to right the wrongs placed on the disadvantaged.

And critically, how many times has the British monarch sided with Australia over the interests of the British government? The answer is, none. Historically, what did the cousins, George V and Kaiser Wilhelm II do to prevent the slaughter of World War I?

I could go on, pointing out that the late queen on her travels abroad, was required to speak on behalf of the UK government, rather than Australia. King Charles III will be required to do likewise.

It has been Australian governments that have had to speak up for Australia, as John Curtin did in bringing troops back from the Middle East to fight the Japanese, against the wishes of the British War Cabinet. What did the British monarch have to say about that?

We dont know, because were not allowed to know what our Head of State thinks behind the palace doors, even when our interests are at stake, such as with the Whitlam dismissal. It took 50 years and High Court intervention to get access to the letters between Kerr and the Palace. Does Rick think this is acceptable for an allegedly democratic nation?

Im not against any individual monarch its the institution that is at fault, serious fault, as far as Australia is concerned. Surely we are capable of learning from the mistakes of other republican systems, most of which have plenty of good points as well as faults, just as we can take some of the values of our present system and preserve them in a changed format while getting rid of the useless bits.

The main consideration is; it is long past time that a sovereign Australia stands up for itself, with a system that represents us first and foremost and is represented at its head by an Australian rather than by a foreigner who is foisted upon us through an accident of birth.

By the way, he or she must also be a believer in a particular brand of a particular religion that had its origins in the aberrant behaviour of a monarch seven centuries past. That too, is apparently a desirable value for this modern multicultural society to live with.

It IS broke, and it does need fixing.

Eric Hunter, Cook

In a world of spin and confusion, theres never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Original post:

Letters / 'Give this government the message. Do it now' - Canberra CityNews

Electioneering ahead of next years local council elections has already begun.

The battle lines are being drawn over the Faraday Road former football pitch - with the current Conservative administration being labelled "mean-minded".

Both the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party say they will overturn current plans to build offices on the patch of grass on the edge of the London Road Industrial Estate.

Green Party councillors have given a categoric assurance that, should the Conservatives fail to retain control of West Berkshire Council in the elections in May 2023, they will seek the immediate reopening of Faraday Road as a football ground in line with the planning permission already granted to the Newbury Community Football Group.

The Lib Dems say they are confident of a majority at the next local election, and the Greens are confident of stealing more seats, and claiming the balance of power on the council.

Unless we are given very clear and strong reasons why not, we will upon taking control of the council next May proceed to allow the Newbury Community Football Group to implement its planning consent at Faraday Road," said Tony Vickers (Lib Dem, Wash Common).

"We will not sign up to any deals with any other organisation that purports to offer another site.

The Faraday Road pitch has been closed for team football for around four years now.

The build of the Monks Lane site is dependent on the outcome of a Judicial Review - on the legality of the planning consent process - going in the councils favour.

"It is only the link made by the current executive with Faraday Road that we object to," Mr Vickers added. "We have no problems with there being an all weather sports pitch on rugby club land or even sharing it with other sporting bodies. We assert that it cannot be seen as a replacement for Faraday Road."

He poured scorn on Green ambitions to claim the fight.

"It doesnt make much difference what the WBC Green Group think," he said. "They are not going to be in a position to take any decision on their own. If Lib Dems need their support, wed be grateful for it of course. Asking if we would join up with the Greens is like asking our Lib Dem colleagues in Parliament to join up with Labour in opposing some Government proposal and overturn it after the next General Election when Labour had already announced they would do so."

But the Greens want a piece of the action.

We have also consistently opposed the financially ruinous scheme to replace Faraday Road with a so-called sports hub at Monks Lane, which was given planning permission in the most questionable of circumstances and will be a burden to West Berkshire council tax payers for many years to come, said David Marsh (Green, Wash Common).

We agree with Sport England that Monks Lane is not equivalent or better than Faraday Road: it's too small, it can't be scaled up adequately, and the astronomical cost would be much better spent on addressing the need for sporting facilities across West Berkshire.

Unlike Monks Lane or the equally unsuitable Manor Park, it will be a genuine sporting and social hub for the local community in Clay Hill and further afield. It is a sustainable location well served by public transport.

Faraday Road had been earmarked for housing to finance the redevelopment of the London Road Industrial Estate. But the council U-turned earlier this year, and it's now set for commercial use.

Meanwhile - Liberal Democrat Newbury town councillors Nigel Foot and Stuart Gourley are demanding answers from West Berkshire Council on what they say is the lack of publicity given to the public consultation on building a new sports pitch on the green space in Manor Park.

They have also argued that the proposed sports pitch is a threat to the local areas accessible green space, which they say is an important site for the areas biodiversity and drainage.

Residents have told us that they are concerned that a playing pitch on the Manor Park site would do tremendous damage to the green space in our area, putting at risk biodiversity and natural drainage, said Liberal Democrat Newbury town councillor Mr Foot.

Rather than rip up this vital piece of Clay Hill green space, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that it would be a much better use of taxpayers money to return sport to the Faraday Road ground.

"The Conservative council bosses mismanagement of the whole London Road Industrial Estate saga has been staggering, and its no wonder that we are finding more and more West Berkshire residents turning to the Liberal Democrats to provide the fresh start our area needs.

See the original post:

A game of two halves... or is it? - Newbury Today

If The Handmaid's Tale's subject matter wasn't so consistently dark and heavy, the opening moments of episode 7, titled "No Man's Land," could almost be called a comedy of errors. It picks up right where last week's cliffhanger left off, with Serena (Yvonne Strahovski) pointing a pistol at June (Elisabeth Moss,) forcing her to drive somewhere.

But gun-slinging Serena's also experiencing painful contractions, causing her to accidentally fire a shot through the windshield. Dumbfounded by the sheer ridiculousness of the predicament she's found herself in, June pulls over and flees. Serena takes the wheel, but almost immediately drives into a ditch. A conflicted June comes to her rescue, opening the driver's side door to find Serena hunched over the wheel, yet still attempting to steady the weapon toward June. "Are you in "fking labor?," she says, before effortlessly disarming her. Discovering Serena's water has broken, June then assists her to a nearby abandoned barn, offering a sarcastic, "Maybe they'll have a manger," on the journey over.

The pair display a drastically different dynamic in the next scene, a flashback from the start of their relationship. They're attending a birthing ritual at a Commander's home, where a meek June/Offred is introduced by Serena as her "new handmaid." As the two join the other wives, handmaids, and a preaching Aunt Lydia (Ann Dowd), they share a knowing smile over the absurdity of the ceremony.

Back at the barn, June brings Serena a blanket and shares stories of her own pregnancy trials and tribulations, including having to birth Nichole all by herself, under less than ideal conditions. June seems to take some pleasure in seeing Serena work through her painful contractions, but still tries to comfort her. But Serena forcefully pushes her away, claiming June wants to kill her and her baby. June storms off in a flurry of F-bombs, and heads back to the stranded vehicle.

While she attempts to free the car's mud-submerged tire, we're again taken back to the Gilead birthing, where things have taken a horrific turn. The handmaid, who we learn is called Ofclarence, has died, and the infant is removed from her surgically. As June/Offred silently watches in shock, Aunt Lydia scolds her for not praying along with her sister handmaids.

In the present day, June manages to free the vehicle, but her moral compass gets the best of her before she can drive off. She returns to the barn to help Serena, who's clearly relieved June hasn't abandoned her. Now committed to staying and delivering Serena's baby, June digs in. While Serena braces herself against June's shoulders, the reluctant midwife wipes her patient's forehead and talks her through the contractions. Following plenty of pain and tears from both women baby Noah arrives. "He's perfect," June tells Serena.

Next, we get one last flashback to Gilead, where Ofclarence's face is covered with a sheet, while Aunt Lydia explains to her handmaids that she "has fulfilled her duty in this world." A few rooms over, the wives are fawning over the recently deceased woman's newborn, who now belongs to Commander Clarence and his wife. Serena is also in attendance, but looks uncomfortable and isn't celebrating. She and June/Offred exchange an awkward nod when the latter passes by.

While nursing Noah, Serena asks June why she didn't kill her when she had the chance, during the protest at the Gilead Information Center. Holding back tears, June takes her time answering before quietly responding, "I didn't want to." They also discuss whether the baby will grow up to be like his father, the vile Fred Waterford, but June again comforts Serena, saying his upbringing will take precedence over his dad's genes.

Back to business, June's ready to move Serena and her baby to a safer place. But the new mom objects, insisting she can't go back to Canada or Gilead. She admits to feeling like a prisoner under the Wheeler's roof: "I'm they're handmaid... it's like I'm you." She tearfully suggests staying behind and sending Noah with June, allowing her and Luke (O-T Fagbenle) to raise him.

"He would be safe with you. He's a good man. The kind of man who would never do the things his father did, the things that I did," she says of Luke. She even posits it's all God's will she's just a vessel and June's the avenging angel meant to raise her son. She caps her emotionally wrought proposal with a longtime-coming apology to June.

But June's all set with the too little, too late apology. She instead hits Serena with some hard truths: "This isn't Gilead and I'm not you," she says before telling her she will save her life and keep her and Noah together. "You're his mother and he belongs with you that is God's will."

Fast-forward to a Toronto hospital, where Serena and Noah are being whisked away in a wheelchair while June assures her everything will be okay. With Serena in good hands, June makes an urgent call, presumably to Luke. She later visits Serena, who's stressing about her doctor's liberal use of antibiotics and baby formula to treat her and Noah in an "unnatural" way Gilead would frown upon. Once again, June is there for Serena, comforting her and calming her down. Serena's also reminded she has no home to return to, and surmises she's in a figurative "No Man's Land." She extends a hand to June and thanks her. June uncomfortably accepts the gesture.

June returns to the waiting room, where Luke arrives with good news. The thumb drive containing the intel on Hannah's wife-prep school is being worked on. But that's not all Luke's brought, as he's apparently put in a call to the immigration authorities. They arrive with the police to detain Serena, informing her, as an undocumented person, she has no right to legal council. They cuff her to the hospital bed and tell her Noah will be placed with a child protection unit.

June and Luke watch all this unfold from outside her room. The tears welling up in Luke's eyes suggest he's sympathetic, but he's also satisfied with the part he's played in finally taking Serena down "At last, she knows what it feels like." But June's distracted by Serena's frantic, desperate pleas for help: "June, don't let them take my baby, please. June, help me."

As Serena screams and struggles against her restraints, Luke says quietly, "Justice," as if trying to convince himself he's done the right thing. Wide-eyed and more conflicted than ever about her relationship with Serena, June offers a barely audible, halfhearted response: "Right."

Sign up for Entertainment Weekly's free daily newsletter to get breaking TV news, exclusive first looks, recaps, reviews, interviews with your favorite stars, and more.

Related content:

Here is the original post:

The Handmaid's Tale recap: Born to run - Yahoo Entertainment