Monthly Archives: March 2022

Workers at Marathon Texas City Refinery (Source: USW)

To join the Oil Workers Rank-and-File Committee, email oilworkersrfc@gmail.com.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The United Steelworkers leadership is using every dirty trick in the book to push through its four-year agreement, which would substantially reduce our real take home pay and give the oil bosses a free hand to cut jobs, endanger our lives, and destroy the conditions of the next generation of refinery and petrochemical workers.

At BP, the USW is trying to ram through the national contract at a vote tomorrow without releasing the full deal and giving workers enough time to study and discuss it. As one brother at the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana told us, There is still no info on the contract we are voting on Thursday. Unreal. I heard through the grapevine we can go view the 32-page document at the hall after work. Six weeks of talks and we get a couple hours to read it and decide. It's not a valid vote...it's a cattle call.

At USW Local 11-470 at the Phillips 66 refinery in Billings, Montana, the USW International forced workers to re-vote on the national agreement after they rejected it on March 4. During an informational meeting two days later, national USW reps told workers if they voted down the contract then they would be on an economic strike, in which the company would be free to terminate all union members and hire back whoever they wanted without any contract protections.

In other words, the USW is threatening us, not the company, with strike action. It is telling us: If you strike, we will leave you on your own, starve you on the picket line, and if you are fired, you will be on your own. To drive this threat home, the USW is holding up the example of the Beaumont, Texas workers, who the USW left on the picket lines for 10 months before signing a deal with ExxonMobil that gutted seniority rights, job classifications and quadrupled the probationary period to 24 months, creating a new tier of lower paid at-will employees to replace senior workers.

This cannot stand. We have to fight and overturn this miserable deal. We urge our brothers and sisters at BP and the other companies to vote it down and to build the Oil Workers Rank-and-File Committee to prepare a national strike.

From the beginning, the USW has operated as an enemy of rank-and-file workers. Oil workers were never in a stronger position to fight than this year. The companies are making record profits. Several key refineries, including Marathons Galveston Bay Refinery, were down for various reasons as the contract expired. Rather than striking when the iron was hot and when the companies were most vulnerable, the USW ordered us to stay on the job.

Then after weeks of telling us Marathon and the other oil giants were refusing to seriously negotiate, USW President Tom Conway suddenly announced on February 25 that he had reached an agreement with substantial gains for workers. But the deal was essentially identical to the one the union rejected February 1. In a recent press release, Conway boasted that he had signed a responsible contract, which did not add to inflationary pressures.

In fact, the deal will impose all the inflationary pressures on the backs of workers. It includes a first year raise of only 2.5 percent and an average of three percent annually over four years. With inflation running at 7.9 percent and sure to rise in coming months, this means by the end of four years we will have suffered a major reduction in our living standards. We will not be able to keep up with fast rising prices for fuel, food or the outrageous co-pays and other out-of-pocket medical expenses contained in this contract.

The USWs adamant opposition to strike action must be seen within the context of the Biden administrations increasingly dangerous military confrontation with Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. Conway announced this deal the day after the invasion, and three days after the USW president took part in a virtual White House meeting with President Biden, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks. While the White House and the USW have kept the content of the discussion secret, there is no doubt Biden told Conway in no uncertain terms that he had to settle the contract and block a strike that could shut down two-thirds of the countrys refinery capacity. In other words, this is a government-dictated contract, which will rob us and reward the oil bosses!

No class-conscious worker would support Russias invasion of Ukraine. But the US and NATO pushed Putin into a corner through the eastern expansion of NATO and massive military buildup on Russias borders. Despite the crocodile tears the big business politicians in Washington are shedding for the Ukrainian people, they are being used as pawns in the US governments regime change operation in Russia, which is aimed at turning Russia into a colony of the US and European powers. The same giant energy firms, which are waging a war against us, are licking their chops over the possibility of seizing the vast oil and gas reserves of Russiajust like they did in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, which was sold to us with lies about weapons of mass destruction.

There is another major factor is this reckless war drive: the Biden administration and the corporate media are creating an external enemy to rally against, so workers dont fight our real enemies, which are at home!

Theyre telling oil workers, railroad workers, dock workers and others we cannot strike because well disrupt the economy and undermine national defense, even as the war profiteers in the oil and defense industries laugh all the way to the bank.

We are not idiotsand we are certainly not slaves. We have every right to carry out an economic strike, no matter what Conway and his high-paid henchmen on the regional and local level say.

As we said in our founding statement, the OWRFC urges workers to reject any contract that does not include the following:

A 40 percent raise and the restoration of Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA);

Restoration of the 8-hour day;

Expansion of paid time off, including a six-week vacation during the first year of service and one month of paid paternity leave;

Fully paid medical benefits;

The hiring of more full-time workers;

The establishment of worker-run health and safety committees and the abolition of corrupt joint labor-management committees;

Workers control over production rates and input over capital expenditures;

Fully paid pensions and retiree medical benefits after 25 years of service;

The elevation of contractors to full-time positions, with the same pay and benefits.

The USW has kept us from using our enormous strength to win these demands. That is why we formed the Oil Workers Rank-and-File Committee (OWRFC). Our committee seeks to unite workers throughout our industry, including the tens of thousands of contract workers who are being used as cheap labor. They are our class brothers and sisters too!

But we cannot fight the giant corporations and their bought-and-paid political parties alone. That is why our committee will unite oil workers with striking Minneapolis teachers, the BNSF and Canadian Pacific railroad workers, the dock workers in California, Oregon and Washington whose contracts expire in July, and the millions of other workers fighting against the sacrifice of our lives and livelihoods to corporate profit.

We are working for global corporations, which can only be fought for by uniting energy workers across all national boundaries. American workers have more in common with the workers of Russia, China, Mexico and other countries than they do with the billionaires and corporate-controlled politicians in the US. It is only through our common struggle that can finally put an end to the pandemic, the danger of new wars over oil and other resources, and guarantee that we, the workers, who create all of societys wealth, can have a future free from want, inequality and the horrors of war.

To join the Oil Workers Rank-and-File Committee, email oilworkersrfc@gmail.com.

Sign up for more information about how to join or build a rank-and-file committee in your workplace

Read the rest here:

Oppose USW threats and lies! Launch a national strike to overturn the government-dictated sellout contract! - WSWS

Prosecutors are the most powerful actors in the criminal justice system. For decades, they have relied on their immense discretion to impose harsher sentences that have disproportionately targeted low-income communities of color and significantly increased the prison population. For far too long, prisons, jails, and correctional facilities have acted as the solutions to obtaining justice. This is despite the fact that incarceration has been found to be very costly and ineffective at reducing crime or correcting bad behavior. However, some prosecutors have begun to recognize their myopic focus on punitive justice over rehabilitation and correction, and as a result, have shifted to progressive prosecution, which focuses on ending mass incarceration while maintaining integrity in the legal system.

Though progressive prosecution has its merits, even its supporters feel that it has too many shortcomings. For example, Rachel Barkow, a leading expert on criminal law and policy, argues that ending mass incarceration requires limiting progressive prosecutors discretionary powers and increasing the involvement of other actors in the criminal justice system. Given flaws like these, it is crucial to introduce an alternative way for prosecutors to work within the criminal justice system as agents of change. Restorative justice is one such paradigm that can help a prosecutor emphasize healing, reconciliation, and the rehabilitation of victims, the community, and the offenders in the process of addressing criminal behavior. More importantly, restorative justice paves the path for the much-needed abolition of the current criminal justice system.

Restorative justice works by bringing together all willing stakeholders to address criminal behavior in a way that makes amends, transforms the relationship between all parties, and begins the process of reintegration for the offender back into the community. Progressive prosecutors are in a unique position to promote such initiatives because their goals align with those of restorative justice namely, to find alternatives to accountability for crime that do not require the continual promotion of punitive systems. By prioritizing restorative justice initiatives in their agenda, progressive prosecutors can maximize their impact in the effort to end mass incarceration.

The implementation of radical tools such as restorative justice initiatives is not new in the criminal justice system, but it will have the greatest impact on incarceration. While some may reject the idea of restorative justice asa drastically new way of thinking about accountability and punishment, some progressive prosecutors have long been looking for programs and initiatives that substitute the need to try cases in court, unfairly negotiate plea bargains, and needlessly incarcerate individuals. Some of these initiatives have already been carried out, so the introduction of restorative justice would be an extension to these alternatives of incarceration.

In Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration, journalist Emily Bazelon outlines diversion as one of the most influential initiatives that prosecutors can implement to avoid incarcerating people. Diversion programs are designed to divert people from jail or prison by allowing them to participate in rehabilitation programs in order to avoid a criminal conviction and record. Bazelon writes that diversion can conserve resources, reduce reoffending, and diminish the collateral harm of criminal prosecution. But while diversion is considered the hallmark of progressive prosecution, it is not widely available to all those who want to participate. Since diversion relies on the discretion of prosecutors, it allows room for errors in judgment when deciding who should or should not be allowed to participate. Yet, the implementation of restorative justice can work as an expansion of diversion programs to have the greatest impact on incarceration.

Restorative justice avoids such bias because it does not rely on the discretion of attorneys or the justice system to decide whether or not someone can participate. Furthermore, what makes restorative justice special is that it is a fully voluntary process in which all parties involved are not forced into participation. By implementing restorative justice, prosecutors can expand upon existing diversion programs by making them widely accessible and less biased. While Bazelon believes that the promotion of restorative justice has value in reducing incarceration, she only acknowledges the process in passing and does not recognize how restorative justice can be promoted as the main focus of progressive prosecutors. Rather than using restorative justice in their arsenal of tools, prosecutors jobs should shift to prioritize restorative justice initiatives as front and center in their agenda.

The promotion of restorative justice by prosecutors within the criminal justice system has the potential to make it an alternative to incarceration. This would require prosecutors to demand legislation to be enacted or to simply establish policies in their office to adopt restorative justice. But to begin using restorative justice immediately would require prosecutors to partner with restorative justice organizations that are more knowledgeable and understanding in facilitating conversations about subjects related to crime and justice. Such collaborations are crucial but should not be the only goal of restorative justice. Progressive prosecutors can fully implement restorative justice divisions and departments within their offices. Its important to note that this does not mean expanding prosecutorial offices, but rather, shifting resources around to accommodate such programs. Prosecutors can make this happen by tapping into their access and power as the most powerful people in the criminal justice system.

The focus on restorative justice has the power to shape the future of the justice system and forever shift the way that prosecutors do their jobs. The goal of prosecution would no longer be obtaining the most punitive charge or sentence for the defendant, but making sure that the victim has the chance to heal and that the offender has the chance to grow and learn.

While such a non-reformist reform of the system is imperative, it is not the ultimate goal of the progressive prosecution movement. Criminal punishment, as it operates in the United States, puts a large burden on Black and Brown communities. While we can limit and transform how prosecutors go about doing their job, the inherently racist system under which prosecutors work will still be present. Current and future progressive prosecutors, activists, academics, and politicians should advocate for limitations to prosecutorial powers until they have no more. Abolition of the current system of criminal punishment should be the ultimate goal, and the implementation of restorative justice in the prosecution system is the first and most crucial step to get us there.

Image byTingey Injury Law Firmlicensed under theUnsplash License.

See the original post here:

Restorative Justice: The Path to Abolishing the Current Criminal Justice System - Harvard Political Review

Israeli Finance Minister Avigdor Liberman announced Tuesday morning that tariffs on fruits and vegetables will be abolished. The directive includes immediate abolition of customs duties on a variety of fruits and vegetables (avocados, garlic, peas, beans, figs, pineapples, berries, mushrooms and more). The remaining caps on fresh, frozen and preserved fruits and vegetables will be gradually reduced over five years to maintain local agriculture and allow for an adjustment period.

Hamodia.comquoted Liberman as saying: As we promised, we will continue to work to increase the disposable income of Israeli citizens and reduce spending. The agricultural reform that is being launched will significantly reduce the prices of fruits and vegetables and bring down prices for citizens. We do not forget the business owners, we will continue to help businesses that have been affected by the Corona virus and we will stand by them in times of crisis.

The agricultural reform has been approved in the state budget for 2022, and will immediately cancel tariffs on a variety of fruits and vegetables such as avocados, garlic, peas, beans, figs, pineapple, berries, mushrooms and more. The remaining tariffs on fresh, frozen and preserved fruit and vegetables will be gradually reduced over five years. According to the Finance Ministry, the total savings to the Israeli consumer is expected to be about 820 shekels (230) per year per household.

Source: jpost.com

Photo source: Nl.wikipedia.org

See the original post:

Israel: Tariffs on fruits and vegetables will be abolished - FreshPlaza.com

If an 800-kiloton nuclear bomb was detonated at the intersection of Congress and Texas in downtown Houston, 204,150 people would immediately die. Thats 2.5 times as many deaths as the total Texas death toll since the COVID pandemic began two years ago. The fallout, reaching all the way past Corpus Christi to Kingsville, would leave around 265,610 more people with devastating injuries.

Of course, thats just a rough estimate based on a simulation. But as long as nuclear weapons exist, the potential for unimaginable mass destruction remains strikingly real.

At the outset of his invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that other countries will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history if they intervened. A few days later, he ordered Russian nuclear forces to be put on a heightened alert status.

Putins words and actions underscore the inherent dangers posed by the very existence of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not abstract tools for global security. They are weapons of mass destruction. They create instability, enable horrific violence and risk all life on the planet. Its past time to abolish them.

Putins nuclear threats are a wake-up call to some people who havent thought about nuclear weapons in a long time. But the danger of nuclear weapons isnt limited to these past few weeks.

On Jan. 13, 2018, people in Hawaii had a wake-up call of their own, when they received an alert urging them to take cover from an incoming ballistic missile. The alert was false, but the threat is very real. This is one of the key messages of On the Morning You Wake (to the End of the World), a new virtual reality documentary premiering in Austin at SXSW this week. I speak in the film about the urgency of nuclear abolition and am working with the producers to engage people who see it to take action against the bomb.

The film puts viewers in the shoes of people who tried to prepare for a possible nuclear attack on that morning in Hawaii. As people all around the world now confront the reality of the volatile world of systemic nuclear risk we live in, it is all the more important to educate, advocate and take concrete action toward the abolition of nuclear weapons.

As is clear from the above simulation, the use of even a single nuclear bomb would be absolutely devastating. In Houston alone, the petrochemical complex could turn into an inferno. The Texas Medical Center would not be able to provide help, as it would likely be destroyed, and at the very least would not have the beds, blood or burn units capable of providing for the citys population. Radiation would be unleashed, damaging human bodies, animals, plants, land, water and air for generations.

If it escalates into a nuclear war, we will be facing an unprecedented catastrophe. Millions of people could die. The climate crisis will be exponentially exacerbated; there could be a disastrous decline in food production and a global famine that might kill most of humanity.

Chapters 2 and 3 of "On the Morning You Wake (to the End of the World)" will be shown at SXSW from March 11-15. The documentary and associated impact campaign will be featured in a panel discussion about the power of creative storytelling in the nuclear abolition movement at 11:30 a.m. March 15.

Its not just an issue of the Russian government having nuclear weapons. Three North Atlantic Treaty Organization members France, the United Kingdom and the United States also possess nuclear weapons, and U.S. nuclear bombs are stored on the territory of five other NATO members (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey). China, India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea also have nuclear weapons. Each and every one of these bombs is a threat to peace and security.

As long as these weapons exist, there is a risk that they will be detonated. As long as they exist, they will be used to threaten and intimidate. As long as they exist, they will continue to harm people where they are made and where they have been tested primarily Indigenous nations and communities of color. As long as they exist, they will extract billions of dollars toward their maintenance, modernization and deployment, when that money is so desperately needed to confront climate change and provide for the well-being of people and the planet.

In 2020, the U.S. government spent more than $35 billion on its nuclear weapons. Facing Putins recent threats, elements of the U.S. nuclear complex are calling for more nuclear funding. Nuclear arms races are not part of the past. They are going on right now, and they are devastating us all. Its time to change course.

We already have an international agreement that most countries in the world support. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons outlaws the use, threat of use, development and possession of nuclear weapons. So far, the nine nuclear-armed states including the U.S. have refused to sign the treaty, but pressure is mounting for them to do so. All countries should join this treaty and work urgently for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Nuclear abolition is the only answer to the existential threat of nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, their presence, production and potential use will only lead to violence and destruction.

But you have the power to shape the future of nuclear weapons policy. On the Morning You Wake is at the center of a long-term impact campaign launching in Austin this week, which provides a number of ways people concerned about the nuclear threat can get involved and work together to abolish nuclear weapons. One thing people in Houston and Austin can do is urge your city councils to join the ICAN Cities Appeal, which encourages the government to join the TPNW. You can also make sure your money isnt going to nuclear weapon production and get your bank to divest, too. We can all still change the story, not only for now, but for future generations.

Acheson is an Impact Fellow for On the Morning You Wake. They are director of disarmament at the Womens International League for Peace and Freedom and a steering group representative of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.

Originally posted here:

Opinion: Nuclear weapons put us all at risk. We must abolish them now. - Houston Chronicle

Tufts Working Group on TUPD Arming anticipates releasing new recommendations regarding TUPDs arming status this semester, Executive Vice President Mike Howard confirmed in an email to the Daily.

The working group was formed following the release of the universitys Campus Safety and Policing Workstream final report in February 2021, which recommended creating a working group focused on addressing and potentially reforming TUPDs arming status. The report estimated that if implemented, this groups work could take approximately 12 months and would include a lengthier and more comprehensive communication and engagement effort than the [Working Group on Campus Safety and Policing].

While the Working Group on TUPD Arming seems to be on track to follow a timeline similar to the one proposed in last years final report, some community members do not feel that the working group has communicated in a transparent and effective way regarding its recommendation process.

The Student Prison Education and Abolition Coalition, an umbrella organization for groups at Tufts that engage with carceral justice work including the Tufts University Prison Initiative of Tisch College, Tufts Petey Greene and Tufts for a Racially Equitable Endowment, launched a letter-writing campaign in December calling for the WGTA to release the results of its arming survey.

The survey, released to the Tufts community in September, asked participants including undergraduates students, graduate students, faculty and staff to select how comfortable they would feel with TUPD, local police departments or mental health professionals responding to various safety threats with varying levels of arming.

According to Tatum Schutt, a SPEAC organizer, little was done to communicate that survey results were made public.

While the results are now available online, the WGTA did little to publicize their release of this information, let alone directly contact anybody who expressed interest via email, Schutt, a sophomore, wrote in an email to the Daily. As a result, the data is only accessible to those who go out of their way to search for it When they knew the student interest was there, why couldnt they have announced that the data was available?

While she appreciates that the results are available publicly, Schutt added that for the university to truly embody its mission to become an anti-racist institution, initiatives must go beyond task force meetings.

We appreciate the progress reports available online. Communication and transparency are important. So are power and action, she wrote. Within liberal institutions there is an extensive tradition of co-opting of the language of change and responding with incrementalism that does not disturb the baseline power structure at play. At Tufts, this can look like waiting for student leaders to burn out, go abroad, and graduate, establishing work committees accountable to no one, drawing out timelines, and using proceduralism to excuse inaction.

Schutt hopes that the WGTAs conclusions will lead to serious reforms. She cited Tufts Action Group, an anti-racist faculty and staff organization that was formed following the murder of George Floyd, as a group that should inform the WGTAs recommendations. Tufts Action Groups demands, which include abolishing TUPD, garnered support from over 2,000 students, faculty and staff during summer 2020.

Howard noted that while the policing model Tufts currently utilizes is common, the WGTA is researching alternatives. These models include proprietary and contract security departments with varying arming statuses, including armed, unarmed and hybrid models.

One theme that we heard consistently throughout our discussions with community members is support for flexibility in response, greater reliance on mental health resources, and low preference for greater involvement of municipal police, Howard wrote in an email to the Daily. Many of those who participated in our surveys and discussions indicated that they are interested in differential response, which allows for public safety responses to vary depending on the nature of the call, the campus, and other factors.

Of the 2,959 total survey responses 2,040 of which came from the Medford/Somerville campus the majority were against an armed response to mental health calls, noise complaints and public intoxication. Some respondents supported armed TUPD or local police departments responses to physical assault and theft or robbery, with 56% and 54% favoring such a response, respectively. Over one third of all respondents were undergraduate students, and 62% percent of respondents were white. Forty-nine percent of respondents were female, with an additional 10% of respondents gender identities listed as unknown or not listed.

We appreciate the commitment of the working group over the past several months as it has studied this issue, engaged the community, and examined the universitys options, Executive Director of Media Relations Patrick Collins wrote in an email to the Daily. We anticipate that the groups findings will be made available to the community in the next few weeks.

Schutt hopes the findings will reflect the universitys commitment to becoming an anti-racist institution.

We are glad that faculty, administrators and the single undergraduate student representative seem to have discussed arming seriously, and we look forward to hearing their conclusions, she wrote. Should they conclude inaction and minimal reform, we will be ready to welcome them into serious discussion of alternatives to policing in our shared community and to resist.

Read more from the original source:

Working Group on TUPD Arming to announce recommendations by end of semester - Tufts Daily

For some of L.A.'s most outspoken left-leaning activists, the first sign of trouble came when U.S. Rep. Karen Bass unveiled her plan for ending homeless encampments on the citys streets and sidewalks.

Bass, a progressive Democrat running for mayor, promised to house 15,000 people in her first year. But she also assailed the violence that takes place in broad daylight at encampments, saying she would make sure outreach workers receive backup from law enforcement or other security personnel an approach opposed by some homeless advocates.

Leftist organizers were also troubled when Bass told a homeowner group she would not repeal a city law that allows council members to set up no-encampment zones around schools, parks and other facilities.

Still, the real uproar came weeks later when Bass called for the hiring of about 200 additional police officers at the Los Angeles Police Department, as well as hundreds of additional civilian personnel.

A coalition of grass-roots organizations denounced that approach, saying the city needs a mayor who will address murderous policing, not seek to reform an irredeemable department.

This feels like nothing more than a shallow and misguided political calculation, said Lex Steppling, national director of campaigns and organizing at Dignity & Power Now, which advocates for incarcerated people and their families.

Those responses do not appear to have inflicted any meaningful damage on Bass campaign, at least for the time being. A poll conducted last month by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, showed Bass with a solid lead over her rivals, putting her in a strong position to make the top-two runoff in November.

Bass progressive critics also have expressed unhappiness with the other big-name candidates in the race: Councilman Joe Buscaino, real estate developer Rick Caruso, Councilman Kevin de Len and City Atty. Mike Feuer.

Still, even some of Bass longtime supporters have begun warning publicly that her more moderate stances put her at risk of dampening enthusiasm among the citys progressive voters.

Pandering to affluent white Westside and Valley voters at the expense of Black, Latinx and working-class ones can cost her a base that she cannot afford to lose, said Melina Abdullah and Patrisse Cullors, two longtime leaders in the Black Lives Matter movement, in an essay published by the LA Progressive.

In their essay, Cullors and Abdullah argued that Bass public safety plan puts targets on the backs of Black people and harkens to a 1994-crime-bill-style pro-police system. Bass, who grounded herself in womanism and revolution, is now trying to out-Caruso Caruso and out-Buscaino Buscaino, they said.

Melina Abdullah, co-founder of Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles, addresses a police commission meeting at LAPD headquarters.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Bass said she counts Abdullah and Cullors as friends. But she disputed several assertions contained in their essay, saying she has not changed her views on crime, police accountability or other issues for the campaign.

Her public safety plan, she said, does not seek to increase the LAPD budget. And it calls for far fewer officers than those put forth by Caruso and Buscaino.

Under her plan, the LAPD would grow to 9,700 officers, the amount currently authorized by the City Council. Caruso and Buscaino, by comparison, have promised to take the force up to 11,000 sworn personnel.

My goal is to be the mayor for Los Angeles city, which is very large. And a lot of Angelenos right now are not feeling safe, Bass said in an interview. And that is a reality that is important to address, and not ignore.

The fact that Bass is having to rebut such critiques is, in part, a reflection of the complicated political space she occupies.

Bass, a former community organizer, spent much of last year championing a sweeping reform bill that would have pushed law enforcement agencies to ban police chokeholds and no-knock warrants or risk losing out on certain federal funds. The bill, which ultimately stalled in the U.S. Senate, also would have created a nationwide police misconduct registry and made it easier for officers accused of wrongdoing to be prosecuted by law enforcement and sued by private citizens.

At the same time, Bass is known for publicly slamming the phrase defund police, telling the Washington Post in June 2020 a few weeks after George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis that it was probably one of the worst slogans ever. The defund question has come up multiple times a day, she recently told Los Angeles Magazine.

Im on record radio, TV, print, hundreds of times saying that I dont support Defund the Police, she told the publication. Its like I cant fully be trusted unless I recite it several times a day.

Bass said L.A.'s black and Latino neighborhoods want police who are responsive but also act responsibly. Former Assembly Speaker John A. Prez, who has endorsed Bass and previously represented some of the citys working-class Latino neighborhoods, offered a similar take.

To suggest that those are Westside white or Valley views fundamentally misunderstands the realities of life for all Angelenos, he said. We all deserve safe communities. We all deserve responsive, properly trained and accountable law enforcement.

City Councilwoman Nithya Raman, who has emerged in recent years as one of the citys most progressive voices, praised Bass history of work on public safety, poverty and homelessness in some of the citys most underserved communities.

Most people know her record, said Raman, who has not yet endorsed in the race. And they trust it like I do.

Councilmember Nithya Raman during a February press conference at City Hall.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Bass unveiled her public safety plan last month, weeks after the LAPD reported that the number of homicides reached a 15-year high in 2021. She said she knew Abdullah would not like the plan, but nevertheless told her about it before it was released.

Abdullah and Cullors, she said, were also highly critical of her police reform bill, because it would have provided hundreds of millions of dollars for law enforcement.

Among L.A.'s leftists, the frustration with Bass has not been limited to policing. In January, while fielding questions from the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn., she was asked what the city should do about unhoused people who decline offers of shelter or temporary housing. At the end of the day, she responded, people have to move.

What I have learned in talking to the people that do this work day in and day out is 95% of the people will move into shelter, housing or temporary housing, she told the group. But for those 5% that wont, especially if theyre breaking the law, laws have to be enforced.

Newsletter

Get the lowdown on L.A. politics

In this pivotal election year, we'll break down the ballot and tell you why it matters in our L.A. on the Record newsletter.

Enter email address

Sign Me Up

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Those types of stances have alienated activists like Gina Viola, who lives in Hollywood and is an opponent of L.A.'s anti-encampment law.

Viola, who owns a temp agency for trade shows and conventions, endorsed Bass last fall. But after she learned about Bass strategy for addressing homelessness, Viola decided to rescind that endorsement.

And after she put out her public safety platform, that was it for me, said Viola, who has long called for the defunding and abolition of the LAPD.

Viola launched a long-shot bid for mayor last month, offering herself as an alternative for voters who want major cuts in police spending and an end to the citys anti-encampment law and other homelessness initiatives.

Abdullah, who donated to Bass last year and has also praised Viola, has not yet decided whom she will endorse. And she sought to make clear that her message to Bass was not meant to rake her over the coals.

It was about reminding her of her once-progressive positioning, said Abdullah, who speaks with Bass every few weeks. And urging her to come back in line with that position.

Continued here:

Some on L.A.'s left are frustrated with Karen Bass - Los Angeles Times

The proposal on amendments to the Law on Excise Duties in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) under the urgent procedure which abolishes excise duties on fuel in BiH, was adopted with 31 votes in favor, no votes against, and one abstention.

This was adopted as a measure to restrain the rise in fuel prices in our country, which reached record levels in the global market, but also the chain growth of other prices, which are also rising due to rising energy prices. Fuel should now be 35 to 40 pfennigs cheaper.

Previously, the amendments of the Croatian Democratic Union of BiH (HDZ) were adopted, according to which the changes are applied for 6 months, and after the expiration, they can be extended for another 3 months.

People are mad

In the introductory speech, the proposer of this proposal, delegate Sasa Magazinovic, said: The time left for the institutions to react is very short. That is why this is very urgent and it is the obligation of us as the Parliament and other institutions to use all the mechanisms at their disposal. This is one of the measures by which we will at least slightly protect the mental health of BiH citizens. People are mad, the ranks formed after one piece of news in the media, people are reminded of the period before the outbreak of the war. This measure will not solve economic problems, but it will reduce the price of fuel by 35 to 40 pfennigs and will send a message that we who are sitting here are responsible. There is support for this decision from the general public, Magazinovic pointed out.

Extreme times

Party of Democratic Progress (PDP) delegate Branislav Borenovic supported the law and emphasized that after the boycott, they decided to participate in the work of the BiH Parliament.

Extreme times require decisive and quick reactions and adequate measures. The most important decision that the Parliament will make today is the amendment of the Law on Excise Duties, and in that way, it indirectly helped not only the carriers but all the citizens to overcome this difficult economic crisis that has hit us.

That is why we decided to make an exception and participate in decision-making. Today, everything should be put aside, despite the political tensions that exist in our country. I hope that the House of Peoples will make such a decision, Borenovic concluded yesterday.

E.Dz.

Source: Avaz

Read the original post:

Proposal on the Abolition of Excise Duties adopted: Fuel is cheaper! Sarajevo Times - Sarajevo Times

The so-called smacking ban comes into force in Wales from March 21. It means that all types of physical punishment against a child are illegal. The law officially the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Act 2020 applies to anyone with responsibility for a child, even if it is someone caring for a child while their parents or guardian are absent. It also applies to those who are visiting Wales.

Anyone who physically punishes a child, be it through smacking, hitting, slapping and shaking or other physical assault, could risk being arrested and charged with assault. Scotland has already introduced the law and Wales is the second part of the UK to bring it in. The Welsh legislation removes a 160-year-old legal defence and provides children the same protection from assault as adults.

Currently hitting a child is common assault but if a parent or someone with parental responsibility for a child is charged with common assault against the child they could try to use the defence of reasonable punishment. From March 21, 2022, this defence will no longer be available in Wales meaning all types of physical punishment will be illegal.

Read more: Hundreds of pupils in Cardiff and Merthyr told to work from home again

The Welsh Government say that it will "protect children and their rights, to help give them the best start in life". It also brings Wales into line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The intended effect of the act is for to reduce the use and tolerance of the physical punishment of children in Wales.

There are lots of types of physical punishment which includes smacking, hitting, slapping, and shaking but it also includes anything where a child is punished using physical force.

The law will apply to everyone not just parents but anyone who is responsible for a child while the parents are absent. It will also apply if you are visiting Wales for example on holiday. Physical punishment is already illegal in schools, childrens homes, local authority foster care homes, and childcare settings.

Anyone who physically punishes a child will be breaking the law which means they risk being arrested or charged with assault and may get a criminal record which is the same for any criminal offence.

The Welsh Government advise that if you see a child being physically punished you should contact your local social services department and "you can also call the police in an emergency or if a child is in immediate danger".

Yes one opposition group is the Be Reasonable group. They say the ban will turn "good parents into criminals" and it should be for parents to decide whether to smack their children rather than the government. They further say "police and social workers will be flooded with trivial cases leaving them struggling to stop genuine child abuse" and "the current law already protects children from abuse", adding: "It needs to be enforced, not changed."

In 2019 two-thirds of the people who responded to plans to introduce a smacking ban didn't want it introduced in Wales. There were 650 responses to a public consultation with 562 from individuals, 29 from professionals, and 59 from organisations. You can read the sort of things people said in opposition here. One included: ""I would like to bring to your attention that smacking is not abuse or a crime but love and correction. In God's wisdom the bottom is a well-padded area for a firm but not too hard a smack."

See the rest here:

Smacking will become illegal in Wales next week everything you need to know about the new law - Wales Online