As a Muslim woman living in the West, who is unfortunately too invested in the news cycle, Im all too aware of the fracturing human rights of Muslims across the globe. I wish this was an exaggeration but the collective experience of Muslims around the globe including the persecution of Uighur Muslims in China has made me long fear that, one day, a genocide against Muslims like me could become reality closer to home.

I stopped believing that those with the most power, those who reach the highest political offices, are driven by decency or humanity or the desire to make the world a better place a long time ago. Around the world, politicians and leaders like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Narendra Modhi have made it vogue to be openly Islamophobic.

This has created a hostile and fearful environment because it seems to be politically beneficial to be Islamophobic. It is now so normalised in our society that the general public has become desensitised to the abuses of Muslims across the world.

Whether its unfairly punishing an adult for a childs mistakes by making them stateless in the case of Shamima Begum. Or suddenly mandating everyone should wear facemasks in Europe following a burqa ban and years of stigma and abuse towards those who covered their faces for religious reason. In the UK niqabi Muslim women were labelled letterboxes and bank robbers, and a recent headscarf ban in Belgian universities restricted access to education for women.

Lets also not forget the Muslim ban in America, which stopped the travel of mostly Muslims entering the US a Virginia judge later ruled this ban as unconstitutional because there was a religious bias. The Citizenship Bill introduced in India last year, also known as the anti-Muslim law, offered amnesty to all refugees in India except Muslims. The law delegitimises Indian Muslims in the country who had long since been there without any citizenship protections and would not be viewed as illegal immigrants.

This everyday degradation by those in power and erasure of autonomy dehumanisies us and encourages others to do the same. If you treat people like they arent even a human then thats how society will eventually perceive them.

Recently the Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab publicly acknowledged the human rights abuses happening in China against Uighur Muslims. It was a gesture but thats all it was. Currently, there is a mass ethnic cleansing going on in China of Uighur Muslims but the rest of the world sits in ignorance or watches without taking action despite promises of never again. History is repeating itself.

In a BBC Panorama documentary, anthropologist Dr Adrian Zenz said: The world should acknowledge what this is, the largest internment of an ethnic minority since the holocaust. Since Raabs comments and the British Governments acknowledgements, the Muslim Council of Britain has asked that the Government follow up its condemnation, urging for sanctions against China to be imposed, and strong diplomatic power used before Uighur Muslims are subject to total destruction at the hands of the Chinese Government.

The US has recently imposed some sanctions in China due to the treatment of Uighur Muslims but they are fairly tame, with other countries simply turning a blind eye or being unwilling to question China.

More than a million Muslims have been placed in internment camps, according to human rights groups. China has claimed these they were correctional camps to help young people have a better life, but last year a document leaked to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) revealed that camps were basically run as high-security prisons where inmates had to seek permission for moving their bodies as well as being subjected to rigorous brainwashing and physical and sexual abuse. Recent reports claimed that Uighur Muslim women have been forcibly made to take birth control in an attempt to suppress the population.

In a recent BBC interview with Andrew Marr, the British-Chinese ambassador denied ethnic cleansing even after Marr quoted Chinese government statistics on population growth which said that the Uighur population in Xinjiang had fallen by 84 per cent in between 2015-2018. The ambassador responded with thats not right.

Though not surprising, the most deafening silence for me comes from the wider international Muslim community. In 2019 Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates blocked a motion led by Western ambassadors at the United Nations which called for China to allow independent international observation in the Xinjiang region.

Chinas actions unchallenged will further embolden global Islamophobia

It seems the same countries that were so enraged by drawings of the Prophet arent willing to intervene or even condemn a real-life mass ethnic cleansing of Muslims because it will not politically advantageous to them. At a press conference last year when Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan was asked about Chinas treatment of Uighur Muslim he admitted that Pakistans response to China was reflective of the help Pakistan had received from China when the country was at rock bottom.

Chinas actions unchallenged will further embolden global Islamophobia and yet it seems China is invincible even as it commits human rights abuses. So the question here is will any of the so-called global superpowers do anything? Or is politicking more important than basic human rights? Because right now the international community isnt doing anything to help Uighur Muslims and the silence is deafening.

There might not be internment camps in the Western world right now but internment is not the only way to dehumanise and oppress groups on mass. I fear that the everyday oppression of our rights in the West could one day lead to the erasure of Muslims and the Muslim identity.

Mariam Khan is the editor ofIts Not About the Burqa: Muslim Women on Faith, Feminism, Sexuality and Race

Excerpt from:

The world has stood by as China persecutes Uighur Muslims - and it makes me fear for my safety - iNews

Anyone who has spent any amount of time in Indigenous affairs would be familiar with the buzzwords used in the announcement of the new Closing the Gap targets.

As Prime Minister Scott Morrison said, the national Closing the Cap agreement is supposedly practical and ambitious. Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt described it as new approach to Indigenous disadvantage.

Read more: We have 16 new Closing the Gap targets. Will governments now do what's needed to meet them?

Thursdays press conference also talked of a historic agreement framed by honourable intentions and an evidence-base. We heard much talk of partnership between community-controlled organisations and mainstream government agencies, along with responsibility for all, accountability and reform.

Sadly, there is nothing unprecedented about the agreement, or the language used to sell it. This discourse of Indigenous affairs - of promise and failure - does little more than create the illusion of Indigenous agency, racial progress and state benevolence.

Most media reports of the announcement, including from Indigenous outlets, readily accept and reproduce the political doublespeak with little scrutiny of the governments claims.

We heard nothing from Morrison or Wyatt about the learnings from 12 years of Closing the Gap failure and how these insights have shaped a supposed new approach beyond, of course, setting different targets.

In fact, Morrison insisted prime ministers before him have had a passion and dedication for Indigenous affairs, and indeed shared a frustration with the lack of progress in it. As he explained, the problem was previous governments were too ambitious without understanding the detail.

And certainly, there is little that is actually ambitious about this supposed new approach.

The 16 new targets, while doubling in number, no longer have parity with non-Indigenous Australia as their target within this generation. So effectively, they aim to do less, but you wouldnt know it from the coverage we have seen.

In examining the detail of the targets, we see references to increases and decreases with some specific percentages. There are also vague references to toward zero, with others simply declaring a goal of sustained increase.

Beyond the target of life expectancy, the agreement offers no sense of when parity might be achieved or even aspired to. This is striking, given the ideological foundation of Closing the Gap is literally about closing gaps of disadvantage. It is severely disappointing the federal government has largely escaped scrutiny over their claims surrounding this new national agreement.

Amid the global Black Lives Matter movement, the Closing the Gap agreement makes lofty claims to dismantle institutional racism.

While identify and eliminate racism featured as a transformation element of one of the priority reform areas, racism was then mentioned just ten times in the 47 pages of the actual agreement, with no definition in its definitions list. It is odd that the foundational structure of oppression, responsible for producing the racialised disparities this agreement is trying to ameliorate, is so poorly understood.

The lack of understanding shows. The agreement suggests racism will be fixed by pushing Indigenous peoples into mainstream institutions, on boards and identified leadership positions, which we know is a haven rather than remedy for everyday and systemic racism.

In lieu of race and racism, the terms culture and cultural are littered throughout the agreement. Culture, much like the agreement itself, provides an opportunity to blame Indigenous peoples for the structural disadvantage they are subject to.

The big solution we are told - both in the press conference and the partnership agreement - is data. Data is offered both as a priority reform as well as a strategy in and of itself. Each Closing the Gap target is outlined in a table that lists how they will be monitored.

We are not offered a sense of the complexity of the problem being addressed, or even a strategy. Instead, we are told what data should be collected in relation to the goals.

It seems the strategy for addressing Indigenous disadvantage is to find better ways to monitor other forms of progress incrementally. Yet the focus here is largely on Black bodies and behaviours. There is little to no analysis of the institutions and systems responsible for the production of the racialised disparities Indigenous peoples experience.

As such, the data will likely reproduce the story of Indigenous failure that we are all too familiar with.

There is also little that is new about increased surveillance of Indigenous people as a policy measure - which is what this is. There is, however, a strong evidence base that tells of the long history of failure of such interventions

Read more: Ten years on, it's time we learned the lessons from the failed Northern Territory Intervention

The failings in Indigenous affairs are not due to Indigenous people making poor choices. Nor is it because we lack data or evidence of what works. It is a result of a sustained indifference to the lives of Indigenous peoples, disguised as benevolence in fictitious claims of policy reform.

The issue is the failure - or rather refusal - to commit to structural reform that meaningfully attends to the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the state. Such reform demands recognition of the unique rights of Indigenous peoples, not simply more data on disadvantage and supposed Indigenous deviance.

Yet we are now being offered a partnership approach with government-funded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations. Few have noted the power imbalance at the heart of this relationship. As Roy Ah-See, co-chair Uluru dialogues at UNSWs Indigenous Law Centre has said,

You are never going to bite the hand that feeds you, so how can these organisations be representative if they only received resources from government?

When we cut through the talk of the new Closing the Gap agreement, it is clear this discourse of change works precisely so that everything can stay the same. The only actual difference in this weeks announcement was Indigenous organisations signed up to it.

And, it is most telling that while Indigenous peoples on the streets are still fiercely proclaiming sovereignty never ceded amid a pandemic, the peaks that represent them have signed up to an agreement in which sovereignty was never mentioned.

Read the original:

Chelsea Bond: The 'new' Closing the Gap is about buzzwords, not genuine change for Indigenous Australia - The Conversation AU

News on climate in the time of coronavirusSubscribe today

In the two months since George Floyds death at the hands of police, Americans have marched, protested, rallied, and spoken out about the need for systemic change. Its the type of activism that the late U.S. Representative John Lewis, a key figure in the civil rights movement who died last month of pancreatic cancer, described as good trouble. Lewis sensed that this time with the massive scale, global impact, and inclusivity of the Black Lives Matter movement we are on the precipice of change.

There will be no turning back, he told CBS This Morning in June. What Lewis understood, having marched down the road for justice himself, was that its long past time for the United States to fulfill the promise of equal protection pledged in our constitution. As a young man, Lewis put his life on the line to challenge a system that today continues to penalize, prosecute, and strip away the civil rights of so many Black and brown Americans. We are tired. We are tired of being beat by policemen. We are tired of seeing our people locked up in jail over and over again, Lewis said in 1963 as he stood on the steps of Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington.

That is why, even after the initial fires of protest were extinguished in Minneapolis, the embers of discontent continued to burn as residents voiced their anger over their citys failure to address police misconduct. The racial disparities in arrests paint a stark picture: One 2015 analysis by the American Civil Liberties Union found that Minneapolis police arrested African Americans and Native Americans for low-level offenses at rates almost nine times higher than the rate for whites over a three-year period. The citys response in the past was never enough to truly reform policing or implement the type of systemic change that could address health and wealth inequities for people of color. As former mayor Betsy Hodges wrote in a recent first-person account, the citys white liberals have resisted systemic change for decades. Instead of doing the hard work of reforming zoning laws, addressing the lack of housing affordability, and providing for under-resourced schools, they put a Band-Aid on the citys problems by, for example, funding a rental assistance hotline and summer job programs for youth of color.

Get Grist in your inboxAlways free, always fresh

The Beacon Other choices

Ask your climate scientist if Grist is right for you. See our privacy policy

These efforts make us feel better about racism, but fundamentally change little for the communities of color whose disadvantages often come from the hoarding of advantage by mostly white neighborhoods, wrote Hodges.

Today, were witnessing the tragic consequences of inaction for communities that have long been burdened by pollution and contamination and are now hardest hit by COVID-19. Everything in our health is determined by our environment, Linda Birnbaum, the former director of the National Institutes for Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, told the Intercept. Researchers are finding that many adults who are infected with COVID-19 are suffering the long-term effects of the environmental health damage they experienced as children, such as lead exposure and asthma.

In response to this health crisis, the newly-formed Title VI Environmental Justice Alliance, a coalition of environmental justice groups and their allies, issued a call to action in July to address the inequities that are exacerbating the spread of COVID-19 in communities across the country. The alliance has set out to address the systemic racism that has created these inequities by advocating for the ability of communities to challenge race discrimination in environmental decision-making under the Civil Rights Act, as well as the racially disparate effects of public policy decisions that lead communities of color to face greater exposure to environmental harms.

Its not a coincidence that race is the most salient factor explaining the location of hazardous waste sites and the worst polluters, says attorney Marianne Engelman Lado, an author of the call to action, member of the alliance, and expert on the effects of environmental contamination on vulnerable populations. Baked-in patterns of segregation have led to inequalities in environmental exposure, which are determined by the resources and the political power a community has to fight the siting of industrial facilities, as well as zoning and land-use decisions.

We have to start recognizing that all people have the right to equal protection, and we have to address these disparities in exposure to environmental hazards, said Engelman Lado. That means changing the way we do environmental decision-making: where we place things, and who has a say, and whether we listen to communities.

Addressing environmental disparities in neighborhoods where residents struggle to breathe due to pollution and contamination will also mean reckoning with the toxic environments created by other forms of oppression, such as police violence. The links between the two are undeniable, according to Angelo Logan, the campaign director of the Moving Forward Network in Los Angeles, which works to protect disadvantaged communities from the adverse effects of the global freight transportation system. He knows firsthand that the most vulnerable communities often endure a deadly combination of poverty, police oppression, and pollution.

In both cases youre physically choked, Logan said, by air pollution and by [law enforcement], whoever that might be.

For this reason, part of the dialogue around addressing the flaws in the criminal justice system should involve asking broader questions, such as: What can be done to prevent brown and Black men from landing in the criminal justice system to begin with? Some of the answers to that question lie quite literally in the ecological environment in which they are growing up. To get to the root of injustices facing communities of color, we must dig even deeper, by addressing the legacy of lead contamination in Americas cities in a comprehensive way. More specifically, we can begin by remediating contaminated soil in residential neighborhoods that were historically segregated and industrialized in the 20th century. Many believe that lead contamination in soil was addressed decades ago, but this invisible neurotoxin continues to be a threat in urban environments because it can take decades, if not longer, for lead to degrade in soil. Further, if municipal leaders fail to identify these hidden hazards in American cities and remove that threat of lead exposure, it puts the health of children and adults living in these polluted neighborhoods at risk for generations. In the 1980s, Howard Mielke, an urban geochemistry and health expert, did comprehensive soil testing across Minneapolis and provided ample evidence of the dangers facing residents in the citys urban center, as well as a roadmap of potential solutions. The question is: Did Minneapolis clean up its polluted environment?

On one hand, the state of Minnesota was a leader in convincing Congress that lead poisoning was a major problem across American cities, and that lead needed to be removed from gasoline. It was thanks to the testimony of a Minnesota delegation, which included Mielke, during a 1984 U.S. Senate committee hearing that Congress ultimately decided to phase out gasoline sooner than its projected 1988 target. But the phase-out of leaded gasoline was just the first step. Its the contamination left behind that must still be reckoned with. As Clair C. Patterson, the late California Institute of Technology geochemist who decades ago broke new ground on leads impact, once said: Sometime in the near future it probably will be shown that the older urban areas of the United States have been rendered more or less uninhabitable by the millions of tons of poisonous industrial lead residues that have accumulated in cities during the past century.

CHANDAN KHANNA / AFP via Getty Images

Minneapolis, despite its progressive reputation, is a deeply divided city geographically when it comes to race. Any discussion around how to address the implications of lead exposure requires an examination of how the citys neighborhoods were developed in the 20th century. Today, we have evidence that shows that housing segregation via racially restrictive housing covenants influenced the formation of poor communities of color near industrial zones and freeways that were built through historic African American communities. These same freeways were conduits for leaded gasoline emissions that settled into the surrounding neighborhoods.

The separate-but-equal era of injustice that galvanized a young John Lewis to take a stand paralleled Americas highway construction boom and the exponential growth of leaded gasoline use in cars. This spread the deadly neurotoxin at levels not seen before. Mielke, who teaches in the department of pharmacology at Tulane Universitys School of Medicine, has spent more than four decades investigating the dangers of lead contamination in soil across the country, including in Baltimore, where he researched his first lead soil study, and New Orleans, where hes currently based and has geographically mapped lead soil levels and investigated leads impact on childrens health and education.

Mielke has found that decades of contamination from leaded gasoline, lead-based paint, industrial emissions, and other sources has created invisible mountains of lead in Americas urban city centers that continue to harm children. Weve reached a point where [childhood blood lead levels] have come down enormously, but not evenly for the whole community. Its still in the environment, and its still exposing children at unacceptably high levels, said Mielke, a Minnesota native.

Mielke, other lead soil experts, and citizen-scientists have tested and mapped lead levels across America, so weve known for decades how extensive the lead contamination is in our soil: from Baltimore to Los Angeles, Cleveland to Chicago, Oakland to Indianapolis. But what has been done to address this environmental threat in American backyards? For the most part, not nearly enough to stop children from being exposed, says Mielke.

[Municipalities] seem to run away from it. Either they dont want to talk about it, they dont want to face it, or they look at it as an issue that they cant possibly do anything about that its way too expensive, said Mielke. In New Orleans, Mielke has diligently worked to show government officials and the public that there are low-cost solutions such as covering contaminated soil with geotextile, cleaner dirt, and vegetation to prevent more children from being exposed in childcare centers and parks. Mielkes Baltimore lead research in the late 1970s and early 1980s first opened his eyes to the awful problem of lead-contaminated soil, but it was his subsequent mapping in Minnesotas Twin Cities that led him to realize that America faced an extensive problem in its urban centers. It became his mission to do something about it.

Generation after generation living in the same place in the city theyre running into the same problems. And that can be resolved, but it takes concerted effort, said Mielke.

Today we know that even low-level lead exposure (blood lead concentrations below 5 micrograms per deciliter) affect not only a childs intellectual and academic abilities they are also a risk factor for higher rates of neurobehavioral disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A growing body of research also suggests that youth who have been exposed to lead run a higher risk of ending up in the criminal justice system. One 2008 University of Cincinnati study tracked 250 individuals and found that, when Cincinnati children reached adulthood, there was a strong relationship between their participation in criminalized activity and their exposure to lead in the womb, as well as their childhood exposure to lead. A 2017 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that suspensions and juvenile detentions rise with preschool blood lead levels. The study found that African American and Latino lead-burdened children were more likely to be suspended or detained in juvenile hall than their white counterparts. Historically, childhood lead exposure has disproportionately impacted Black and Latino children across the country, and one 2020 study found that a significant nationwide racial disparity in blood lead outcomes persists today for African American children, even after adjusting for risk factors and variables.

Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has studied the relationship between neighborhood, lead toxicity, and racial segregation to understand the role of lead contamination as a source of environmental inequality in Chicago neighborhoods. His research has shown that lead toxicity, as shown through high blood lead levels among children, is closely linked to racial and ethnic segregation. As such, it has contributed to the legacy of Black disadvantage in the United States. Its what Sampson calls the ecology of toxic inequality, and it aligns with the links researchers have found between racial segregation, enviromental hazards, and poor health outcomes. Because lead exposure is concentrated in certain neighborhoods, Sampson also found in a 2018 study that lead exposure has a neighborhood effect much like inadequate housing, poverty, and violence that contributes to the reproduction of inequality over a persons lifetime.

The urgency to address lead contamination has been clear since the 1920s, when health experts cautioned the U.S. government about the dangers of putting lead in gasoline. In the 1960s, grassroots advocates in New York, Chicago, Boston, Oakland, and Baltimore called on government agencies to address the lead hazards in public housing. Their voices and advocacy reduced the impact of the toxin, but the lead problem never disappeared. And in the long run, the economic cost of inaction has been enormous. In 2002, researchers found that, even at low levels of lead exposure, the costs associated with direct medical care and potential productivity losses for lead-burdened U.S. children when they become adults amounts to $43 billion annually.

This urgency should be felt anew today. Then-President Barack Obama once described John Lewis as an American who knew that change could not wait for some other person or some other time, whose life is a lesson in the fierce urgency of now. Lewis may be gone, but his life, his actions, and his words are a reminder of the moral courage and political will thats required to address systemic disparities. He grew up in the cotton fields of Alabama as the son of sharecroppers, and he attended segregated public schools. In a moving CBS This Morning video where Lewis writes a letter to his young self, he describes how the activism of Rosa Parks and the words of Martin Luther King Jr. inspired him to join the civil rights movement. When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have a moral obligation to continue to speak up, to speak out, he said in the video. He looked back on his life and it brought him to tears, because he understood exactly what it took to overcome systemic racism.

Sometimes I feel like crying tears of happiness, tears of joy to see the distance weve come, he said. He also knew how much further we had to go on that road to justice. So he spent his life fighting these battles in the halls of Congress, reminding us to persevere, to get out there and push and pull until we redeem the soul of America.

The way that humanity tackles this pandemic parallels how it might fight climate change. Sign up for our semi-weekly newsletter,Climate in the Time of Coronavirus.

See the original post:

John Lewis fought for equal protection. That means tackling pollution, poverty, and policing. - Grist

Mark Wilson/Getty ImagesSenator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, walking past a portrait of John C. Calhoun, leader of the proslavery forces in the Senate, Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., February 23, 2016

Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, has introduced a bill in Congress that would punish school districts that use The New York Timess 1619 Project in their curriculum by withholding federal funding. In so doing, he announced in a newspaper interview that Americas schoolchildren need to learn that the nations Founders said slavery was the necessary evil upon which the union was built. His statement is as preposterous as it is false: presuming to clarify American history, Cotton has grievously distorted it.

(As this article went to press, Cotton supported his argument by citing me along with several other liberal historians who have criticized the 1619 Project; with my colleagues, I have fundamental publicized objections to the project, but these in no way mitigate Cottons serious misrepresentations of the historical record for evident political gain.)

None of the delegates who framed the Constitution in 1787 called slavery a necessary evil. Some of them called slavery an evil, but not a necessary one. Gouverneur Morris of New York, for example, declared to the Constitutional Convention that he would never concur in upholding domestic slavery, that nefarious institution based on the most cruel bondagesthe curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed. The great majority of the Framers joined Morris in fighting to ensure that slavery would be excluded from national law.

James Madison, the most influential delegate at the convention, explicitly repudiated the idea of building the union on slavery, stating that it would be wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. Though himself a slaveholder, Madison wanted to guarantee that the Constitution, while it might tolerate slavery in the states where it existed, would neither enshrine human bondage in national law nor recognize it as legitimate.

A minority of the Framers, from the lower South, disagreed, but they believed slavery was no evil at all. If slavery be wrong, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina declared, it is justified by the example of all the world.Far from a necessary evil, Pinckney thought slavery was a necessary good, as it had been for time immemorial. In all ages, he claimed, one half of mankind have been slaves.

There was, to be sure, one delegate who resembled Senator Cottons description: Pinckneys cousin, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, also from South Carolina. At one point in the convention debates, a perturbed Cotesworth Pinckney registered a complaint, seeming to desire, Madison noted, that some provision should be included in favor of property in slaves. That would have based the Union firmly on the constitutional right of slavery. And Cotesworth Pinckney did come close to calling slavery a necessary evil, noting that without it the Carolina economy could not survive (which was technically correct). But the convention majority, far from agreeing with anything he said, dismissed his objection out of hand.

The Constitution was hardly an antislavery document. Through fierce debates and by means of backroom deals, the lower South slaveholders managed to win compromises that offered some protection to slavery in the states: the notorious three-fifths clause giving an allotment of House seats and Electoral College votes based on a partial counting of enslaved persons; a twenty-year delay in authorizing Congress to abolish the nations involvement in the Atlantic slave trade; and a fugitive slave clause. Most importantly, the Constitution by implication barred the new federal government from directly interfering with slavery in the states where it already existed.

But neither did the Constitution, as Senator Cotton wrongly claims, establish slavery as necessary to the Union. Its true that a few proslavery delegates threatened that their states would refuse to join the Union unless their demands were met. This occurred with particular force with regard to the Atlantic slave trade. A majority of convention delegates wanted to empower the national government to abolish the horrific trade, striking the first blow against it anywhere in the Atlantic world in the name of a sovereign state. Appalled, the lower South delegates, led by South Carolinas oligarchs, threatened to bolt if the convention touched the slave trade in any way, but the majority called their bluff.

In the end, the proslavery delegates carved out the compromise that prevented abolishing the trade until 1808, salvaging a significant concession, though there could be little doubt that the trade was doomed. Even with this compromise, the leading Pennsylvania abolitionist Benjamin Rush hailed the slave trade clause as a great point obtained from the Southern States. His fellow Pennsylvanian and a delegate to convention, James Wilson, went so far as to say that the Constitution laid the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country.

History, of course, proved Wilson wrongbut not completely wrong. With the rise of the cotton economy, based on the invention of the cotton gin, which Wilson could not have foreseen, American slavery was far from stymied, but grew to become the mightiest and most expansive slavery regime on earth, engulfing further territoriesincluding Cottons own Arkansas.

The Framers compromises over slavery had little to do with it, however. The problem was not primarily constitutional but political: so long as a substantial number of Northerners remained either complacent about slaverys future, indifferent to the institutions oppression, or complicit in the growth of the new cotton kingdom, the Constitution would permit the spread of human bondage.

Even so, in fact, the Constitution contained powerful antislavery potential. By refusing to recognize slavery in national law, the Framers gave the national government the power to regulate or ban slavery in areas under its purview, notably the national territories not yet constituted as separate states. The same year that the Framers met, the existing Congress banned slavery from the existing territories north of the Ohio River under the Northwest Ordinance, a measure reflected in the Constitution, which the new Congress quickly affirmed when it met in 1789. Later antislavery champions, including Abraham Lincoln, always considered the Northwest Ordinance to be organic to the Constitution; proslavery advocates came to regard it as an illegitimate nullity.

In time, as antislavery sentiment built in the North, the condition of slavery in the territories and in connection with the admission of new states became the major flashpoint of conflict, from the Missouri crisis of 18191821 to the guerrilla warfare of Bleeding Kansas. Proslavery champions like John C. Calhoun of South Carolina invented an argument that denied the Congress any power over slavery in the territories; Lincoln and his fellow Republicans refuted that argument. And upon Lincolns election as president in 1860, this constitutional issue was enough to spark the secession that led to the Civil War and Emancipation.

Senator Cotton has some mistaken things to say about that history, too. The Framers, he asserts, built the Constitution in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction.This absurdly imputes to the Framers powers of clairvoyance. Although Lincoln sometimes suggested that the Framers had purposefully designed slaverys abolitioneven Lincoln could wishfully exaggeratethe Constitution hardly ensured slaverys doom. It took Lincolns and the antislavery Republicans concerted political efforts to vindicate the Constitutions antislavery elements that set the stage for what Lincoln in his House Divided speech of 1858 called ultimate extinction.

Far from establishing a Union based on what Senator Cotton calls the necessary evil of slavery, the Founders fought bitterly over human enslavement, producing a document that gave slavery some protection even as it denied slavery national status and gave the federal government the power to restrict its growthand so hasten its demise. The slaveholders, unable to abide that power, eventually seceded in an effort to form a new slaveholders republic, with a new Constitution built entirely on slavery: its cornerstone, as the Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens declaimed, was the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slaverysubordination to the superior raceis his natural and normal condition.

Senator Cottons contempt for constitutional rights was previously revealed in his intemperate call for the invocation of the Insurrection Act and federal military power against protesters exercising their First Amendment rights to decry racism. His ignorance of history and the Constitution is the latest evidence of how the current Republican Party is, to say the least, a distant cry from the party Lincoln helped to found. As far as a Union founded on the necessary evil of slavery is concerned, Cotton appears unaware of how profoundly the Constitution of the United States of America differed from that of the Confederate States of America.

Read more from the original source:

What Tom Cotton Gets So Wrong About Slavery and the Constitution - The New York Review of Books

Podcast (definingsafe): Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Spotify |

In 1970, Maher Ahmad and Bill Dry founded the Gay Liberation Front Northwesterns first gay rights advocacy group. The group hosted the first gay dance on campus, held demonstrations in the city and boycotted bars that had racist policies. Just a few years later, Vince McCoy would become the first black president of the Gay Liberation Front. Fifty years later, the two men recount their time with the Gay Liberation Front in this two-part series. Part 1.

MAHER AHMAD: April 1, 1970. Dear faculty member, male and female homosexuals at Northwestern have recently organized a gay liberation movement on campus.

We wish to make the members of faculty and student body aware of the fact that there does exist a large homosexual community both at Northwestern and in society in general that is no longer willing to hide as essential part of its identity in order to enjoy the rights that a supposedly free society should grant all of its citizens. Gay Liberation intends to actively oppose the oppression of homosexuals. We hope that you will support us and do all that you can to help us. If you would like some more information about this, you can call Gay Liberation at 338-9241.

Sincerely yours, William Dry; Maher Ahmad.

ALEX CHUN: Thats Maher Ahmad (Communication 71, 74), reading a letter that he and William Dry (Weinberg 69) wrote in the spring of 1970. Maher was a junior at Northwestern and the two men had just begun the Gay Liberation Front. They were asking University staff to support the formation of their group.

MAHER AHMAD: Well, first, let me say that I had completely forgotten that we had written this letter, okay? This was a seminal kind of thing that we did. But what strikes me now, interestingly, we werent just talking about making things better at Northwestern, okay? Were talking about making things better in society at large and engaging the University to help take us there, which is certainly the kind of ambitious goals one can have when ones a 20-year-old.

ALEX CHUN: The Gay Liberation Front was Northwesterns first gay advocacy group. Fifty years later, Mahers legacy continues through what is now Rainbow Alliance.

From the Daily Northwestern, Im Alex Chun, and this is Defining Safe: a podcast about marginalized communities at Northwestern. This episode is the first part of a two-part series about two gay mens time at Northwestern in the 60s and 70s. The two men are Mr. Maher Ahmad and Mr. Vince McCoy (Bienen 75, SPS 03).

In 1970, 50 years ago, Maher Ahmad started the Gay Liberation Front with William Dry. Recently, I spoke with Maher, and he shared a part of his story with me.

MAHER AHMAD: You know, memory is a very odd thing. And I can remember some things really specifically. Like when we started the gay rights meeting at Northwestern, we asked the student government for $67. I dont know how I remember that number. Theres a lot I dont remember. And very sadly, because there have been so many men that have passed on from AIDS, I cant tell you to go to this person or that person and see what they remember.

ALEX CHUN: And in 1970, Vince McCoy would arrive to campus, eventually joining the Gay Liberation Front and becoming the first black president of the organization. Heres Vince in November 2019 at an event hosted by Northwesterns Black Professionals Network.

VINCENT MCCOY: We all have our own songs to sing, and our songs are the stories of our lives. You may not recognize my tune or understand all of my words, yet every song must be heard. So, today, Im going to sing a little bit of my song for you.

ALEX CHUN: So, lets hear a bit of their songs.

ALEX CHUN: Maher Ahmad was born in Forty Fort, Pa. in 1960. His parents had moved to the United States after being displaced from Palestine, and he had three brothers. Maher described growing up as the only Muslim family in a predominantly white Protestant neighborhood, saying that his family members were largely regarded as outsiders.

MAHER AHMAD: My parents arent religious, but we were Muslim in a WASP community that predated the American Revolution. And that was an interesting situation because early in my life, neighbors didnt treat us well. And then as I began, even before I reached adolescence, I knew I had this longing or yearning that somehow was connected to men. And then, when I reached adolescence, okay, I realized I had a same sex attraction.

ALEX CHUN: However, this was the 1960s, and homosexuality wouldnt be decriminalized nationwide until decades later following the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case in 2003. Heres a clip from a CBS Reports episode aired in 1967 titled The Homosexuals, hosted by Mike Wallace.

MIKE WALLACE: Homosexuality is an enigma. It remains a subject that people find disturbing. Embarrassing. And the reluctance to discuss it. Yet there is a growing concern about homosexuals in society. About their increasing visibility. We discovered that Americans consider homosexuality more harmful to society than adultery, abortion or prostitution.

ALEX CHUN: But Maher never felt like he was at odds with his sexuality. He credits his mother for his strong sense of self.

MAHER AHMAD: Now, for some reason, that I think has to do with genetics that I inherited from my mother who has always been an extremely kind person. And a rabble rouser. She was political from the get-go. She was a feminist. She was the first female broadcast journalist in Palestine. I didnt think there was anything wrong with me.

ALEX CHUN: Rather, when Maher first heard the word homosexual from his older brother, he experienced two feelings: self-realization and curiosity.

MAHER AHMAD: He defined it for me and I thought, Oh, Im a member of a class. And, being an industrious young person, I decided that I was going to find out about myself.

ALEX CHUN: So, Maher went to the local library. He searched through the card catalog and was able to find the call numbers of the few books that the library had about homosexuality. But the books werent on the shelves. When he asked the librarian for help finding them, she told him that they were in the locked case. But despite the climate at the time, Maher never felt like he was at odds with himself being gay.

MAHER AHMAD: And I kept a journal in my senior year. I wrote things like, I dont know, I wrote down, I am special. I wrote it twice, I am special, and I was proud of this. I never pretended to be straight. I absolutely refused to go to the senior prom because I wasnt going to go and put up this false thing and find a girl to be my beard to go to the senior prom with, so I didnt attend the senior prom. I remember there was one girl that chased me. Her name was Pixie, and we were at a party and she initiated a kiss with me and I kissed her and I felt nothing. And I thought to myself, Yeah, you know what, Im never doing this again. Im not interested. And so thats basically what it was like when I was in high school.

ALEX CHUN: Maher wanted to leave Forty Fort, Pa. and ultimately went to Northwestern to study theatre and theatre design. But Maher sensed that something was different. Revolution was in the air.

MAHER AHMAD: You know, its really wonderful to be on the cusp of anything. I started as an undergraduate in 1967. Kennedy was shot in 1963, which was a major historical marker. 1964 was the beginning of the Free Speech Movement on college campuses, where students were saying you have to stop treating us in loco parentis was the phrase, as if youre our parents, you have to stop restricting our rights. We are adults, and there are certain things that you cant make us do or cant prevent us from doing. So revolution was in the atmosphere. And, you know, 1969 was Stonewall.

ALEX CHUN: And protests were even taking place on Northwesterns campus as students protested the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Maher was still an undergrad at the time.

MAHER AHMAD: So this whole kind of opening up this whole progressivism, this whole desire to throw off the strictures of the system that was in place that was repressive in so many different ways was in the air, and gay rights were a part of that.

ALEX CHUN: During Mahers junior year, he saw an ad in The Daily Northwestern that ultimately led to a reshaping of queer culture on campus.

MAHER AHMAD: It was just a tiny little ad of maybe 10 or 15 words. And it said, in the title and bigger letters, it was tiny, it was like an inch by two inches or something. It said gay liberation. And then it said, anyone, any men and women interested in starting your gay liberation group at Northwestern call Bill, and it had his phone number on it. And I saw this, and I thought, Well, Im interested in doing that. And I called the number and it ended up that I knew this guy, Bill Dry. We didnt know each other were gay. So we said, Yeah, lets do this. And then we got some other people to join us and that began the birth of the group on campus.

ALEX CHUN: The group was around 20 people, but a core group of six men were the most active. They held meetings at apartments off-campus. Among their first goals was to be recognized as an official campus organization. So they drafted a letter to faculty outlining three goals of the Gay Liberation Front.

ALEX CHUN: At the time, gay culture was largely underground and discrete. Small parties were held off-campus, but there were no public gay events. Gay students would go to bars in the city to party, but they had to be wary of police. Gay men who were arrested had their names published in the local newspaper.

MAHER AHMAD: I was able to go to gay bars when I was 19 and 20. But that was it. There was nothing social going on and in that letter that I wrote with Bill to the faculty, one of the things we said is we feel we need to have some kind of social mechanism on campus to associate with ourselves.

ALEX CHUN: The Gay Liberation Front then requested money from the student government to help them print leaflets. They needed $67 but had anticipated that they may not get the full amount requested. So they asked for $670 instead. To their surprise, their request was approved, and they were given the full $670. Later, Maher learned that the head of the committee at the time was a closeted gay student. With the extra money, the members of the Gay Liberation Front wanted to plan something special: a dance.

MAHER AHMAD: It was wonderful. Its very hard, I think, for young people today, who are both gay and straight, to conceive that back in 1970, no bars allowed any dancing. In Chicago, you had to get a dance license a bar had to get a dance licence to allow dancing, and the city would issue one to gay bars to allow same sex dancing, but the bars back then were sordid kind of affairs, as I say, theyre by and large owned by the mob. They paid off the police. And they had a captive clientele. So one of the things that we wanted to be able to do is to have sociability and some notion of normality. And instead of having our entire social lives circumscribed by surreptitious meetings in private apartments, or gay bars, we wanted to have a dance.

ALEX CHUN: The Gay Liberation Front rented the Patten Gymnasium on campus to hold their dance. A member of the group, Duncan, happened to know Corky Siegel, a member of the Siegel-Schwall blues band. So, Duncan asked them to play at the dance, and they agreed to do so.

MAHER AHMAD: Instead of it being just, you know, 20 or 30 gay people that were brave enough to be public and go to a public dance because we only charged $1 a ticket, which is well below the market rate for a Siegel-Schwall concert, we packed the gym! And it turned into a concert rather than a dance, which was, you know, unfortunate. And it was more geared to like this performance rather than than the gay people, but it was great, great fun. So suddenly, were this group, we got our $67 turned into $670. And rather than losing money on this dance from our bank, we got tons more money which then we could use to do other other kinds of things. And it was just a lot of fun.

ALEX CHUN: Corky Siegel, one of the bands co-founders, was 27 at the time. He remembers playing at the Patten Gym. The band played hits such as Hey, Billie Jean, I Dont Want You to Be My Girl and Angel Food Cake.

CORKY SIEGEL: Everyone was having a good time. It was a lot of fun, and we felt really good about doing it.

ALEX CHUN: Corky says the Siegel-Schwall Band was very political and often played at benefits. Corky believes that music can be political, and the Siegel-Schwalls support for the Gay Liberation Front was exactly that.

CORKY SIEGEL: It does really bring people together. Music is a form of compassion. What it does for people, individuals and for the world, and how it uplifts people its just a form of compassion. So, in that sense, anyone who plays music is putting that into the atmosphere. More practically, just a popular band thats showing support adds a little more power to the people.

ALEX CHUN: The Gay Liberation Front also worked to make safe spaces for everyone in the city. The Normandy Bar was the largest gay bar at the time, but would occasionally turn away non-white patrons. To protest, the Gay Liberation Front compiled a list of demands. They wanted the bar to stop pushing drinks on patrons, obtain a dancing license and to let all patrons enter regardless of their race.

MAHER AHMAD: Our biggest ask, our most radical ask was that they allow black people in, because they would not allow black people or any people of color as I recall. And the way they would keep them out was one of these traditional kinda things that white racists do. They would ask them for like three forms of photo government-issued identification. Now they wouldnt ask anybody else for that. They would let 18-year-olds in against the law. But black people had to show multiple forms of identification or they couldnt get in.

ALEX CHUN: The Gay Liberation Front organized a meeting with the owners of the Normandy Bar and read off the demands.

MAHER AHMAD: And we said, Okay, if you dont do that, were going to boycott your bar. And he laughed at us. And he said, Go ahead and boycott, thinking that what was this little scruffy group of college students going to do to his Normandy Bar that paid off the police, that got, I dont know how many people it held at night, it had to be at least 600 or 800, maybe as many as 1,000. And he laughed at us and told us to get the F out of his bar.

ALEX CHUN: So the Gay Liberation Front planned to hold a boycott that Friday night. There was just one issue. They only had about six men who were willing to publicly boycott the bar. But to their surprise, the International Socialist Group on campus agreed to join them in the boycott, making the group of boycotters about 20 people.

MAHER AHMAD: So we went out there early on a Friday night, and we started, you know, like marching around in a circle with our signs hoping that we could keep people from going in. People would turn around the corner two blocks down from the subway station, see this ruckus in front of the bar of people chanting slogans and carrying signs and walking around in a circle. And they would, discretion being the better part of valor, turn heel and go right back to the subway and go someplace else. Well, we killed their business that night. I think they had no business.

ALEX CHUN: The group boycotted the next week on Friday and Saturday as well, effectively killing the Normandy Bars business. Eventually, the owner of the bar gave in and agreed to meet with the Gay Liberation Front once more.

MAHER AHMAD: We signed up for a classroom in Kresge Centennial Hall in the basement, and we said meet us here and it was at night and this is an image that will ever be seared into my brain. The visual was so great. It was like six scruffy gay boys, the bright blaring fluorescent lights and us sitting around in the chairs and then these two mafioso types in ties and suits stuffed between the return arm and the back of the chair negotiating with us. And they agreed to all our demands, and they got a dancing license. It made the bar more popular than ever. And what happened because of the competition, other bars one after the other started getting dancing licenses.

ALEX CHUN: The Gay Liberation Front participated in other protests and demonstrations across the city, advocating for equality wherever they could. Some of the chants they used may sound familiar to activists today

MAHER AHMAD: And I remember one of the things this phrase was around when I was an undergraduate, so its at least that old, we would sing things like, Were here because were queer.

ALEX CHUN: Although the Gay Liberation Front had originated as an advocacy group for gay rights, Maher said he has always seen the fight against oppression as universal.

MAHER AHMAD: We can help all these other oppressed groups from all over the world because oppression is indivisible, okay? And when one tries to separate ones own oppression as being more legitimate or deserving of more attention, it diminishes the oppression of other people and diminishes the oppression of the group that considers themselves somehow raised above other oppressed groups or more worthy of attention.

ALEX CHUN: Today, Mahers support in the fight for equality hasnt diminished, and he remembers the importance of protests when he was fighting for liberation.

MAHER AHMAD: They are absolutely essential. 100 percent essential. Our Constitution, our founders these guys were your age. Our founders that wrote our Constitution, they didnt get some things right, but wow, what a system they came up with. And one of the things they realized was absolutely essential to a free society was the right to peaceably assemble because that is what will take the attention of people in power. I would hate to get stuck on a freeway in Los Angeles, because a whole bunch of gay rights activists or BLM activists sat down on the freeway and closed it up, but if these people are willing to sit in the freeway, be arrested, go to jail, fight the arrest, pay the fine, get released and do it again, more power to them. Because sometimes you gotta shout to be heard.

ALEX CHUN: From The Daily Northwestern, Im Alex Chun. Thanks for listening to another episode of Defining Safe. This episode was reported and produced by me, Alex Chun. The summer managing editors of The Daily are Sneha Dey and James Pollard. The summer editor-in-chief is Emma Edmund.

Email: [emailprotected]

Twitter: @apchun01

Related Stories:

50 Years of Queer Anger: While pivotal, Stonewall wasnt the beginning

NUs Gay Liberation Front co-founder Maher Ahmad looks back

Letter from the editor: This Pride Month (and all Pride Months), remember: The queer liberation movement was built by black people

Go here to read the rest:

Our songs are the stories of our lives: Two men remember the beginnings of gay liberation on campus - Daily Northwestern

(Updated at 4 p.m.) Arlington County should change its logo and seal, the local branch of the NAACP says.

The civil rights group says the logos use of Arlington House the former home of and a memorial to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee is divisive and racist.

Enslaved people were forced to build the Greek revivalstylemansion, which overlooks the Potomac and was the centerpiece of a plantation that utilized slave labor. Until it was seized during the Civil War, Arlington House had primarily been the home of descendents of George Washington. The house is now a National Memorial and part of Arlington National Cemetery.

Arlington House, the NAACP said in a letter to the editor this afternoon, isa symbol of a slave labor camp. The racist plantation symbol should be removed, as it divides, rather than unites us, the branch said.

The call to change the logo which adorns the county flag, website, parks and other county-owned property comes amid a national reckoning about race, sparked by the police killing of George Floyd and subsequent national protests.

Prior to the protests, the Confederate-inspired names of Jefferson Davis Highway and Washington-Lee High School were changed in Arlington. The county is also in the early stages of renaming Lee Highway.

In 2018, the County Board responded to a residentsrequest for the logo to be redesignedby saying that the Board will certainly give the matter more thought as budget and staff resources become available in future years.

Reached for comment today, Arlington County Board Chair Libby Garvey said that the county has received numerous requests recently to change everything from the logo to the names of buildings, bridges and streets.

As for changing the logo, the county is happy to consider it, Garvey said, but only after a community engagement process a good solid conversation with everyone in Arlington.

When you take something away, you have to put something in its place, Garvey said.

The letter to the editor was written by NAACP Arlington Branch President Julius Spain, Sr., as well as branch member Carolynn Kane and former Arlington School Board memberDr. Emma Violand-Snchez. The full letter is below.

Arlington Countys most prominent symbol is its logo and seal. A symbol that is everywhere on government correspondence, uniforms, buildings, vehicles, websites. A symbol of a slave labor camp. A symbol of the southern plantation economy designed to ensure White privilege and Black subjugation. A place that the National Park Service named, Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial. This is the symbol placed in the center of our flag. A divisive and racist branding of our diverse, usually progressive community. It is a symbol that divides, rather than unites us. Yet, despite community members bringing this problem to their attention, it appears that the County Board is uninterested in changing its logo. Instead the County proudly states in its manual that this symbol reflects its values identity traditions; and tells residents that there are good sides to this racist plantation symbol.

We ask, how can the County have courageous conversations on race, tackle the inequities in Arlington, heal the deep historical wounds here or enact its platform to address racial inequities when it will not confront and change its own symbol? If it refuses to acknowledge its own blindness to the logos meaning, it cannot. The County Board must end its embrace of this symbol of Black bondage, oppression and pain. The Countys Robert E. Lee Memorial logo, flag and seal needs to be retired and a new era of inclusiveness and equity ushered in immediately. We call on the County Board and County Manager to stop delaying, put this item on the Boards Agenda, and vote. Now.

Read this article:

It's Time to Ditch the County Logo, Arlington NAACP Says - ARLnow

Some observers are concerned that the national conversation about federal overreach in Portland has overshadowed the Portland Police Bureaus brutality against protesters

As the federal deployment of secretive law enforcement proved violent in the Trump administrations crackdown on protests, activists stressed that these officers behavior was largely familiar.

On July 22, as Mayor Ted Wheeler engaged in tense conversation with protesters walked from City Hall to the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse, a protester stepped in front of him and, without words, poured a bag of spent tear and crowd control munitions at his feet.

Minutes later, the crowd pressed in around Wheeler, and chants of Ted shot us too drowned him out as he tried to speak during his listening session. Less than an hour after that, the crowd chanted Youve been doing this for months, Ted and Youre just like them as he discussed being tear-gassed with national media.

Whenthe national spotlight was on the presence of federal officers in Portland and as many local elected officials also condemnedthese officers behavior some activists saidbrutality by local law enforcement wasgetting pushed out of the conversation.

Danialle James, a longtime Portland community activist and part of Dont Shoot Portland, said Wheeler, who is Portlands police commissioner, has unleashed a lot of violence on Portland, and that his response to protests set the groundwork for what (federal law enforcement) can do to us.

This was unleashed on us long before the federal government got here, she said. Its important to remind folks that while local law enforcement is sitting back and just watching except for (a couple of recent) of nights they painted the picture for how terrible to treat folks here.

James said there is a danger in focusing too heavily on the actions of federal law enforcement agencies and not on the Portland Police Bureau because, she said, it stands to overshadow what we were going through before the feds even got to town.

She is not alone in this sentiment. A number of local journalists and activists have reported this from the ground.

Elliot Young, a professor at Lewis and Clark College, described a similar pattern in an opinion article for the Houston Chronicle.

As the national media focuses on the unconstitutional abductions of protesters from the streets of Portland and the nightly litany of assaults on protesters, the much longer and more persistent history of local police engaging in some of the very same attacks is lost, he wrote.

While the Portland Police Bureau and other local law enforcement agencies have not been reported to use snatch-and-grab style detainments, many say their conduct echoes the tone and tactics of the federal law enforcement agencies response to Portlnad protests.

Since the George Floyd protests erupted in Portland, the local police have been using tear gas, pepper spray and flash bang grenades to disperse crowds of peaceful protesters, Young wrote.

PORTLAND PROTESTS: Pain, arrests and trauma: 4 injured protesters share their stories

These tactics, also deployed by federal law enforcement agencies, have gotten both federal and local law enforcement sued a number of times by a variety of parties, including Dont Shoot Portland, the Wall of Moms and Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum.

The suits primarily focus on both federal and local law enforcements extreme use of tear gas, similar chemical agents and potentially deadly crowd control munitions, and their targeting of press, medics and legal observers.

When asked about parallels between the actions of local and federal law enforcement, Rosenblum told Street Roots, Im not here to say that local law enforcements response has been perfect. There have been serious allegations about their use of force and the targeting of journalists and legal observers.

She said that while there may have been some missteps by PPB, the federal law enforcement agencies who are not accountable to Portlanders or to Oregonians in general have deployed violence and tactics which simply have no place in Portland streets and I believe do go beyond what we have seen (from Portland police).

To Rosenblum, the issue is uninvited, unwelcome federal officers, pursuing illegitimate goals, through means that seem to be illegal. She said the tactics that theyre using to quell the protests are designed to scare people and have often been targeted at journalists, legal observers and even medics.

Stressing that Portland police are more accountable to Portlanders and Oregonians than federal agents, Rosenblum pointed to a 14-day restraining order preventing Portland Police Bureau from using tear gas.

In a June special session, the state Legislature banned the use of tear gas, but the bureau has dodged the new restriction by frequently designating protests a riot rather than an unlawful assembly. The states ban on tear gas excludes situations where police declare a riot.

Maybe we need to address the definition of a riot, Rosenblum said when asked about this. Maybe the definition of a riot is too broad.

A blanket ban on tear gas is among bills Oregon lawmakers will consider either during another special session in August or during the regular session next year.

Both federal law enforcement and Portland police have ventured into the streets, seriously injuring protesters while deploying immense amounts of crowd control munitions and riot control agents, beating protesters and making extensive arrests.

OPINION: Struck by a rubber bullet: My experience as a Black woman at a Portland protest

Since the start of George Floyd protests in Portland, the local police bureau has arrested arrested more than 460 people, according to The Oregonian. Analysis of the U.S. Department of Homeland Securitys press releases and reporting by The Oregonian revealed that throughout the protests, federal law enforcement officers have arrested a least 77 people.

Local reporting has also documented widespread brutality by both federal and local law enforcement.

STREET ROOTS INTERVIEW: Feds sprayed chemicals into eyes of retired ER nurse and veteran

But beyond operating similarly, reporting from The Oregonian has shown the two agencies have worked together throughout the protests. Following outcry about this cooperation, City Council on July 22 banned Portland police from working with federal law enforcement agencies.

However, the two have worked together as recently as July 26 to clear areas and make arrests, according to Department of Homeland Security press releases.

This relationship between federal and local law enforcement is not new. In June 2018, journalist Mike Bivins tweeted videos of the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Protective Service making arrests and firing crowd control munitions at protesters opposing fascist groups.

The practice of federal law enforcement agencies snatching people up is also not new, activist Morgan Godvin and legal Scholar Leo Beletsky note note in The Appeal. They explain agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement,which has also participated in the federal response to protests,do this every day in communities of color.

The Portland Police Bureau and Homeland Securitys Customs and Border Patrol stressed that they have different goals in their responses to Portland protests. Portland police told Street Roots it works to manage events with the goal of life safety while not allowing criminal acts. Border Patrol told Street Roots its officers have been deployed to Portland in direct support of the Presidential Executive Order and the newly established DHS Protecting American Communities Task Force (PACT) to support the Federal Protective Service (FPS).

However, both President Donald Trump and Daryl Turner, the head of the police union, Portland Police Association, have used similar language in describing the need for law enforcement talking about a city under siege by rioters. The two have both also criticized Portlands elected leadership.

Neither Turner nor the Portland Police Association responded to Street Roots request for comment.

Meanwhile, many of Oregons elected officials have condemned the presence of federal law enforcement while mostly ignoring the actions of local police.

Gov. Kate Brown and Oregons Democratic congressional delegation Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and Reps. Earl Blumenauer, Suzanne Bonamici, Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader have published a combined 40 press releases on the conduct of federal law enforcement from May 28, when the protests started, to July 28, a couple of days before the federal officers began withdrawing from Portland.

None of them published any press releases about the actions of local law enforcement agencies during the same period of time.

Merkley and Wyden both responded to requests for comments for this article, but neither addressed Street Roots questions related to local polices behavior during the protests. Rather, both highlighted their recent work on national police reform legislation, including the Enhancing Oversight to End Discrimination in Policing Act.

Oregonians elected me to focus on the federal side, Wyden wrote. And thats exactly what Ive been doing by using all the tools available to push back against federal forces occupying our city uninvited, inciting violence and attacking peaceful protesters. Ending these abuses is my top priority.

Among state lawmakers, Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek (D-Portland) strongly condemned Portland Police Bureaus violent and aggressive responses to protests, and in a marathon special session in June, Oregon legislators passed a number of police reform laws.

Among Portland elected officials, however, there was a split.

Wheeler, who did not respond to Street Roots request for comment, published a number of press releases condemning the actions of federal law enforcement agencies in Portland. He did not publish any criticism of the actions of local law enforcement, though he did once tweet that the Portland Police Bureaus targeting of the press was extremely concerning.

Commissioners Chloe Eudaly and Jo Ann Hardesty were the strongest voices on City Council against local law enforcements response to protests. Both have repeatedly blasted the actions of federal and local law enforcement officers for their brutality at protests.

Hardesty, a longtime community activist and police reform advocate, speaking on OPBs Think Out Loud, discussed her criticisms of Portland police in response to protests as well as a number of reforms she has been pushing. She did not respond to Street Roots request for comment.

Eudaly drew parallels between the federal forces behavior during Portlands protests and that of the local police.

The tactics being deployed by federal forces are nothing new to activists in Portland, who are accustomed to violent crowd control tactics by the Portland police, Eudaly told Street Roots in an email.

She stressed the importance of not losing sight of the fact the nation is in the midst of an outcry over police brutality against the Black community.

Many elected officials throughout our region recognize the need to transform our approach to policing and public safety, Eudaly said in her July 29 email, but that conversation has been overshadowed by this federal occupation. With yesterdays announcement of the Reimagine Oregon plan, and todays announcement of a withdrawal of federal forces from our city, the conversation is already refocusing on racial justice.

She said that while a significant amount control over the Portland Police Bureau has been bargained away by past Councils, the city still has control over its budget and position authority.

Thats not the case with the federal forces occupying our city, she said. Now that the federal government appears to be standing down, we need to get our own house in order.

Commissioner Amanda Fritz, who didnt respond to Street Roots request for comment, released a statement in which she condemned the actions of federal law enforcement officers and noted that policing is a part of a much larger system of oppression, but she stopped short of criticizing any aspect of local law enforcement agencies responses to protests.

Regardless of the actions and inactions of elected officials, all parties agree protests, which have lasted more than 65days will continue.

Federal law enforcement began withdrawing from Portland Thursday, July 30, and during the following two nights of mass, peaceful protest downtown, there was no obvious police presence and no conflict. It was a drastic change from nights of unrest leading up to the deployment of federal troops. It's yet to be seen how long Portland police will stand downas the protests continue to draw thousands of people to the city's center.

Meanwhile, James, who has been on the ground since the beginning of protests in Portland, said she is going to continue to hold Portland police accountable and exercise her rights. She has been supportive of Dont Shoot Portland founder Teressa Raifords mayoral write-in campaign.

STREET ROOTS PODCAST: Talking with Teressa Raiford of Dont Shoot Portland

Its important for us to speak out. Its important for us to be able to be out there and freely speak our voices, James said. So, my fight will continue in holding them accountable, and I look forward to that process.

View post:

Portland police are no better than the feds, activists say - Street Roots News

Olorogun Moses Taiga, President-General of the Urhobo Progress Union

By Okejoto Gochua

A century old history of rebellion against oppression and taxation without representation was re-enacted at Otor- Udu on Monday 27th July, 2020 with the marking of the 1927 anti-taxation revolt by the Urhobo and all the other ethnic nationalities that made up the Warri ( Delta ) Province; led by Chief Oshue Ogbiyerin of Orhuwhorun in Udu LGA of Delta State .

The event was organised under the auspices of the Udje Heritage Centre (UHC) and the Achoja Research Council (ARC).

The memorial event was attended by eminent personalities, dignitaries, leaders of socio-cultural organisations, women, youth, scholars, writers, activists, journalists and media experts. The occasion featured addresses, speeches, testimonies, musical performances, drama sketches on the 1927 Revolution, prayers and invocations. It was chaired by Chief (Hon.) Andrew Orugbo, the former Chairman of Udu LGA, Delta State Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General, and the current Chairman of Council of the Delta State Polytechnic, Otefe-Oghara. The President-General of the Urhobo Progress Union (UPU) Olorogun Moses Taiga (JP) was the Special Guest of Honour and the Distinguished Guest of Honour was Professor Amos Agbe Utuama (SAN) former Deputy Governor of Delta State (2007-2015).

The Royal Fathers of Honour were HRM (Barr.) Emmanuel Delekpe (JP) Ohworhu I, the Ovie of Udu Kingdom and HRM Matthew Ediri Egbi (JP) Owawha II, the Okobaro of Ughievwen Kingdom. Other Guests of Honour were Hon (Barr.) Evelyn Oboro, former Member, House of Representatives, Hon. Chief Peter Uviejitobor, Member, Delta State House of Assembly, Olorogun Vincent Oyibode (JP) Hon Commissioner, DESOPADEC (Udu, Ughelli South, Uvwie and Urhobo Kingdoms of Warri), Chief (Hon.) Jite Brown, the Chairman, Udu LGA, Chief Emmanuel Ono Okumagba (JP), Chairman, Urhobo President-Generals Forum, Chief Godwin Notoma, President-General, Udu Communities and Executive Committee Members of the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), Delta State Chapter.

The political and intellectual significance of the ceremony was also evident in the credentials of the Speakers, namely, Prof (Mrs) Rose Oro Aziza (former Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Delta State University, Abraka, Prof Sunny Awhefeada, Dean, Faculty of Arts, Delsu, Chief (Mrs) Margaret Unukegwo, Fmr Commissioner, Bendel State, and Member, Advisory and Peace-Building Council, Delta State, and Hon. Clement R. Oshue, former Vice-Chairman, Orhuwhorun Community. Entertainment was by the popular music maestros of Olorogun Oghene Bokor, Mrs Rume Otovotoma, and Mrs Ruth Christopher (nee Juju Debala). Overall coordination was by Prof Godini G. Darah, Chairman, Delta State Chapter of PANDEF and Delta State Delegate, 2014 National Conference.

His Royal Majesty, Barr Emmanuel Delekpe , the Ovie of Udu Kingdom spoke on the need for constant remembering and retelling of our stories so that we do not forget.

He said Oshue was a great man by his very courageous actions against oppression and injustice.

The Keynote Speakers and Stakeholders examined the political and economic significance of the Anti-Taxation revolt and affirmed that it was a revolutionary initiative that redefined the historical and cultural identity of the Western Niger Delta. According to Prof Godini G.Darah it was agreed that our ancestors undertook the audacious revolt to challenge British colonial policies of exploitation and injustice against the peoples of the region. In the light of these facts, we the inheritors of that proud heritage are bound by historical duty to revive that spirit of nationalism and self-determination in our current struggles to liberate the Niger Delta from decades of economic plunder and neglect as well as political oppression perpetuated by the Nigerian government and its foreign accomplices.

Accordingly, the Stakeholders in their communique resolved as follows:

1.

(i) Oppressive taxation and government neglect were the immediate causes of the 1927 uprising. Considering that peoples of the five nations still suffer from these unjust and oppressive policies 100 years after, therefore the meeting called on the Government of Delta State to grant a three-year tax holiday to low-income groups, and Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs) to enable them cope with the challenges of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

(ii) Abolition of all forms of illegal and arbitrary taxes, levies, and bribe-taking by corrupt members of the Police, Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC), Joint Task Force (JTF), Customs, Immigration, Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIO), State Tax Board, Traffic Wardens, and Mobile Courts, Local Government Revenue Personnel as well as touts and vendors who behave worse than the British Warrant Officers and tax police during the colonial period 100 years ago.

(iii) In place of these menacing tax and extortion touts, Delta State Government should develop efficient corruption-free methods of raising public revenue by appointing accredited agents and vendors with capacity to deploy modern, technology-compliant instruments for highways, markets, super stores, educational institutions, courts, community centres, public facilities, utilities, etc. More revenue will be earned through these electronic methods.

2. The historic memorial gathering took place at Otor-Udu, in Udu LGA and the operational headquarters of the Oshue-led Revolution of 1927. Otor-Udu is also one of the host communities of the Utorogu Gas Plant, the largest in Black Africa. Therefore, it was resolved that:

a. Urgent and necessary measures be taken to make the Government of Nigeria and the management of the Utorogu Gas Plant to implement all policies relating to local content by way of employment, contracts, surveillance services and social responsibility obligations.

b. Completion of the Gas Revolution Industrial Park (GRIP) at Ogidigben and its Deep Sea Port at Okerenkoko in Warri Southwest LGA.

c. Establishment of Utorogu Institute of Technology (UIT) and Amai Institute of Technology (AIT) to develop global cities and infrastructure like those of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Silicon Valley in California State, USA.

3. As a fitting tribute to their sacrifice and patriotic spirit, the Government of Delta State and the appropriate Local Government Councils should name public places and centres after Chief Oshue Ogbiyerin and the other revolutionary leaders of the 1927 Anti-Taxation Movement to immortalise their legacy and inspire new generations of brave and selfless leaders.

4. The Stakeholders were gratified to note that the 1927 Anti-Taxation revolt was the first major anti-colonial uprising by minority ethnic groups in Southern Nigeria after the 1914 Amalgamation Policy by Captain Frederick Lugard. While saluting the bravery and sagacity of Oshue and his comrades, the meeting enjoined contemporary generations to celebrate other heroes and heroines of our people, including Ovie Oghwe, the Agbarha-Otor King arrested and exiled with Oba Ovonramwen Nogbaisi of Benin by the British in 1897, General Ogidigbo of Ughievwen Kingdom, HRM Ovedje Sadjere of Ovwor, Urhobo first-millionaire monarch; Chief Mukoro Mowoe, Messrs McNeil Gabriel Ejaife and Ezekiel Igho (the first Urhobo university graduates), Chief T.E.A. Salubi (first Urhobo Government Minister), Dr. Frederick Esiri (first medical doctor) and Chief Samuel Jereton Mariere, first Governor of Midwestern Region (1964-1966).

Other Urhobo cultural icons are Chief Yamu Numa of Ekuigbo, author of the book, Urhobo: Pride of a Nation (1948), Mrs Alice Obahor, eminent woman politician and merchant, Chief Michael Ibru, Africas pre-eminent business tycoon, Chief A.T. Rerri, pioneer investor in electronics education, Professor Frank Ukoli (first Urhobo Professor), General David Ejoor, (pioneer Military Governor of Midwestern Region), Dr. Mark Otedoh, expert-inventor of raffia palm industries, Professors Omafume Onoge, Onigu Otite and Peter Ekeh for global scholarship, Comrade Frank Ovie-Kokori, leader of Oil Workers Strike of 1994 against Gen. Sani Abachas terrorist regime, Ms Blessing Okagbare, Africas queen of Athletics and Olympic medalist.

5. The meeting lamented the problem of youth alienation and disorientation arising from the failure of parents and elders to inculcate cherished Urhobo values of hard work, industry, honesty and equity. A call was made to the leaders of Urhobo Kingdoms to rise up from their stupor and craze for material wealth to work with various government agencies to incorporate into the education curricula the traditional principles of incorruptible and accountable leadership, trado-medical knowledge, enterprise, and self-reliance.

Mothers, the prime managers of families are to re-educate themselves by being the cradle counsellors of children to insulate them from negative, foreign influences of riches-without-labour, moral laxity, sexual indiscipline, and tendency to criminal conduct. These are the best ways to engender the spirit of nationalism and revolutionary leadership epitomised by Oshue Ogbiyerin and his compatriots of Ijaw, Itsekiri, Isoko and Ukwuani.

6. On insecurity and influx of undesirable strangers into the Western Niger Delta, the Stakeholders gathering urged the apex socio-cultural organisations of the Urhobo, Ijaw, Itsekiri, Isoko, Ukwuani, Ika and Igbo nations to take immediate steps to free their lands of such elements (armed herdsmen, kidnappers, criminals, nomadic miscreants, etc) that threaten the peace, stability and socio-economic environment of the region.

7. The meeting expressed disappointment about the shameful conduct of Niger Delta executives at the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and other interventionist agencies. The recent probe on corruption and graft by the National Assembly exposed unpatriotic and greedy Niger Delta personnel who have converted the NDDC into a source of illegal wealth acquisitions, responsible for the low performance of the Commission over the years.

The meeting endorsed severe penalties for these enemies of the region; they should be investigated and prosecuted for underdeveloping the region and for giving the false impression that the people of the region are not accountable and reliable in public office. All those found guilty in the probe must be compelled to refund all stolen resources and face appropriate jail terms. The meeting also observed that these scandalous cases of graft and corruption are common primarily because the Federal Government deliberately appoints political sycophants to head the agencies. The Government should abide by the Provision of the NDDC Act, dismantle the illegal Interim Management Committee, inaugurate the Board already confirmed by the National assembly, and pay the over One Trillion Naira arrears of Federal Government subvention to the NDDC to enable it function effectively.

8. Stakeholders underscored the point that the five nations of the former Warri Province are bona fide indigenes of their lands and waterways richly endowed by God and Nature with oil, natural gas, solid minerals, forests and precious biodiversity resources. It was further affirmed that revenues from our oil and gas resources account for 90% of Nigerias export earnings and are the mainstay of the national economy and political survival. Regrettably, the benefits of these abundant resources have been denied our people due to deliberate government neglect and punitive laws and policies for many decades. Consequently, the Niger Delta has been reduced to the poorest and the most wretched oil-rich region of the world. To redeem the region from perpetual political and economic slavery, the five nations of Urhobo, Ijaw, Itsekiri, Isoko and Ukwuani are implored to pursue the struggle for equity, justice and federalist autonomy through the peaceful platform of Restructuring endorsed by the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) and its allies in the other geo-political zones, with particular focus on the implementation of the progressive recommendations of the 2014 National Conference.

__________ A century old history of resistance to oppression and taxation without representation was re-enacted at Otor- Udu on Monday 27th July, 2020 with the marking of the 1927 anti-taxation revolt by the Urhobo and all the other ethnic nationalities that made up the Warri ( Delta ) Province; led by Chief Oshue Ogbiyerin of Orhuwhorun in Udu LGA of Delta State .

The event was organised under the auspices of the Udje Heritage Centre (UHC) and the Achoja Research Council (ARC).

The memorial event was attended by eminent personalities, dignitaries, leaders of socio-cultural organisations, women, youth, scholars, writers, activists, journalists and media experts. The occasion featured addresses, speeches, testimonies, musical performances, drama sketches on the 1927 Revolution, prayers and invocations. It was chaired by Chief (Hon.) Andrew Orugbo, the former Chairman of Udu LGA, Delta State Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General, and the current Chairman of Council of the Delta State Polytechnic, Otefe-Oghara. The President-General of the Urhobo Progress Union (UPU) Olorogun Moses Taiga (JP) was the Special Guest of Honour and the Distinguished Guest of Honour was Professor Amos Agbe Utuama (SAN) former Deputy Governor of Delta State (2007-2015).

The Royal Fathers of Honour were HRM (Barr.) Emmanuel Delekpe (JP) Ohworhu I, the Ovie of Udu Kingdom and HRM Matthew Ediri Egbi (JP) Owawha II, the Okobaro of Ughievwen Kingdom. Other Guests of Honour were Hon (Barr.) Evelyn Oboro, former Member, House of Representatives, Hon. Chief Peter Uviejitobor, Member, Delta State House of Assembly, Olorogun Vincent Oyibode (JP) Hon Commissioner, DESOPADEC (Udu, Ughelli South, Uvwie and Urhobo Kingdoms of Warri), Chief (Hon.) Jite Brown, the Chairman, Udu LGA, Chief Emmanuel Ono Okumagba (JP), Chairman, Urhobo President-Generals Forum, Chief Godwin Notoma, President-General, Udu Communities and Executive Committee Members of the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), Delta State Chapter.

The political and intellectual significance of the ceremony was also evident in the credentials of the Speakers, namely, Prof (Mrs) Rose Oro Aziza (former Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Delta State University, Abraka, Prof Sunny Awhefeada, Dean, Faculty of Arts, Delsu, Chief (Mrs) Margaret Unukegwo, Fmr Commissioner, Bendel State, and Member, Advisory and Peace-Building Council, Delta State, and Hon. Clement R. Oshue, former Vice-Chairman, Orhuwhorun Community. Entertainment was by the popular music maestros of Olorogun Oghene Bokor, Mrs Rume Otovotoma, and Mrs Ruth Christopher (nee Juju Debala). Overall coordination was by Prof Godini G. Darah, Chairman, Delta State Chapter of PANDEF and Delta State Delegate, 2014 National Conference.

His Royal Majesty, Barr Emmanuel Delekpe , the Ovie of Udu Kingdom spoke on the need for constant remembering and retelling of our stories so that we do not forget.

He said Oshue was a great man by his very courageous actions against oppression and injustice.

The Keynote Speakers and Stakeholders examined the political and economic significance of the Anti-Taxation revolt and affirmed that it was a revolutionary initiative that redefined the historical and cultural identity of the Western Niger Delta. According to Prof Godini G.Darah it was agreed that our ancestors undertook the audacious revolt to challenge British colonial policies of exploitation and injustice against the peoples of the region. In the light of these facts, we the inheritors of that proud heritage are bound by historical duty to revive that spirit of nationalism and self-determination in our current struggles to liberate the Niger Delta from decades of economic plunder and neglect as well as political oppression perpetuated by the Nigerian government and its foreign accomplices.

Accordingly, the Stakeholders in their communique resolved as follows:

1.

(i) Oppressive taxation and government neglect were the immediate causes of the 1927 uprising. Considering that peoples of the five nations still suffer from these unjust and oppressive policies 100 years after, therefore the meeting called on the Government of Delta State to grant a three-year tax holiday to low-income groups, and Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs) to enable them cope with the challenges of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

(ii) Abolition of all forms of illegal and arbitrary taxes, levies, and bribe-taking by corrupt members of the Police, Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC), Joint Task Force (JTF), Customs, Immigration, Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIO), State Tax Board, Traffic Wardens, and Mobile Courts, Local Government Revenue Personnel as well as touts and vendors who behave worse than the British Warrant Officers and tax police during the colonial period 100 years ago.

(iii) In place of these menacing tax and extortion touts, Delta State Government should develop efficient corruption-free methods of raising public revenue by appointing accredited agents and vendors with capacity to deploy modern, technology-compliant instruments for highways, markets, super stores, educational institutions, courts, community centres, public facilities, utilities, etc. More revenue will be earned through these electronic methods.

2. The historic memorial gathering took place at Otor-Udu, in Udu LGA and the operational headquarters of the Oshue-led Revolution of 1927. Otor-Udu is also one of the host communities of the Utorogu Gas Plant, the largest in Black Africa. Therefore, it was resolved that:

a. Urgent and necessary measures be taken to make the Government of Nigeria and the management of the Utorogu Gas Plant to implement all policies relating to local content by way of employment, contracts, surveillance services and social responsibility obligations.

b. Completion of the Gas Revolution Industrial Park (GRIP) at Ogidigben and its Deep Sea Port at Okerenkoko in Warri Southwest LGA.

c. Establishment of Utorogu Institute of Technology (UIT) and Amai Institute of Technology (AIT) to develop global cities and infrastructure like those of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Silicon Valley in California State, USA.

3. As a fitting tribute to their sacrifice and patriotic spirit, the Government of Delta State and the appropriate Local Government Councils should name public places and centres after Chief Oshue Ogbiyerin and the other revolutionary leaders of the 1927 Anti-Taxation Movement to immortalise their legacy and inspire new generations of brave and selfless leaders.

4. The Stakeholders were gratified to note that the 1927 Anti-Taxation revolt was the first major anti-colonial uprising by minority ethnic groups in Southern Nigeria after the 1914 Amalgamation Policy by Captain Frederick Lugard. While saluting the bravery and sagacity of Oshue and his comrades, the meeting enjoined contemporary generations to celebrate other heroes and heroines of our people, including Ovie Oghwe, the Agbarha-Otor King arrested and exiled with Oba Ovonramwen Nogbaisi of Benin by the British in 1897, General Ogidigbo of Ughievwen Kingdom, HRM Ovedje Sadjere of Ovwor, Urhobo first-millionaire monarch; Chief Mukoro Mowoe, Messrs McNeil Gabriel Ejaife and Ezekiel Igho (the first Urhobo university graduates), Chief T.E.A. Salubi (first Urhobo Government Minister), Dr. Frederick Esiri (first medical doctor) and Chief Samuel Jereton Mariere, first Governor of Midwestern Region (1964-1966).

Other Urhobo cultural icons are Chief Yamu Numa of Ekuigbo, author of the book, Urhobo: Pride of a Nation (1948), Mrs Alice Obahor, eminent woman politician and merchant, Chief Michael Ibru, Africas pre-eminent business tycoon, Chief A.T. Rerri, pioneer investor in electronics education, Professor Frank Ukoli (first Urhobo Professor), General David Ejoor, (pioneer Military Governor of Midwestern Region), Dr. Mark Otedoh, expert-inventor of raffia palm industries, Professors Omafume Onoge, Onigu Otite and Peter Ekeh for global scholarship, Comrade Frank Ovie-Kokori, leader of Oil Workers Strike of 1994 against Gen. Sani Abachas terrorist regime, Ms Blessing Okagbare, Africas queen of Athletics and Olympic medalist.

5. The meeting lamented the problem of youth alienation and disorientation arising from the failure of parents and elders to inculcate cherished Urhobo values of hard work, industry, honesty and equity. A call was made to the leaders of Urhobo Kingdoms to rise up from their stupor and craze for material wealth to work with various government agencies to incorporate into the education curricula the traditional principles of incorruptible and accountable leadership, trado-medical knowledge, enterprise, and self-reliance.

Mothers, the prime managers of families are to re-educate themselves by being the cradle counsellors of children to insulate them from negative, foreign influences of riches-without-labour, moral laxity, sexual indiscipline, and tendency to criminal conduct. These are the best ways to engender the spirit of nationalism and revolutionary leadership epitomised by Oshue Ogbiyerin and his compatriots of Ijaw, Itsekiri, Isoko and Ukwuani.

6. On insecurity and influx of undesirable strangers into the Western Niger Delta, the Stakeholders gathering urged the apex socio-cultural organisations of the Urhobo, Ijaw, Itsekiri, Isoko, Ukwuani, Ika and Igbo nations to take immediate steps to free their lands of such elements (armed herdsmen, kidnappers, criminals, nomadic miscreants, etc) that threaten the peace, stability and socio-economic environment of the region.

7. The meeting expressed disappointment about the shameful conduct of Niger Delta executives at the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and other interventionist agencies. The recent probe on corruption and graft by the National Assembly exposed unpatriotic and greedy Niger Delta personnel who have converted the NDDC into a source of illegal wealth acquisitions, responsible for the low performance of the Commission over the years.

The meeting endorsed severe penalties for these enemies of the region; they should be investigated and prosecuted for underdeveloping the region and for giving the false impression that the people of the region are not accountable and reliable in public office. All those found guilty in the probe must be compelled to refund all stolen resources and face appropriate jail terms. The meeting also observed that these scandalous cases of graft and corruption are common primarily because the Federal Government deliberately appoints political sycophants to head the agencies. The Government should abide by the Provision of the NDDC Act, dismantle the illegal Interim Management Committee, inaugurate the Board already confirmed by the National assembly, and pay the over One Trillion Naira arrears of Federal Government subvention to the NDDC to enable it function effectively.

8. Stakeholders underscored the point that the five nations of the former Warri Province are bona fide indigenes of their lands and waterways richly endowed by God and Nature with oil, natural gas, solid minerals, forests and precious biodiversity resources. It was further affirmed that revenues from our oil and gas resources account for 90% of Nigerias export earnings and are the mainstay of the national economy and political survival. Regrettably, the benefits of these abundant resources have been denied our people due to deliberate government neglect and punitive laws and policies for many decades. Consequently, the Niger Delta has been reduced to the poorest and the most wretched oil-rich region of the world. To redeem the region from perpetual political and economic slavery, the five nations of Urhobo, Ijaw, Itsekiri, Isoko and Ukwuani are implored to pursue the struggle for equity, justice and federalist autonomy through the peaceful platform of Restructuring endorsed by the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) and its allies in the other geo-political zones, with particular focus on the implementation of the progressive recommendations of the 2014 National Conference. In conclusion, there is the urgent need to underscore the point that Oshues Revolt was the first post amalgamation revolt in the southern region among the so-called minority groups. Prof Sunny Awhefeada noted how the revolt inspired a similar one in Owerri Province in 1929. He said the revolt also encouraged the formation of the UPU in 1931; which dovetailed into what he termed the Internal Colonialism and the Enemy Within, Awhefeada lamented that at present the Whitemen are gone but our own brothers now Oppress us and underdevelop our region. He cited the shameful and embarrassing revelations at the ongoing NDDC probe which shows how our own Niger Delta politicians steal our Commonwealth.

Overall speaker after speaker hinted on the need for economic revival of Urhobo land through indigenous production as well as our youths making themselves available to be mentored by the elderly .

Original post:

The Otor-Udu Declaration for Justice and Resource Control - The News

KUALA LUMPUR - Supporters of ex-premier Najib Razak have thrown wild accusations about Malaysian Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who found ex-premier Najib Razak guilty on Tuesday (July 28), as they try to discredit the court's judgment.

A staunch supporter of Najib, Mr Ramesh Rao, who leads a non-governmental organisation (NGO), claimed Justice Nazlan was either the grandson or grandnephew of former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.

Others, in an attempt to show the judge is sympathetic to the opposition parties, pointed out on social media that Mr Nazlan was one of the judges who acquitted and discharged a lawmaker from the Democratic Action Party (DAP) on charges of supporting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam terrorist group.

Datuk Lokman Noor Adam, who was a senior officer at the finance ministry when Najib was the finance minister, accused the High Court of making a "political decision".He claimed Najib is a threat to both Tun Dr Mahathir and Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, according to Utusan Malaysia website.

"I am sure that what happened today (Tuesday) is the continuation of oppression conducted by Pakatan Harapan (PH)," he was quoted as telling reporters on Tuesday.

PH was ousted from power nearly five months ago, and replaced by the Perikatan Nasional government that included Najib's Umno party as an alliance member.

Najib was on Tuesday found guilty of corruption and sentenced to 12 years in jail and fined RM210 million (S$68 million) by the High Court, in the first of five trials he faces relating to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) graft scandal.

Judge Nazlan found Najib, 67, guilty of every single charge, including abuse of power, and multiple counts of criminal breach of trust and money laundering for illegally receiving RM42 million from SRC International, a former subsidiary of 1MDB.

Contacted by Malaysiakini on Tuesday, Dr Mahathir's eldest child, Ms Marina Mahathir, 63, said such claims were untrue.

"We should be flattered that they think such a learned judge is related to us but he's not," she told Malaysiakini.

Dr Mahathir's eldest grandchild is 33 years old.

Justice Nazlan, who took over the case in August 2018, was reported then to be 51 years old.

He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Jurisprudence and a Master of Arts from the University of Oxford, and is a Barrister at Law of Lincoln's Inn, The Star newspaper reported then.

Dr Mahathir's youngest son, MP Mukhriz Mahathir, called the claims ofthe judge being related to his family as "baseless".

"The Attorney-General's Chambers should investigate these claims as they insult the judicial institution," he said in a post on Twitter late on Tuesday.

A group of Umnos young lawyers asked supporters to be careful so as not to be in contempt of the court and landthemselves in jail.

"Everything that has happened since the charges were laid is a process for Najib to seek justice," said Umno Youth young lawyers secretariat head Nik Saiful Adli Burhan,Malaysiakini on Wednesday (July 29) quoted him as saying. "We supporters should not (act in contempt) and land ourselves in jail".

He urged party supporters to respect the courts and the judicial system.

See more here:

Supporters of Najib throw wild claims at judge who found him guilty to discredit judgment - The Straits Times

Kishore Mahbubani delights in provocation. Read no further than the title of his books Can Asians Think?, Has the West Lost it? or Has China Won? for blood pressures to rise and sputtering to commence. Yet there is no mistaking the former Singaporean diplomats smarts. He is thoughtful, well informed and well traveled; even if you disagree with him and there is lots to dispute reading his work is well worth the time.

Mahbubani begins his newest book Has China Won? with a hypothetical Memo to Xi Jinping on preparing for the Great Struggle with America. In it, he identifies five strategic advantages that the United States enjoys in any superpower competition with China. They are: a sense of individual empowerment, access to the worlds best and brightest through liberal immigration policies, strong institutions and the rule of law, the best universities (which attract the best talent), and being part of the rich tradition of Western civilization. Note that he doesnt list the formidable U.S. military, or any of the countrys other material advantages. Mahbubani most values the intangibles.

Some call this soft power the ability of the U.S. to lead by the persuasive power of the values it espouses. It elicits the image of the U.S. as a Shining City on the Hill, an example for other nations and a notion honored increasingly often in the breach.

The gap between those ideals and the grim reality of life in the U.S. has been made plain by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests that have convulsed the U.S. and sparked similar demonstrations around the world. Millions of Americans have taken to the streets to rally against systemic racism that manifests all too frequently in violence against people of color. A simple demand for equality has been overshadowed by the growing division in the U.S. or, if polls are to be believed, a split between the Trump administration and a growing majority of citizens over the propriety and legitimacy of the response to those protests.

The juxtaposition of national government sentiment and that of U.S. civil society is likely to be the defining element of this moment in history. Its also what makes this so important for the rest of the world.

The BLM protests have inspired similar demonstrations in cities throughout the world. There have been marches, candlelight vigils and vandalism, the tearing down and removal of statues that commemorate figures tied to slavery and racism. The death of George Floyd, which set off these protests, has become a symbol of racism, oppression and violence against minorities. Even in Japan, several thousand people have raised their voices to support BLM and oppose racism. That call resonates: During a walk in rural Yamanashi Prefecture a few weeks ago, I came across a political poster that highlighted the BLM movement.

Why? Some of the protests target the U.S. itself. Those demonstrators are anti-American and they are venting deeply felt anger, disdain and resentment toward U.S. power and its influence over their lives. They harbor longstanding antipathy toward the U.S. and even moderates have been dismayed by the administration of President Donald Trump.

Opinion polls around the world show declining levels of confidence in and support for the U.S. since Trump took office. A Gallup survey of opinion in 135 countries that was released last week showed that the median approval rating for U.S. leadership was just 33 percent in 2019, 1 percentage point lower than the previous low recorded under former President George W. Bush in 2008. (Gallup noted that this most recent result was a slight improvement over the 30 percent approval rating of Trumps first year in office.)

In Japan, data from the Pew Research Center shows a deterioration of views of the U.S. In 2016, 72 percent of respondents had a favorable view of the U.S., while 23 percent did not; last year, the numbers had dropped to 68 percent favorable views and 30 percent unfavorable. More marked was the drop in the assessment of the U.S. president. In 2016, 78 percent had confidence in the president while 17 percent did not. Last year, confidence had plunged, with only 36 percent expressing support for Trump and more than three times as many people (61percent) saying that they had no confidence in him.

This distinction between the government and the country is key to understanding foreign reaction to the BLM protests. Protestors may be angry about U.S. hypocrisy but many if not most demonstrators are expressing support for the ideals that animate the BLM movement and its supporters.

Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador to Washington, articulated that sympathy when he told The Washington Post, People all over the world understand that their own fights for human rights, for equality and fairness, will become so much more difficult to win if we are going to lose America as the place where I have a dream is a real and universal political program. A Mexican activist, Barbara Arredondo, expressed the same view in a New York Times survey of global opinion: U.S. protestors, she said, are role models for social transformation."

Of course, the U.S. isnt the only country to inspire such moments. The self-immolation of a Tunisian fruit vender in 2010 set North Africa and the Middle East ablaze, yielding the Arab Spring.

But U.S. power assumes special significance in a world of sharpening competition between the U.S. and China. Robert Daly, a former U.S. diplomat and director of the Wilson Centers Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, explained in a recent article how supporters of Black Lives Matter identify with the hopes of the American people. They have been inspired by a human spectacle of the kind only the U.S. can provide. This, says Daly, is recharging the reservoir of American soft power even as American leaders make the world wonder whether the U.S. will keep faith with or even understands its own values.

The world may be increasingly disillusioned with the U.S. government, and its appeal may now compete with that in Beijing, but it is increasingly clear that the real source of U.S. influence and inspiration is its civil society. That is a sharp contrast with China, where spontaneous demonstrations are illegal. Marches make Beijing nervous.

Moreover, as Daly explains, China cant catch up. The BLM movement is based on universal principles: freedom of expression, equal treatment under law, rule of law, and protection from tyranny and arbitrary use of power. But, Daly argues, China focuses on the Chinese story: It is concerned primarily with the Chinese not the human condition. It is a morality tale about the nations long struggles and ultimate victory that is intended to command global respect."

He points to the 2013 Chinese Communist Party document, Communique on the Current State of the Ideological Sphere, which calls universal values a false ideological trend and bans it from discussion. For the CCP, core socialist values derived from Chinas unique historical experience are what matter and only Chinese, and members of the CCP, can comment upon them. That exclusiveness denies China the inspirational quality that U.S. civil society radiates.

And provides a strategic advantage that even Mahbubani concedes is almost impossible to match.

Brad Glosserman is deputy director of and visiting professor at the Center for Rule Making Strategies at Tama University as well as senior advisor (nonresident) at Pacific Forum. He is the author of "Peak Japan: The End of Great Ambitions."

See the rest here:

Look to the American people, not their government, for inspiration - The Japan Times

Staffers adjust U.S. and Chinese flags before the opening session of trade negotiations in Beijing, China, February 14, 2019.(Mark Schiefelbein/Pool via Reuters)Too many freedom-loving nations fear economic retaliation.

As the Chinese Communist Party continues the process of enforcing its restrictive security law, barring pro-democracy candidates in Hong Kong from participating in the September legislative election and arresting protesters, dissenting academics, social-media influencers, and even a 15-year-old banner-waving schoolgirl, it would appear quite challenging to speak in an equivocating, wishy-washy manner about the evils this government is perpetrating. Still, some manage. Several weeks ago, German chancellor Angela Merkel the most powerful figure in Western Europe promised that she would continue to seek dialogue and conversation with the Chinese government. Andreas Fulda, a senior fellow at the Asia Research Institute at the University of Nottingham, offers a theory behind the chancellors words: Angela Merkel is not able, in my view, to understand the gravity of the challenge of continued one-party rule, whether its COVID-19 or the treatment of minorities or the suppression of Hong Kong or the military threats against Taiwan. ... If the German Government doest take the threat of the CCP seriously then, by extension, the EU will not be able to make progress in terms of developing a more coherent China policy.

That Merkel is simply misguided on the threat China poses, as Fulda believes, is certainly possible. However, given the political climate, there is likely a graver impulse behind Merkels placating remarks: fear of retribution. After all, Merkel is far from the only prominent politician to skirt the issue of the CCPs atrocious human-rights record far from the only politician to pretend that the Chinese government is a fair party on which one can count to honor its agreements and to act with benevolence.

Last month, representatives of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Croatia, Poland, and the Czech Republic on the U.N. Human Rights Council, among others, refused to condemn China for its encroachment on Hong Kongs autonomy a serious blow to a unified Western countermovement against the CCPs actions. In all, just 27 governments expressed criticism of Chinas oppression law, with 53 in favor and the rest staying silent. Just as it is hard to believe that Angela Merkel is oblivious to the crimes China is committing, it is hard to believe that only 27 governments actually found fault with an effective ban on free expression and self-determination for Hong Kongers. (Granted, fewer governments around the world are democratic than one accustomed to Western laws might believe.) Rather, history has likely taught many nations that it is more expedient to keep their mouth shut than to take a firm stance on the global superpower with the worlds second-largest economy.

Consider Spain, one of the countries that remained silent throughout the U.N.s vote. In 2013, a Spanish court issued arrest warrants for a former Chinese president, a former Chinese prime minister, and other important Chinese Communist officials for allegedly bringing about genocide in Tibet. Just days later, a Chinese spokesperson was expressing Beijings dissatisfaction with the warrants, warning the Spanish not [to] do things that harm the Chinese side and the relationship between China and Spain. Fearing harsh retaliation from a country holding a fifth of Spanish bonds and consuming many Spanish exports, Spains government quickly passed a reform limiting the use of universal jurisdiction.

Though the motive behind this reform was relatively open, it would not be shocking if much other action and rhetoric surrounding China from freedom-loving nations were similarly induced by a fear of economic retaliation. This may help explain why Canada refused to request an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 in May. Or why New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern, unlikely not to share President Trumps personal outrage at Chinas activity, nevertheless is reportedly seeking to be less confrontational than the Trump administration with regard to the CCP. Even U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson, who has taken very strong action against China by offering a path to citizenship for Hong Kong natives, suspending the U.K.s extradition treaty with Hong Kong (so as not to be obliged to send back Hong Kongers at Beijings whim), and extending the U.K.s arms embargo on China to Hong Kong, nevertheless has felt the need to send something of a mixed message in assuring that his government is going to be tough on some things but also going to continue to engage with China. One imagines Boris Johnson putting China in a timeout for bad behavior but giving it a pat on the head and a cookie to munch on.

This sort of diplomatic behavior is understandable. It is difficult to summon the moral courage to openly condemn a global superpower such as China, especially when large GDP growth and stable diplomatic relations are on the line. In any case, it would appear that the United States, in enacting sanctions against Chinese officials for abusing Uighur Muslims, terminating trade benefits for now-CCP-controlled Hong Kong, closing the Chinese consulate in Houston, and imposing export controls on corporations enabling Chinas activity, stands virtually alone on China.

To be sure, there is an occasional discontinuity between the Trump administrations official policy and the presidents rhetoric. As Trump himself has admitted, he had little desire to press China on its treatment of Uighur Muslims in the middle of trade negotiations with the nation in late 2018, even though top White House officials were already viewing the situation with concern. And as late as February 29, weeks after the CIA had already warned that China had vastly underreported its coronavirus infections and that its information was unreliable, Trump stated in a COVID-19 briefing: China seems to be making tremendous progress. Their numbers are way down. ... I think our relationship with China is very good. We just did a big trade deal. Were starting on another trade deal with China a very big one. And weve been working very closely. Theyve been talking to our people, weve been talking to their people, having to do with the virus. But despite occasional confusion, the commitment to a solidly anti-Beijing foreign policy has been perhaps clearer in the Trump administration than in the government of any other country besides India and Taiwan. This is reflected not only in the U.S.s recent policies but in Secretary of State Mike Pompeos denunciation of Xi, last week, as a true believer in a bankrupt, totalitarian ideology and in his insistence that the United States induce China to change lest Communist China surely change us.

Of course, even within the United States, there is not a unanimous consensus that China constitutes a major threat. As National Reviews Zachary Evans reports, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein of California had some flattering things to say about China yesterday. Speaking in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she remarked: We hold China as a potential trading partner, as a country that has pulled tens of millions of people out of poverty in a short period of time, and as a country growing into a respectable nation amongst other nations. Senator Feinsteins statement came in the context of a debate over whether U.S. citizens should be allowed to sue the Chinese government for damages caused by the coronavirus an idea that Feinstein argued could launch a series of unknown events that could be very, very dangerous. . . . A huge mistake.

Encouragingly, however, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill in late June condemning Chinas oppression law; Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi spoke eloquently of the bill as an urgently needed response to the cowardly Chinese governments passage of its so-called national security law, which threatens the end of the one country, two systems promised exactly 23 years ago today. Moreover, Pew Research reports that sentiment against the Chinese government is at an all-time high since U.S. adults have been polled: Sixty-six percent say they view the government unfavorably.

In all, it would appear that, barring a massive change in European attitudes and in the fragile economic positions of nations such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the United States will not have many reliable allies in the fight against Chinas most egregious abuses. The courageous pro-democracy residents of Hong Kong, as well as a few nations including Taiwan, India, and Israel, are notable but rare exceptions.

Visit link:

In Pushing Back against China, U.S. Finds Few Allies - National Review

The Georgian parliament has adopted constitutional changes that have been applauded by their international partners. As a result, the Georgian Dream government might struggle with an even more alienated opposition.

July 31, 2020 - Archil Sikharulidze- Articles and Commentary

Parliament of Georgia. Photo: DDohler flickr.com

On June 29th 2020 the Georgian parliament finally adopted constitutional amendments that have been praised by an absolute majority of local and international actors as historic. The new electoral system, which introduces a mixed model consisting of 120 members of Parliament proportionally elected and 30 majoritarian MPs, is seen as an opportunity for Georgian democracy to build a culture of collaboration and coalition governments. And while this statement maybe seriously challenged, there are issues that are more relevant and important in Georgian society.

Particularly, members of the political opposition, Irakli Okruashvili and Gigi Ugulava, had been previously pardoned by president Salome Zurabishvili. These individuals, arguably perceived as criminals by the majority of Georgians, were released as a result of international pressure from some representatives of European Parliament and American Congress. Local oppositional parties praised the decision, calling it a step towards less political turbulence; more justice and peace is expected in buildup to the upcoming parliamentary elections set for October 2020.

Meanwhile, the majority of the electorate of Georgian Dream is most likely shocked and astonished asthey simply cannot understand how former members of the ruling government who directly participated in building a semi-authoritarian regime while oppressing media and human rights can be protected and lobbied by the states strategic partners in the EU and USA. This is especially relevant as it relieson judgements by the ECHR and International arbitrage in The Hague. Moreover, there is an apparentembarrassment due to the behavior of Georgias allies who directly intervened in internal affairs and pressured the government, or even threatened it.

Terrorists or freedom fighters

It goes without saying that the biggest issue here is an alleged existence of political prisoners in Georgia. Some members of European Parliament as well as American Senators and Congressmen are extremely keen to refer to almost all the members of political opposition who went to jail as political prisoners. Of courselocal judiciary and prosecutor offices are far from Western standards and need to be further strengthened and distanced from the states grip. At the same time, all statistical data shows that these institutions are freer and more independent than ever before. Thus, Georgians can be sure that their rights will be better protected than in the past. This fact issometimes even challenged despite clear evidence.

Secondly,it is up to local and international legal institutions to give final judgement on whether a person has been persecuted due to political views and activities or not. But what bothers regular citizens of Georgia is that there are activeattempts by some Western officials to whitewash members of Saakashvilis government; although it is a government prominent for its brutal dispersal of peaceful protests, massive oppression of political opponents, seizure of oppositional media outlets and total disregardof human rights. And these outcomes frequently comethrough direct misrepresentation of data and even ECHR judgements. For example, Magorzata Maria Gosiewska, Deputy Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland, represented former Minister of Internal Affairs Ivane Merabishvili as a political prisoner and citedan ECHR judgement as a legal document. Ms. Gosiewska blatantly misled listeners as the court ruled that the state hadnt violated Mr. Merabishvilis right to a fair and public trial and his sentence was given in accordance to international practice. Generally speaking, there are serious hesitations and doubts about fairness of conclusions made by some politicians, especially Europeans. This is especially relevant in wake of a call by Marketa Gregorova, Czech activist, member of the Czech Pirate Party, and elected MEP, to investigate dispersal of a questionably peaceful political protest on June 20th 2019. If this issue is so urgent and relevant for some members of EU parliament then why do they continue to whitewash Ivane Merabishvili, who brutally stamped out dozens of peaceful protests which resulted in hundreds, if not thousands, of people being injured and three people being killed?!

Generally, an extremely large gap in perceptions exists between regular Georgian citizens on the one hand and some political actors on the ground and abroad on the other hand. This challenge can described within the framework given by a character from the movie Die Another Day, in which he stated one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. For the larger Georgian society, Gigi Ugulava and other former top officials arecriminals mentioned in judgements by the ECHR in cases such as Sulkhan Molashvili v. Georgia (political persecution and torture), Enukidze and Gvirgvliani v. Georgia (torture of civilian and concealment of evidences), Batiashvili v. Georgia (intentional fabrication of evidences), Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia (unlawful expropriation of private media property) and so on.

Politics above the law

The lions share of allegations against Georgian Dreamfrom its American allies is arguably mostly politically motivated. At the very least, the allegations made by American Senators and Congressmen are definitely political rather than legal. Arguably the best example of this is the claimed oppression of American business, as in the Frontera Resources case. This Texas company has operated in Georgia since 1997 and continues promising to find natural resources, such as gas and oil. The Georgian Dream government argued that the company violated an agreement, resulting in approximately one hundred Georgian citizens not being paid salaries for more than year. The company, however, was and still is arguing that it has found the largest oil and gas deposits, which have been false claims for the last two decades. Therefore, the government of Georgia decided to break the contract. This situation was addressed by American Republican Congressman Pete Olson, who directly called Bidzina Ivanishvili and the current government pro-Russian puppets; additionally, Mr. Olson argued that Frontera Resources has been pushed away in order to give Georgian gas to the president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, and the Kremlin in general. This narrative was picked up by members of the political opposition despite the fact that one of its own leaders from the United National Movement, MP Roman Gotsiridze, was personally calling Frontera Resources a charlatan company and urging the government to defend Georgian citizens. These allegations did not disappear even after a judgement by an international arbitrage, located in The Hague, ruled in favor of the Georgian government and gave the state permission to break cooperation with the American company due to a breach of contract. But what is especially disturbing is that some representatives of leading international and local NGOs, such as Transparency International, including Georgias Executive Director Eka Gigauri, are still using this case to express concerns and contribute to the legally false claims of Congressman Olson and the local political opposition.

It seems that these organisations, at least some of their members, have their own ideological and political rivalry or confrontation with the ruling Georgian Dream, which pushes them to turn a blind eye to the legal aspects and focus more on a political agenda. The same scenario happened during the private Rustavi 2 channel dispute when NGOs argued that Bidzina Ivanishvili and Georgian Dream controlled local courts, pushing the institution to transfer property rights to pro-governmental businessman Kibar Khalvashi. This narrative is still proliferated by these same organisations and people despite an ECHR judgement that ruled in favor of the decision made previously by a Georgian court. Moreover, none of the claims made by NGO representatives had been publicly shared. By the end of this ruling. members of the political opposition called the judgement pro-Russian and claimed the ECHR was bribed by Bidzina Ivanishvili and influenced by the Kremlin.

Behind the back politics

The biggest concerns among regular citizens are raised most often due to political negotiations and agreements facilitated by European and American diplomats between the Georgian Dream government and political opposition. The most important achievement of this process was the]March 8th agreement that, in theory, should have depolarised the environment in the country and ensured more transparent and democratic parliamentary elections, which are set for October 2020. But as soon as the ruling party and political opposition started disputing the agreement itself, Georgian citizens realised that they had no clue what was happening at all. It took place behind closed doors and agreements were made in secret. Thus far, local voters are in a frustrating situation as political actors are representing things in a completely contradictory manner while European and American diplomats keep silent. Georgias strategic partners have often negotiated democracy with local political elites behind the back of Georgian society. Thus, the above concerns are obviously not baseless. In a country where shadow politics is taking place on a regular basis, it is highly questionable whether yet another example of international shadow politics can strengthen democracy or increase trust in the political process. Moreover, this can easily be perceived as aintervention into domestic affairs and an attempt to defend interests of political elites on the one hand and national (political, geopolitical and economic) interests of the EU and USA on the other hand, without asking for an opinion from Georgian voters.

By and large, the substantial astonishment among a significant portion of Georgian society, namely those who sent Mikhail Saakashvilis government to the political bench, stems from them simply being unable to understand how the former officials, involved in corruption and other legal cases, can be lobbied by the West and even called freedom fighters?! Furthermore, why do some European and American officials think that Georgian democracy will be strengthened by keeping these perceivably corrupt individuals active in politics and even appointing them to high political positions again?! The usual pro-Western actors in the country, as well as their allies abroad, should be ready for increased anti-Western criticism and skepticism among regular citizens of Georgia who see lobbyist attempts as a glaring intervention in domestic affairs and a politically-motivated liberation of alleged criminals. Most importantly, however, are the concerns raised about whether the European and American actors involved in the process promote principles of equality before the law or an old quote known as all are equal but some are more equal. And it seems that in this case Gigi Ugulava and Irakli Okruashvili fall into the second basket, because there is no doubt that no one can be bothered to save individuals who lack political labels and/or political protection.

Archil Sikharulidzeis a PhD candidate in Social Sciences at the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs and the founder of SIKHA Foundation Initiative.

Dear Readers -New Eastern Europe is a not-for-profit publication that has been publishing online and in print since 2011. Our mission is to shape the debate, enhance understanding, and further the dialogue surrounding issues facing the states that were once a part of the Soviet Union or under its influence.But we can only achieve this mission with the support of our donors.If you appreciate our work please consider making a donation.

democracy, Georgia, Georgian election

Read more:

On the West we rely - New Eastern Europe

By LAURA HOLLIS

I watched director Agnieszka Hollands award-winning film Mr. Jones this week. Its truly outstanding, a quiet masterpiece about the young Welsh journalist Gareth Jones who risked his life to expose what is now called the Holomodor, the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine caused by the collectivist policies of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin.

Aware of troubling rumors, Jones used his political connections as foreign policy advisor to English Prime Minister Lloyd George to get a visa into the Soviet Union very difficult to do at the time and, from Moscow, finagled his way onto a train into Ukraine, where he slipped past his handlers and spent two or three weeks traipsing from village to village. What he saw there seared his soul, and he recorded his observations in diaries that survived his untimely death (Jones was murdered in China on the eve of his 30th birthday).

Stalins collectivization of farming and food production in Ukraine the Soviet Unions breadbasket resulted in widespread famine and deaths of anywhere from 4 to 10 million people from starvation. Many of the villages Jones came across were devoid of people; most of the livestock were dead; frozen corpses lay in the streets or uncollected in their homes. Hollow-eyed children begged for food. People told Jones stories of those who had gone mad from hunger and resorted to cannibalism (one of the starkest scenes in the film).

Jones was arrested and deported, and the Soviet government threatened retribution if any word of the troubles in Ukraine got out. In the film, Jones is asked before he leaves Moscow to clearly repeat the propaganda There is no famine in Ukraine.

But Jones refused to be silenced. Upon his return to Europe, he wrote and spoke out about what he had seen and the disastrous policies of the communists in the Soviet Union.

As it turned out, Jones most powerful adversaries were not members of the Soviet government but of the European and American press corps, led by The New York Times man in Moscow, Walter Duranty. Duranty was the pride of the press corps and the toast of Moscow. He had won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting which, it turned out, largely consisted of pro-Soviet propaganda, per an agreement between the Soviet government and The New York Times. In exchange, Duranty enjoyed a life of relative luxury (and decadent excess) and access to the highest men in government, including Stalin himself.

Eager to promote the U.S. governments official recognition of the communist regime, Duranty and the rest of the press corps denounced Jones writing as false, hysterical and exaggerated.

The scenes where Jones confronts pro-Bolshevik westerners, including Duranty and fledgling writer Eric Blair (later better known as George Orwell) are some of the most powerful in the film. Duranty is blase and nonchalant about the excesses of the communist regime. (He said, infamously, To put it brutally, you cant make an omelet without breaking eggs.) But Blairs/Orwells disappointment is palpable. If the Soviet experiment is a failure, he asks Jones, then there is no hope?

In that comment, one can see the next 100 years of wishful thinking and deplorable denial by socialists and communist sympathizers across the globe.

Ignorance in the 1930s was perhaps understandable. But ignorance in the 21st century is unfathomable. It isnt just the scale of suffering, privation and death from the Holomodor and events like it (Cambodias Year Zero, Maos Great Leap Forward) that staggers the imagination; it is the pitiless promotion of these Marxist, dictatorial regimes by western intellectuals, including and especially academics and the American press.

The New York Times is among the worst. Duranty was the apologist for Marxism in the 1930s. In the 1970s, Times writer Sydney Schanberg vocally supported the Khmer Rouge communist revolutionaries in Cambodia at least until Phnom Penh fell and yet another communist genocide took place. In 2009, New York Times writer Thomas Friedman described Chinas communist government as reasonably enlightened and praised its efficiency and effectiveness relative to the clumsy efforts of Americas representative republic. (No doubt the Muslim Uighur population in China understands Chinese efficiency all too well.) In 2017, The Times published Red Century, an embarrassingly sycophantic series of glowing paeans to global communism since the 1917 communist revolution in Russia.

How much suffering do we need to see to understand the utter failure of these philosophies? I wonder whether we have become inured to wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent people by governments that promise utopia. (As the quote attributed to Stalin himself goes, The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of millions is a statistic.) In addition to the Soviet Union, Cambodia and China, the world has witnessed appalling oppression, imprisonment, starvation, torture and death in the former East Germany, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Angola, Nicaragua and Peru. We have watched as socialist policies in Venezuela have destroyed what was once the most prosperous country in South America, reducing it to abject poverty before our very eyes.

And still the levers of the left sing collectivisms praises. With 100 million corpses in its wake, support for Marxism is no longer understandable and claims of ignorance no longer credible. It is inexcusable. And those of us who oppose Marxism in any form do so not because we do not support equality, freedom and a chance at prosperity for all but because we do.

It is past time for the American press to end its love affair with Marxism. Equality of poverty, equality of misery and equality of oppression are not progress.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Excerpt from:

End the Marxism love affair | News, Sports, Jobs - Gloversville Leader-Herald

Dalits are those communities that have been oppressed, and marginalised in the worst forms for millenniums in the name of caste, the major practice of social stratification in the Hindu society in South Asia. Also termed Achhoots (meaning untouchables) by the radical enforcers of the extremely rigid caste system, the Dalits are not included even in the traditional four Varnas and are referred to as Panchamas.

Dalits in South Asia

In an orientalist historical explanations, untouchability originated when Indo-Aryan community migrated to the Indian subcontinent in around 1,500 BCE and deemed the indigenous community inferior in terms of cultural and racial aspects. Manusmriti, an ancient Hindu legal text written around 1,250-1,000 BCE, incorporated the caste system as the basis of order and regularity to preserve the purity of race and blood, ostracising the indigenous community into Achhoots.

IndiasBR Ambedkar, however, declines to accept this multiracial notion of Aryans and non-Aryans and the purity. He defines caste as an artificial stratification of people into fixed and definite units. He presents the caste system not as a racial division but as a social division of people of the same race.

Dalits in Nepal

In Nepal, the earliest caste system is said to have come to practice in Khas Rajya (modern-day western Nepal) in the 12th century when Brahmins from the then independent states in India came to the Sinja valley. Dor Bahadur Bistas Fatalism and Development details how the caste system was introduced in Khas Rajya during the early medieval period. Likewise, the caste system was introduced in Kathmandu Valley by King Jayasthiti Malla with the assistance of his five pandits in the 14th century by introducing four Varnas and 64 Jaats.

In modern times, Prithvi Narayan Shah declared his unified territory as the country of four Varnas and 36 Jaats. Jung Bahadur Rana legitimised the caste system through the countrys first documented law, Muluki Ain (Civil Code) 1854, and also included non-Hindu groups in the caste system. The legal code documented the castes into four types:

The word Dalit

The root of the word Dalit is Dalan, which translates to oppression in Sanskrit, Nepali and Hindi languages. Hence, Dalit means oppressed. Perhaps, the word was first used by the Indian reformer Jyotirao Phule. Although Mahatma Gandhi proposed and used the term Harijan or children of god in 1932, Ambedkar used and popularized the word Dalit as a quasi-class term, referring to a class of people at the rock-bottom of the Hindu caste hierarchy.

Social history of Dalits in Nepal

Whether one believes the colonial orientalist view or the countering view of Ambedkar, it is undeniable that the Dalits have been ostracised and oppressed for more than three millenniums since the Vedic age. When the caste system was introduced in Khas Rajya, it created a hierarchical and social difference among the people of the state. Similarly, while many historians see the division of the caste system based on peoples occupation as a reform, it also led to segregation and oppression. For example, people from the lowest caste in the Kathmandu valley in the medieval period were not allowed to have tiles on their roofs and had to show respect to the people of the higher caste.

Practising the caste system inflicted discrimination so much so that it would deny even the basic rights to the people from the lowest castes. Jung Bahadur Rana encouraged discrimination based on castes through the Muluki Ain, which was already in practice in the Nepali society. The punishments were set based on caste as the Brahmins were not given capital punishments while the people from the lowest castes would get severe ones. Similarly, marriage was made endogamic, i.e., within the same caste for the sake of purity.

The people labelled as impure were denied even the basic social, economic, cultural, intellectual, and political rights. They were not allowed to touch tap water used by people of a higher caste, could not enter temples, would be punished if they married from a higher caste. They had no participation in politics and education and were even prohibited to touch people and their belongings.

Dalit movements in Nepal

The history of Dalit movements in Nepal can be traced parallel to the countrys political history.

The first wave of Dalit assertion in Nepal began in 1947 in a village called Thadaswara in Baglung district when Sarvajit Bishwakarma established an organisation called Vishwa Sarvajan Sangh to challenge the existing caste system and wore a janai (the sacred thread) against the oppression. In the Kathmandu valley, the successful movement of the Pashupati Temple Entrance Campaign in 1954 is considered one of the first movements.

Many other organisations such as Tailors Union (1947), Nepal Samaj Sudhar Sangh (2947), Nepal Harijan Sangh (1947) were established before the democratic struggle against the Rana regime in 1951, while many other organisations were established for Dalit movements and upliftment during Nepals first tenure of democracy in 1950-60.

The Interim Government of Nepal Act (1951) was the first legal document to recognise people, including Dalits, as citizens with civil and political rights. The autocratic Panchayat regime formulated the New Muluki Ain in 1963 and tried to abolish untouchability in the legal and social systems. During the Panchayat era, nine more organisations were established for the upliftment of Dalits.

As the country adopted the free market policy after the restoration of democracy in 1990, it also sought to provide welfare through private development partners such as national and international non-government organisations (I/NGOs). Many organisations emerged with slogans of Dalit emancipation. As the Dalit movement rose, the government formed the Dalit Commission in 2002 and brought many programmes such as scholarships and reservations. And, although such steps were not adequate to abolish caste-based discrimination, it certainly boosted the morale of Dalit rights activism. Dalits had an important role during the decade-long Maoist Insurgency (1996-2006) as thousands of Dalit men and women participated in the armed conflict while around 200 were killed.

The country headed to a more participatory federal system post the second Peoples Movement in 2006. The issues of Dalits have been covered on the national agenda and the Dalit movement has gradually progressed although it is yet to be institutionalised.

The major achievement during the last decade has been the criminalisation of caste-based discrimination through the Caste-based Discrimination and Untouchability Crime Elimination and Punishment Act in 2011, and the Constitution of Nepal (2015) endorsing the rights and opportunities for the Dalits for their upliftment. Moreover, the constitution recognised the National Dalit Commission as a constitutional body, and the National Dalit Commission Act 2017 was enacted to ensure opportunities for Dalits.

Similarly, the Nepali Parliament has reserved certain seats for Dalits and other excluded communities in the proportional representation system to ensure participation in the political spheres. As per the election laws, 13.8% of the PR seats in the House of Representatives, as well as the provincial assemblies, are allocated for Dalits while the seven provinces must select at least one Dalit representative each among eight seats allocated to them for the National Assembly. Moreover, at least one woman between two women members in each ward of a local government must be from the Dalit community to ensure participation.

The discrimination against Dalits is still a prevailing issue in Nepal as reports of discrimination, prejudice and even hate crimes emerge from time to time. In recent times, the news broke out about the killing of six people from the Dalit community in Rukum (West) as one of the victim tried to elope with a girl from a higher caste. The devastating news did not only shake the nation but brought out again the discourse on discrimination and oppression on the Dalits.

Published on August 1st, Saturday, 2020 4:19 AM

Download Onlinekhabar App. Android click here & IOS click here . Keep in touch with us on Facebook, Twitter & YouTube.

Read more:

History of Dalit movements in Nepal: Much has been achieved, but discrimination still exists - Online Khabar (English)

Sign in the window of a Manchester, CT hair salon.

As the coronavirus spreads around the globe, the United States continues to report by far the largest number of cases and deaths. As of July 27, the figures show nearly 4.5 million cases in this country and over 150,000 deaths. That comes to 454 deaths per million people.

By contrast, China has had 3 deaths per million, even though it was the first country to discover the virus and had to start from scratch in figuring out how to deal with the epidemic. Vietnam has had no deaths. Cuba has had 8 deaths per million.

Weve made this point before, but with each passing day the contrast between the two social systems capitalism and socialism becomes more glaring.

Even the U.S. government admits that poverty and racism are factors determining who in this capitalist country gets the disease and who dies from it. The CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on July 24 released an updated version of the report, Health Equity Considerations and Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups. It shows that racial discrimination by itself is a risk factor, in addition to its damaging effects on health care access and utilization.

People targeted by racism are more likely to work in areas of the economy most exposed to the virus. They suffer from subpar education, low income and wealth gaps, as well as less access to housing, all of which make them more vulnerable in the pandemic.

The spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has shone a glaring light on the great social inequalities here. At the same time, many people are literally risking their lives to go to work and to take part in demonstrations against the system.

The risk comes not only from being exposed to the virus in a crowd. One marcher, Garrett Foster, was shot and killed by a right-winger on July 25 while at a Black Lives Matter protest against police brutality in Austin, Texas. Foster was white; his fiancee is Black and a quadruple amputee.

Hatred the opposite of solidarity is what drives the far right.

The anthem of the labor movement in the 1930s was Solidarity Forever. Today we see courageous people in the streets demonstrating against racism and oppression of all kinds who are reviving the meaning of solidarity.

And solidarity is what is needed to get through this crisis. Solidarity is how China, Cuba and Vietnam have stamped out the virus before it could spread. It takes the active trust of the population in the government and in your fellow workers, neighbors and acquaintances to carry out an effective campaign against this disease.

On a governmental level in the U.S., there is certainly no solidarity. It is a snake pit of rivalry, backstabbing, lying, cheating and accusations. All of it is driven by the viciously competitive character of capitalism. The victor takes the spoils. Whoever takes over the levers of political power Republican or Democrat gets to distribute the lucrative government contracts.

But the struggle against this rotten, racist system is building solidarity in the grassroots. We are seeing it in the streets of Portland, Ore., and in all the places where workers come together and risk their lives each day.

(Kitty Stapp)

(Kitty Stapp)

View original post here:

Solidarity, the best antitoxin - Workers World

The winds of change have, unlike ever before, cast reservations over the international order of reverence. As each nation scrambles to keep its citizens out of harms way, multilateralism, or in simpler terms, unity of nations is neglected. Nations, in such times of uncertainty, must unite. Unite, not for personal enrichment but global welfare. The beacon of hope and the long-standing guardian of united world order, the United Nations must, as it has in the past, act to unite. In this regard, history postures itself as a potent catalyst illustrating the virtues of multilateralism. 1960, like 2020 was marred with political turmoil, unprecedented world events, and an increasingly divided society. On the 3rd day of February in 1960, Prime Minister Harold Macmillans, an evangelist in hopes of reviving multilateralism, addressed the Parliament of South Africa in Cape Town. His speech was titled, the Winds of Change and coincided with the British empires decline in comparison to the rise of independence movements within the British colonies.

Before addressing the Parliament, the British Prime Minister traveled around the Union and found a deep preoccupation with what was happening in the rest of the African continent. He said, I understand and sympathize with your interests in these events and your anxiety about them. Ever since the breakup of the Roman Empire, one of the constant facts of political life in Europe has been the emergence of independent nations. They have come into existence over the centuries in different forms and kinds of Governments. But all have been inspired by a deep keen feeling of nationalism. In the 20th Century and especially since the end of the wars, the processes which gave birth to the nation-states of Europe have been repeated all over the world.

We have seen the awakening of national consciousness in peoples who have, for centuries, lived in dependence upon some other power. Fifteen years ago this movement (de-colonisation) spread through Asia. Many countries, of different races and civilizations, pressed their claim to an independent nation. Today, the same is happening in Africa. The wind of change is blowing through this continent and whether we like it or not this the growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as fact and our national policies must take account of it. I sincerely believe that if we cannot do so, we may peril the precarious balance between East and West on which the peace of the world depends. The struggle is joined and it is a struggle for the minds of men. This is much more than our military strength or our diplomatic and administrative skill. It is, of our way of life at the same time we must recognize that in this shrinking world in which we live today, the internal policies of one nation may have effects outside it. So we may sometimes be tempted to say mind your own business. These days, I would expand the old saying so that it says, mind your own business but mind how it affects my business too.

The population of America like Africas is a blend of many different strains. Over the years most of those whove gone to North America have gone there to escape conditions in Europe. The Pilgrim Fathers were escaping from persecution, as Puritans were escaping the Marylanders. Roman Catholics, throughout the 19th century witnessed a stream of immigrants across the Atlantic from the Old World to the New to escape. From the poverty in their homelands and now in the 20th Century, the United States have provided asylum for the victims of political oppression in Europe. Thus, for the majority, America has been a place of refuge. Therefore, for many years the main objective of American statesmen, supported by the American public, was to isolate themselves from Europe. Americans, with their great material strength and the vast resources which were open to them saw this as an attractive and practicable course. Nevertheless, twice in my lifetime in the two Great Wars of these 50 years, they have been unable to stand aside. Twice, their manpower and arms have streamed back across the Atlantic to shed its blood in those European struggles from which their ancestors thought they could escape by immigrating to the New World. When the Second War was over, they were forced to recognize that in the small world of today, isolationism is out of date and more than that, it offers no assurance of security. The fact is that, in this modern world no country, not even the greatest can live for itself alone.

What Dr. John Donne said of individual men 300 years ago is true today of my country, of your country, and all the countries, any mans death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee. All nations are now interdependent. Yet, they are, one upon another, and this is generally realized throughout the Western world. Russia has been isolationist in her time and still has tendencies that way but the fact remains that we must live in the same world. With Russia, we must find a way of doing. Similarly, the independent members of the Commonwealth do not always agree on every subject. It is not a condition of their association that they should do so.

On the contrary, the strength of our Commonwealth lies largely on the fact that it is a free association. Free, independent and responsible for ordering its affairs. But, bearing in mind that, cooperation, in the pursuit of common aims and purposes in world affairs. Moreover, these differences may be transitory in time. They may be resolved. We must see them in this perspective, in a perspective against the background of our long association. If this, at any rate, I am certain those of us, who by the grace or favor of the electors are temporarily in charge of affairs in your country and mine, we, fleeting transient phantoms of the great stage of history have no right to sweep aside on this account the friendship that exists between our countries. That is the legacy of history. It is not ours alone to deal with. To adapt to a famous phrase, it belongs to those who are living, it belongs to those who are dead, and to those who are unborn. We must face the differences but let us try to see a little beyond them. Down the long Vista of the future but as time passes and as one generation yields to another, human problems change and fade. Let us, therefore, resolve to build and not to destroy. Let us also remember, weakness comes from division and in words, familiar to you, strength from unity.

As pervasive viruses infiltrate lives on racial, health, gender and sexual orientations. The virus of stigmatization and isolationism personifies the 21st Century and the myriad of global complications. Life, as it was known, is on trial. The inequalities have perpetuated and have fundamentally shifted the world in a stagnant state of paralysis. But, it is worth remembering that only after the Dark Ages was there an Age of Renaissance and only after a crisis would one value the values it espoused. As the turbulent winds of change are blowing throughout the world and the global human consciousness must rise. Otherwise, the ultimate tragedy of humanity will prevail. Thus, to survive, we must unite and hope we can live to fight another day.

Related

See more here:

Pandemic as the Learning Lab and Government Reloaded - Modern Diplomacy

This summer, as millions of Americans marched and put their lives on the line for racial justice and an end to police brutality, too many wealthy Americans have done nothing more than offer their solidarity and moral support. Our countrys most fortunate have gotten rich thanks to a system that has for centuries excluded fellow Americans from the nations prosperity. They can, and should, go beyond statements in support of racial justice and Black Lives Matter and put their money where their mouth is.

If Americas millionaires tried even one-tenth as hard to end police brutality as theyve tried to cut their own taxes, we would be looking at a completely different world.

Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, one of the largest financial management firms in the world and my former employer, is a perfect example of the problem with the way rich people approach these issues.

Mr Fink has voiced a commitment to racial equity and said all the right things in the last few weeks, but he has not actually done what he professes to believe in. As a firm committed to racial equality, we must also consider where racial disparity exists in our own organizations and not tolerate our shortcomings, he said, in a statement published on 30 May.

Yet, at the same time as Mr Fink is sympathizing with a movement against anti-Blackness, he has remained a donor to the New York Police Foundation (NYPF), which pays for equipment and training and provides incentives for anonymous tips that lead to arrests. For the last three years, Mr Fink has served as co-chair of the NYPFs annual gala.

Funding and publicly supporting the NYPF means that despite his stated commitment to racial equity, Mr Fink has chosen to stand with a group of people who have murdered some of our fellow citizens. The police are clients of BlackRock, but Mr Fink can take a powerful stand for racial justice by making sure his personal contributions reflect his stated commitments. His dollars dont have to reflect BlackRocks client list.

Of course, Mr Fink might see no problem with his financial support of the New York Police Foundation because he, like me and other wealthy, white men, has had generally positive interactions with police. But part of committing to racial justice is understanding the world outside your own narrow scope and its impossible to ignore the damage that the NYPD has done to Black communities and other communities of color in our city.

We know what it looks like when rich people in America really want the government to do something: they spend money to make sure it gets done. From financially supporting public advocacy efforts to hiring lobbyists to contributing to sympathetic elected officials, when rich people in America want something passed, they do a lot more than releasing a statement.

We are in yet another crisis moment. Many wealthy people give generously to philanthropic causes, but most of their giving tends to be aligned with their own vision of how the world should work. This cannot continue. The rich and powerful need to step back and recognize the role we play in systems of oppression even when were not actively contributing to them, and then use our wealth and our power to fix whats broken.

I will even make Mr Fink a deal. If he drops his support of the New York Police Foundation as the racial justice organization Color Of Change has called for and skips the annual police foundation gala, I will go 50-50 on donations to racial justice and workers rights organizations.

If Mr Fink and other wealthy people are going to decry racial inequality, then the least they can do is use their dollars to disrupt the status quo, rather than support an organization that continuously harms low-income and marginalized communities in New York City.

Morris Pearl is chair of Patriotic Millionaires, which focuses on promoting public policy solutions that encourage political equality, guarantee a sustaining wage for working Americans, and ensure that wealthy individuals and corporations pay their fair share of taxes. He previously was a managing director at BlackRock, one of the worlds largest investment firms

Read more here:

Dear Larry Fink: it's time to stop lavishing your wealth on the police - The Guardian

By Jok Madut Jok*

I have twice accidentally driven into driveways that no man in his right mind would. One was the main entrance to State House in Nairobi and the other was near the back fence of State House on Nakesero Hill in Kampala, Uganda and nearly got shot on both occasions.

Luckily, I was able to persuade the guards to allow me to reverse and be on my way. Dont ever make that mistake in Juba. It would not end well for you. South Sudans State House, known locally as J1, is a rather intriguing place, just as it is unnecessarily unfriendly.

Over the years, it has puzzled many curious citizens who want to know what lies inside this tightly guarded compound. After all, anyone passing by it, walking right in front of it or behind it or on the side road next to it, will not fail to notice the tight security, a plethora of armed men congregating at the entrance, supposedly watching out for anyone with ill intentions for the hatted man seated inside.

And yet, as the passers by also see a traffic of pedestrians entering and exiting, some in uniform, some in suits, some women in flip-flops and others in rags or clutching children in their arms and seeking to enter the coveted J1, they may be fooled to think that they too have their citizenship right to enter. Some of them, mostly women, congregate across the road, hoping to see one of the gatekeepers to power. But through all the beehive of people, someone could get attacked, injured or killed for seeking access.

POWER IS CRUELPower is a cruel thing. A man can mingle, eat with and laugh with every mortal when seeking power but quickly isolates himself the moment that ultimate goal is achieved.

No citizen is too nave to realize that this is the republican palace, the symbol of power hierarchy, of male power, the pinnacle of class structure, the abode of those who eat on our behalf.

As such, for those wanting to look inside J1 or those seeking financial assistance in times of distress such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, as millions of citizens down on their luck are wont to do, looking around J1 or hanging out near it is tantamount to asking for a bloody nose.

But that is us, South Sudanese. We are new to the fault lines that divide wealth, power, big man syndrome, stars on the shoulders and class snobbery from poverty, from our carefree attitude, our natural born conviction that anyone of us can be president. For were we not just on the same level as recent as 15 years ago when we were all faced with the realities of liberation? And so, J1 and any other temple to the god of power, are not out of reach for any mortal.

Many of these mortals wish to know if the place is open and accessible to ordinary citizens and what it takes for such access to be attained. Some wonder if this is the place where all their wants and needs would be answered if they got an opportunity to set foot inside.

Some wish to see the inside just so they can find out what the place that they think consumes all their money looks like on the inside. Others wonder if the President sleeps in J1, how his children and his entire family live. Are they modest, lavish, hardworking or spoon-fed?

In any case, the amount of curiosity on the outside of the J1 fence is limitless. In this war-torn, impoverished, politically in disarray, ethnically divided and supposedly oil rich country, how can we not be curious to look?

People want to know what has become of the country that was born of war, made possible by the death of 2.5 million people and which was celebrated by the whole world when it finally became independent.

Before it became South Sudan, it was one of the most oppressed and destroyed territories on earth, perhaps only second to Europe during the Nazi onslaught.

Before it became a country, this territory had gone through a long history of slavery, Arab racism, Islamist oppression and suffered homegrown and in-ward violence, triggered by competition between liberators, over power they did not yet have. Some liberators attacked their own and then ran to Khartoum, into the arms of the government they had fought to replace.

FEUDSMore violence was brought on by feuds over resources along ethnic lines and some was brought on by the stresses of life under oppression. Some was brought on by militarist ethos of liberation of the past 40 years, where women were expected to contribute to the liberation, if not by combat then by their wombs, to birth the nation that was being decimated by the liberation effort.

But compelling women to be revolutionaries through reproduction became a licence for violence against them. Such prolonged violence leaves a taxing legacy that is not easy to shake off.

It is this history of violence that had deprived so many of resources, of decent living, such that when a new dawn, independence, was only just on the horizon, the politically and militarily powerful but weak at heart trembled at the sight of the plum.

The State was automatically up for grabs and its public resources viewed by the unscrupulous as private.

Such were the makings of the mess that is now South Sudan, and the private citizen has her eyes fixed on State House, for where else is the conductor of this train wreck seated?

One person asked me once if I knew whether the man with the black cowboy hat, gifted to him by President George W Bush of the United States, ever takes a moment to look outside his fortress. Just to remind himself what it was that took him to war all the years of his youth, the idea that he was liberating masses of oppressed South Sudanese, liberating them from entrenched slavery and systemic racism by northern Sudanese, impact of colonialism, from hunger, disease and lack of education.

It would seem that the man with the black cowboy hat would be very keen and interested to know how the people he helped liberate were now living, what his soldiers now ate, how their kids were fairing in terms of nutrition, vaccination, education, how the ordinary men and women who essentially paid the cost of liberation war were now enjoying the independent status of their country.

SIGNIFICANT DAYIt is July 30, 2020 as I write, a very significant day in South Sudans struggles to be free. It is the day the founding leader of the liberation movement, John Garang de Mabior, died in plane crash exactly 30 days after he had just started to implement the peace agreement that brought the freedom war to a close.

It is exactly 15 years ago to date when he died in mysterious circumstances that have left the South Sudanese mourning and with no answers as to what took their beloved leader.

It is now the day all the martyrs are remembered. But the children, the widows of these martyrs can only look with longing eyes into J1 from outside its fence.The seat of power seems to have forgotten them entirely.

Now, the current leadership of South Sudan avoids to face the millions of families that offered their young recruits, offered their resources to feed fighters, sacrificed their own well-being just so that South Sudan is realized. But to what end?

*The author is a professor of anthropology at Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.

This opinion was first published by the Nairobi-based Daily Nation on July 31, 2020.

Here is the original post:

The Lies That Bind South Sudanese - gurtong

The movement for Palestinian rights continues to grow across the world. (Alisdare Hickson/Flickr)

July marked the 15th anniversary of the launch of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

Much has happened over those years. Here are 15 lessons Ive learned on the journey to dismantle Israeli apartheid.

Anyone who adheres to the BDS principles can join the movement. This empowers and enables everyone to effect extraordinary changes.

The BDS movement speaks directly to people of conscience who understand that by not acting they are allowing states, companies, artists, institutions, universities and businesses to remain complicit and fuel Israeli apartheid.

Joining and taking action allows each one of us to take responsibility and make sure we are at the very least not contributing to harming the Palestinian people. It allows us to speak out and mobilize others to take action too.

The power of the equality that grassroots mobilization brings to politics and the community is instrumental in making every single member give their best and take ownership. No single person in the movement is more important than anyone else. This powers collective leadership.

Unfortunately there are still those who stand up for freedom for the Palestinian people but do not care about the rights and dignity of other discriminated and oppressed groups.

Our deep commitment to anti-racism and intersectionality means we do not liaise with just anyone who agrees on Palestinian rights unless they also respect and support rights and dignity for all. We cannot build and fight for a new world while agreeing to oppress others.

Every little success matters. Small victories can help in reaching a much larger aim.

Getting a small pension fund to divest from the weapons firm Elbit Systems can contribute to discussion of the need for a military embargo against Israel. This small pension fund can encourage others to follow suit.

As we tackle local issues, we must remember the global picture and how being part of a global movement means that what happens somewhere can affect the movement as a whole, positively and negatively.

The BDS movement has already contributed to mainstreaming awareness of the fact that Israel is an apartheid regime.

Why is this so important? In a world with such biased media and even schoolbooks that are still deeply embedded in a colonial narrative, it is essential we take time to clarify reality.

When calling for a boycott or organizing a campaign, we must always remember how doing so helps to clearly explain what Palestinians are facing and how injustice is taking place. Even campaigns that may not reach their objective can contribute to explaining what is happening on the ground and what the Palestinian people are calling for, and to raising awareness about Israels regime of disposession and colonization.

The fact that we support Palestinian rights does not mean that we know best what Palestinians should do, and it does not give us a free pass to say whatever we want. Moreover, when facing attacks, we must defend our right to freedom of expression in a manner that centers Palestinians and keeps the focus on the crimes perpetrated by Israel against them.

We must remember that, by defending the right to freedom of expression, we are defending the right of Palestinians to make their experience and views heard directly or through us by the public and decision makers in our country.

Earlier this month, Rafeef Ziadah and Riya Alsanah wrote how it is worth reflecting on why Palestinians are treated as mere spectators in debates concerning our daily lives.

While the BDS movement calls on allies around the world to take action, Palestinians have a clear, pivotal role. When this isnt happening, it means we are doing something wrong.

We must keep on decolonizing our actions and make sure Palestinians are being heard and that we take guidance from them while organizing in the BDS movement.

Our oppressors are more connected than ever.

At a time when the right and the far-right are gaining power in many institutions worldwide, the left and progressive groups and movements have the opportunity and duty to rethink themselves and to create stronger, more solid and inclusive movements. We must make sure Palestine is a part of that.

We also must be more connected than ever.

We have often been surprised to find allies where we wouldnt expect them. We usually have more allies than we think.

To connect to them we must consider different approaches, language and context-sensitivity. We must ask ourselves, are we helping the movement grow? Are we empowering others to join?

The BDS movement has shown itself to be highly adept at pivoting to new strategies and building influential alliances. There continue to be numerous arenas in which it faces little effective resistance. These are the words of Asher Fredman, who used to work with Israels strategic affairs ministry.

We must learn from other liberation struggles, while bearing in mind that times and political relations change.

While the BDS movement is highly inspired by the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, the world is very different from how it looked 30 years ago.

We should not look for patterns to copy, but politically analyze the present and adapt to new times. This means continuing to learn, grow and use the best opportunities in a changing context.

Like all social movements, the BDS movement is facing severe and sustained attacks. Israels government and its lobby groups are regularly attacking and smearing us in an attempt to delegitimize our struggle.

We must not let their attacks shape our plans; strategizing and sticking to our anti-discrimination principles and our proactive and effective campaigning are what protect us the most.

While they seek to distract us from our target, the most powerful thing we can do is to keep on working for Palestinian rights. The best way to defend our right to boycott is to keep on boycotting while mobilizing mass support for our right to freedom of expression.

Solidarity is not unidirectional. At all times we must take responsibility and reject any form of racism, sexism, LGTB-phobia, and any other form of discrimination or bigotry within the movement.

While we call on others to support Palestinian rights, we must show support for other struggles too. Palestine is an Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, LGTBQAI+, anti-fascist and climate justice issue, and this makes all these struggles crucial to ensuring Palestinian self-determination.

The Israeli government and its supporters spend hundreds of millions of dollars on criminalizing and persecuting the BDS movement and groups in solidarity with Palestine.

But this cannot be understood as something unique or isolated. Social movements have always been repressed by those seeking to maintain injustice and oppression.

Activists everywhere have been imprisoned for criticizing governments, and many calls for justice are being repressed in the streets and online. Let us not forget that those most oppressed by the Israeli government are always the Palestinians.

Using different tactics helps us reach a broader audience. As racism, sexism and disaster capitalism adapt and reconfigure, finding different ways to keep on oppressing, we must also keep on finding creative new ways to engage with others and accomplish our goals.

Political resistance can be beautiful too.

Holding events, lectures, protests and public activities are crucial to show and visualize support for Palestinian rights. But talking to people, organizing, doing research, building alliances and strengthening relations all happen behind closed doors and are what enable us to then go public.

We should never forget how important it is to plan, foster relationships and carefully organize to then build our campaigns.

It is incredible how many cities and cultural spaces have declared themselves apartheid free zones, how many companies have divested from Israeli apartheid, how many artists have decided not to play in Israel and how many academics have ended relationships with Israeli institutions as a result of BDS campaigns.

Yet it is often difficult to keep our hopes up while knowing that Israeli apartheid is the cruelest it has ever been, knowing ongoing Palestinian pain and suffering, and seeing Israel maintain its impunity despite its televised crimes. But we keep on struggling and growing because we know that justice can and will prevail.

Fifteen years on, and during a time of global uprising against an entire system of racist exploitation and oppression, the BDS movement continues learning, adapting and growing, making connections, and exposing and challenging Israeli apartheid.

Alys Samson Estap is the Europe campaigns coordinator of the Palestinian BDS National Committee

Go here to see the original:

15 lessons from 15 years of BDS - The Electronic Intifada

Here are two statements:

The NBA, by professional sports league standards, has a decently strong record on human rights. It allows players to speak their minds. It believes that Black lives matter. It uses its power to fight injustice in the United States.

The NBA, an adored global corporation, has also gone to great lengths to build and maintain a multibillion-dollar relationship with a human rights-abusing government halfway around the world.

They are two factual statements that at this time last year coexisted peacefully. Yet recently, theyve become entangled, pitted against each other, by U.S. senators and laypeople alike. On Thursday, when the NBA season resumes, activism will be inescapable; players will protest police brutality and racial injustice in America; BLACK LIVES MATTER will scream at viewers off courts. And perhaps the most common criticism of the NBAs initiatives will be a prickly diversion.

But what about China?!?

Its a fascinating retort, because its grounded in the most glaring demerit on the NBAs recent record. An ESPN investigation published Wednesday raised more red flags. For years, the league ignored authoritarian crackdowns and ethnic persecution as it built and monetized a rabid fan base in China. It ran an abusive basketball academy in a police state where Muslims are interned in concentration camps. When Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of Hong Kong last October, and the Chinese government attacking democratic freedoms in Hong Kong bristled, the NBA moved swiftly to salvage its relationship with that government. The leagues most prominent figures, from LeBron James to Steve Kerr, didnt rush to condemn injustice, as they had so often in the past and have so often since. Instead, they either criticized Morey, or remained conspicuously silent. Officials, in some cases, stepped in to silence them.

The silence was embarrassing. It enables and legitimizes oppression. Sure, the NBA actually stood up to China with more strength than most corporations do. But the widespread disapproval it received was deserved. Where things got messy, and problematic, was when that disapproval became bottomless ammo for whataboutism. When China became the catch-all counter. When injustice became the response to calls for justice.

We can, and should, criticize the league and its most prominent characters for refusing to outright condemn oppression in China. We also can, and should, support the league and its most prominent characters as they try to combat oppression closer to home. Our criticism and support arent contradictory. In fact, they necessarily go hand in hand.

When the NBA returns to action Thursday, some players will wear racial justice messages on their uniforms, and courts will declare, "BLACK LIVES MATTER." (AP)

Injustice clouds every second of every day in every country. To use the neglect of some injustice to detract from the fight against other injustice is to uphold all of it. Change is local. Successful fights for it are often hyper-focused. Black Americans, some of whom comprise a majority of the NBA, are trying to lead one. To support their fight, to affirm that Black lives matter, to do your part to dismantle systemic racism, is not an affront to Muslims detained in China, or families brutalized in Syria, or women denied rights in Iran, or LGBTQ+ people denied humanity everywhere.

To support NBA players advocacy is to fight for human rights, period. They are attacking one web of injustice among many. To refuse to support their fight because they havent attacked another web of injustice is hypocritical. It is unfair, and counterproductive, to criticize progressive action on the basis of inaction elsewhere. If we do, progress is unattainable.

Now, it is fair to separately criticize the inaction especially when that inaction could be described as suppression of action in the name of profit. We should acknowledge, and scrutinize, why the NBA cuddles up and cowers to China. It lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the wake of Moreys tweet. If it were to push harder for democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, it would lose more. Those losses hit the league, and spread to teams, and filtered down to players and employees. Which is why they all say nothing. The NBA believes in human rights, and recognizes how powerfully it can advocate for them. It pulled the 2017 All-Star Game out of North Carolina to pressure the state to protect them. But somewhere between Carolina and China, it drew its line. A line between social responsibility and money.

Story continues

We all have one. Every corporation, every institution, every individual. Even the most well-meaning people like and need money. Some arent willing to sacrifice any of it to make the world a better place. Some are. Everybody, though, is faced with the question of how much?

You can argue, and many would, that the NBA should sacrifice more. That the line should stretch well beyond China and those hundreds of millions of dollars. That no American company not the NFL, not Nike, not Apple should deal with China. (They all do.) But you probably cant argue the line shouldnt exist. If you believe the NBA should fight any injustice at any cost, then you, too, should quit your job and go fight injustice; then every company, regardless of industry, should cease production of their goods or services and pour all resources into the battle. Of course, thats unrealistic. The world will never be, cannot be, 100 percent selfless.

The NBA, like so many others, does the right thing until the right thing is too costly. We can, and should, criticize the billionaires who own it for not spending more in the name of human rights because thats essentially what this is. We can, and should, criticize the league for its response to Morey. We can, and should, criticize LeBron.

Because injustice is injustice, whether we, personally, feel it or not.

And that, precisely, is also why we must support the NBA players crusading against it.

You can, and should, call them out for not condemning all injustice. But if you do so to undermine their condemnations of some injustice, then youre not condemning all injustice yourself.

We care about Chinas oppression because were empathetic, and believe injustice is wrong. For the exact same reason, we will listen to NBA players on Thursday and beyond; we have heard them speak about the violence and prejudice they and their communities experience; we will hear them say, as a collective, that Black lives matter, and that systemic racism must end; and we will say, Yes. Absolutely.

More from Yahoo Sports:

More here:

The NBA, China and racial justice: How to untangle the leagues messy relationship with human rights - Yahoo Finance Australia