You could say its all Donald Trumps fault. His bad qualities his carelessness about facts, his obstinance about admitting error, his contempt for others views have turned out to be contagious, to the point that you could argue theyre more damaging to his opponents than to him.

This started early on, during the 2016 campaign. I will look at it at the time, Trump replied when asked during the final fall debate whether he would concede if he lost. Thats horrifying, Hillary Clinton replied, quite reasonably.

But maybe not so horrifying. Clinton, Obama administration intelligence, law enforcement appointees and Democrats generally spent more than two years advancing, without serious evidence, their Russian-collusion theory. Delegitimizing an election result, previously seen as horrifying, suddenly became OK.

Or perhaps this was a case of projection, the psychological term for assuming your adversary would do what you would do if you were in his or her shoes.

Projection may also be at work when Trumps political opponents emulate his habit of refusing to admit error and apologize for mistakes.

A prime example is New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who, like the president, grew up in one of the more verdant neighborhoods of Queens, the son of a man who rose from humble beginnings to considerable renown.

Cuomo has been hailed, not least by himself, as a hero for his response to COVID-19. But his judgment, as even CNNs Jake Tapper has argued, has not been flawless. His health commissioners March 25 order requiring nursing homes to admit patients infected with the virus clearly resulted in the deaths of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of elderly residents whose vulnerability was apparent early on.

As I argued in a mid-May column, this order (and similar ones in New Jersey and Michigan) may have been issued to keep hospital ICUs from being overwhelmed which seemed a possibility at the time but didnt happen.

But Cuomo, who defends lockdowns as worthwhile if they save just one life, insists he made no mistake. A better defense is to admit that no policy can prevent every virus death and that balancing risks of unknowable magnitude will always be subject to error.

Trumps carelessness with facts, his frequent criticisms of fake news and his cavalier remarks about making it easier for public figures to sue for libel made many of his opponents fear he would clamp down on freedom of speech.

Some liberals began describing themselves as The Resistance, summoning up visions of French resistance to the Nazis. Democracy dies in darkness, The Washington Post started proclaiming on its front page.

Perhaps projection was at work here as well, for the unhappy fact is that the parts of our society that are most firmly controlled and almost entirely peopled by those on the left half of the political spectrum are also the places where freedom of speech is most under attack: academia and journalism.

Speech codes and restrictions, as readers of my columns know, have become standard operating procedures in many, perhaps most, colleges and universities. They are justified on the theory that certain speech labeled, plausibly or not, as bigotry or racism is tantamount to violence.

Newsroom pressure resulted in the resignation of New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet last month and the resignation of editor Bari Weiss this week. As she wrote in a stinging resignation letter to publisher A. G. Sulzberger, A new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isnt a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times, she went on. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. No coincidence, perhaps, that its also the favorite medium of expression of Donald Trump.

A more notable journalist is resigning this week, Andrew Sullivan from New York Magazine. He is full of contempt for Trump, but he has been writing about the crudeness and certainty of the new orthodoxy that America is systematically racist, and a white-supremacist project, from the start, which is the central thesis of The New York Times 1619 Project.

This unorthodoxy surely hasnt gone unnoticed in the New York Magazine newsroom, though Sullivan will surely land on his feet. And hell go down in history with Jonathan Rauch as the pioneering advocates who literally changed a nations mind on same-sex marriage.

Rauch and Weiss are among the 150 signers of the Harpers Magazine letter endorsing the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society. The letter starts with a rote description of Donald Trump as a real threat to democracy, but its clear thrust is that the real threat to free exchange today is not Trump but his perhaps-projecting opponents.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more here:

Trump opponents' worst traits are Trump's fault | News, Sports, Jobs - Minot Daily News

To the Editor:

Re More Heroes, Fewer Traitors (editorial, July 12):

By presenting a sample of true American heroes as suggestions for new names for Army bases now bearing the names of Confederates, you showed the breadth of our countrys people who have served us with skill and honor.

Any of them would be inspirations for todays soldiers as well as yesterdays stationed at any of those bases. Renaming bases is just one small step toward a more perfect union that we can take together.

Jim EngelkingGolden, Colo.

To the Editor:

I and nearly all of my friends agree that the base names should be changed. But your editorial shows little understanding of Southerners and empathy with those who so often feel the condescension of people in the Northeast and in the liberal media.

That is epitomized by your recommendation of Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who is best remembered by most in the South not for setting aside land for settlement by former slaves but for his scorched-earth policies.

Changing the names is an opportunity for reconciliation, not further division.

Pete CornishLittle Rock, Ark.

To the Editor:

Re How Mandatory Minimums Are Weaponized, by Sandeep Dhaliwal (Op-Ed, July 6):

The enactment of mandatory minimum sentences has been a nightmare of unfairness. It has resulted in a substantial reduction of trials. The prosecutor threatens to charge a crime that requires a minimum mandatory sentence unless the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser crime. This places the power to determine the sentence in those cases in the hands of the prosecutor, where it does not belong.

A mandatory minimum sentence means that the judge must impose that sentence, no matter what the judge thinks of the fairness of that sentence. Unlike the legislators who mandated the sentence, the judge knows the actual facts of the case and the background of the defendant. The judge knows these facts from the trial she presided over or the plea she took, from the probation departments sentencing reports and from the submissions of the prosecutor and the defense.

There is simply no valid reason for the existence of mandatory minimum sentences. There is no reason to doubt and every reason to trust sentencing judges to do the right thing because only they and not the legislators who enacted the mandatory minimum sentences have all the facts in each case necessary to make the fairest sentencing decision.

Irwin RochmanWater Mill, N.Y.The writer is a criminal defense lawyer and a former prosecutor.

Here is the original post:

Renaming the Army Bases - The New York Times

Peter Beinart, an influential liberal commentator on Israel and Zionism, poked a very large stick into a hornets nest this month by admitting he had finally abandoned his long-cherished commitment to a two-state solution.

Variously described as the pope of liberal Zionism and a bellwether for the American Jewish community, Beinart broke ranks in two essays. Writing in the New York Times and in Jewish Currents magazine, he embraced the idea of equality for all - Israelis and Palestinians.

Recognition of the structural racism towards these 1.8 million Palestinian citizens... was a clear sign that he had begun poking into the dark recesses of Zionism

Beinart concluded: The painful truth is that the project to which liberal Zionists like myself have devoted ourselves for decades - a state for Palestinians separated from a state for Jews - has failed It is time for liberal Zionists to abandon the goal of Jewish-Palestinian separation and embrace the goal of Jewish-Palestinian equality.

Similarly, the NYT article was headlined: I no longer believe in a Jewish state. Beinarts main point - that a commitment to Israel is now entirely incompatible with a commitment to equality for the regions inhabitants - is a potential hammer blow to the delusions of liberal Jews in the United States.

His declaration is the apparent culmination of a long intellectual and emotional journey Beinart has conducted in the public eye. It's a journey many American liberal Jews have taken with him.

Once the darling of the war-mongering liberal establishment in Washington, he supported the illegal attack on Iraq in 2003. Three years later, he wrote a largely unrepentant book titled The Good Fight: Why Liberals - and Only Liberals - Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.

There is no heavyweight publication in the US that has not hosted his thoughts. Foreign Policy magazine ranked him in the top 100 global thinkers in 2012.

Why Peter Beinart's call for a one-state solution misses the mark

But his infatuation with Israel and Zionism has been souring for years. A decade ago, he published a seminal essay on how young American Jews were increasingly alienated from their main leadership organisations, which he criticised for worshipping at the altar of Israel even as Israeli governments lurched ever further rightwards. His argument later formed the basis of a book, The Crisis of Zionism.

The tensions he articulated finally exploded into physical confrontation in 2018, when he was detained at Israels main airport and nearly denied entry based on his political views.

Beinart has not only written caustically about the occupation - a fairly comfortable deflection for most liberal Zionists - but has also increasingly turned his attention to Israels behaviour towards its large Palestinian minority, one in five of the population.

Recognition of the structural racism towards these 1.8 million Palestinian citizens, a group whose identity is usually glossed over as Israeli Arabs, was a clear sign that he had begun poking into the dark recesses of Zionism, areas from which most of his colleagues shied away.

Beinarts two essays have been greeted with hesitancy by some of those who might be considered natural allies.

Understandably, some Palestinians find reason to distrust Beinarts continuing description of himself as a Zionist, even if now a cultural rather than political one. They also resent a continuing western colonial mentality that very belatedly takes an interest in equality for Palestinians only because a prominent liberal Jew adopts the cause.

Beinarts language is problematic for many Palestinians too. Not least, he frames the issue as between Palestinians and Jews, implying that Jews everywhere still have a colonial claim on the historic lands of Palestine, rather than those who live there today as Israelis.

Similarly, among many anti-Zionists, there is disappointment that Beinart did not go further and explicitly prescribe a single democratic state of the kind currently being advanced in the region by small but growing numbers of Israelis and Palestinians.

But the importance of Beinarts intervention lies elsewhere. The American is not the first prominent Jewish figure to publicly turn his back on the idea of a Jewish state. Notably, the late historian Tony Judt did the same - to much uproar - in a 2003 essay published by the New York Review of Books. He called Israel an anachronism.

The most fundamental tenet of liberal Zionism - that a Jewish state is necessary, verging on sacred - is already being tested to the breaking point

But Judt had been chiefly associated with his contributions to understanding European history, not Zionism or Israel. And his essay arrived at a very different historical moment, when Israelis and Jews overseas were growing more entrenched in their Zionism. The Oslo Accords had fizzled into irrelevance at the height of a Palestinian uprising.

Beinarts articles have landed at a problematic time for his main audience. The most fundamental tenet of liberal Zionism - that a Jewish state is necessary, verging on sacred - is already being tested to the breaking point.

The trigger for the articles is the very tangible threat from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus government, backed by the Trump White House, to annex swaths of the West Bank.

The significance of Netanyahus position on annexation, as Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard has noted, depends not simply on whether annexation is realised on the ground, now or later. The declaration itself crosses a Rubicon.

Netanyahu and the right-wing faction who now control Israel unchallenged have made it explicit that they do not consider the occupation to be a temporary arrangement that will eventually be resolved in peace talks.

Why are Israel's allies suddenly concerned about its latest annexation?

The intent to annex, whether or not the US allows such a move, now taints everything Israel does in the occupied territories. It proves beyond any doubt - even to liberal Jews who have been living in deep denial - that Israels goal is to permanently seize the occupied territories.

That, in turn, means that Israel has only two possible approaches to the Palestinian populations living in those territories as long as it denies them equality: It can either carry out ethnic cleansing operations to expel them, or rule over them in a formal, explicit arrangement of apartheid. That may not constitute much of a tangible difference on the ground, but it marks a legal sea change.

Occupation, however ugly, is not in breach of international law, though actions related to it, such as settlement-building, may be. This allowed many liberal Jews, such as Beinart, a small comfort blanket that they have clung to tightly for decades.

When challenged about Israels behaviour, they could always claim that the occupation would one day end, that peace talks were around the corner, that partition was possible if only Palestinians were willing to compromise a little more.

But with his annexation plan, Netanyhu ripped that comfort blanket out of their clutches and tore it to shreds. Ethnic cleansing and apartheid are both crimes against humanity. No ifs, no buts. As Sfard points out: Once Israel began officially striving for annexation - that is, for perpetuating its rule by force - it lost this meagrealibi.

Sfard makes a further important legal observation in a report written for the human rights group Yesh Din. If Israel chooses to institute an apartheid regime in parts of the occupied West Bank - either formally or through creeping legal annexation, as it is doing now - that regime does not end at the West Banks borders. It would mean that the Israeli regime in its entirety is an apartheid regime. That Israel is an Apartheid state.

Of course, one would have to be blind not to have understood that this was where political Zionism was always heading - even more so after the 1967 war, when Israels actions disclosed that it had no intention of returning the Palestinian territories it had seized.

But the liberal Zionist condition was precisely one of willful blindness. It shut its eyes tight and saw no evil, even as Israel debased Palestinian life there for more than half a century. Looking back, Beinart recognises his own self-inflicted credulousness. In practice, Israel annexed the West Bank long ago, he writes in the New York Times.

In his two articles, Beinart denies liberal Jews the one path still available to them to rationalise Palestinian oppression. He argues that those determined to support a Jewish state, whatever it does, are projecting their own unresolved, post-Holocaust fears onto Palestinians.

In the Zionist imagination, according to Beinart, Palestinians have been reinvented as heirs to the Nazis. As a result, most Jews have been manipulated into framing Israels settler-colonialism in zero-sum terms - as a life-or-death battle. In that way, they have been able to excuse Israels perpetual abuse of Palestinians.

Or as Beinart puts it: Through a historical sleight of hand that turns Palestinians into Nazis, fear of annihilation has come to define what it means to be an authentic Jew. He adds that Jewish trauma, not Palestinian behaviour, has ended in the depiction of Palestinians as compulsive Jew-haters.

Annexation has forced Beinart to confront that trauma and move beyond it. Perhaps not surprisingly, most of Israels supporters have been reluctant to follow suit or discard their comforting illusions. Some are throwing tantrums, others sulking in the corner.

The Zionist right and mainstream have described Beinart as a traitor, a self-hating Jew, and a collaborator with Palestinian terrorism. David Weinberg of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security called Beinart a shill for Israels enemies who secretes poison.

The view of Israeli Jews will change, just as white South Africans' did, when they suffer a harsher international environment and the resulting cost-benefit calculus has to be adjusted

Dan Shapiro, a former US ambassador to Israel, described Beinarts advocacy of equality as a disaster in the making, while Dani Dayan, Israels consul general in New York, accused Beinart of wanting Israel to drop dead.

The liberal Zionist establishment has been no less discomfited. Aaron David Miller, a former US Middle East envoy, warned that Beinarts prescription was an illusion tethered to a fantasy wrapped in an impossibility.

And Beinarts friend, Jeremy Ben Ami, head of the two-state lobby group J Street, snatched back the ragged remains of the comfort blanket, arguing that peace talks would be revived eventually. In a standard Zionist deflection, Ben Ami added that Israel was no different from the US in being far from perfect.

But to understand how quickly liberal Zionist reasoning may crumble, it is worth focusing on a critique of Beinarts articles by the Israeli newspaper Haaretzs in-house liberal Zionist, Anshel Pfeffer.

Pfeffer makes two highly unconvincing arguments to evade Beinarts logic. Firstly, he claims that a one-state solution - of any variety - is impossible because there is no support for it among Palestinians and Israelis. It is, he argues, a conceit Beinart has absorbed from Jews and Palestinians in the US.

Lets overlook Pfeffers obvious mistake in ignoring the fact that a single state already exists - a Greater Israel in which Palestinians have been living for decades under a highly belligerent system of apartheid, laced with creeping ethnic cleansing. Still, his claims about where Israeli and Palestinian public opinion currently lies are entirely misleading, as is his assumption about how Beinarts attack on liberal Zionism may impact regional possibilities.

Israel's annexation plan is the Nakba revisited

The views of Palestinians in the occupied territories (Pfeffer, of course, ignores the views of refugees) have been undergoing radical and rapid change. Support for the two-state solution has collapsed. This is far from surprising, given the current political context.

Among Palestinians, there are signs of exasperation and a mirroring of Israeli Jewish intransigence. In one recent poll, a majority of Palestinian respondents demanded a return of all of historic Palestine. What can be inferred from this result is probably not much more than the human tendency to put on a brave show when faced with a highly acquisitive bully.

In fact, increasingly Palestinians understand that, if they want to end the occupation and apartheid, they will need to overthrow their compromised leaders in the Palestinian Authority (PA), effectively Israels local security contractor. It is an uprising against the PA, not polls, that will seal the fate of the two-state solution. What may inspire Palestinians to take on the risk of a major confrontation with their leaders?

A part will be played, however small, by Palestinians understanding of how a shift from a struggle for statehood to a struggle for equal rights in one state will be received abroad. Liberal Jewish opinion in the US will be critical in changing such perceptions - and Beinart has just placed himself at the heart of that debate.

Meanwhile, a majority of Israeli Jews support either Greater Israel or an end-of-the-rainbow two-state solution, one in which Palestinians are denied any meaningful sovereignty.They do so for good reason, because either option perpetuates the status quo of a single state in which they prosper at a heavy cost to Palestinians. The bogus two-state solution privileges them, just as bantustans once did white South Africans.

The view of Israeli Jews will change, just as white South Africans did, when they suffer a harsher international environment and the resulting cost-benefit calculus has to be adjusted.

In that sense, the issue isnt what Israeli Jews think now, when they are endlessly indulged, but what Israels sponsors - chiefly the US - eventually demand. That is why Beinarts influence on the thinking of liberal American Jews cannot be discounted. Long term, what they insist on may prove critically important.

That was why Beinarts harshest critics, in attacking his two essays, also warned of the current direction of travel.

Jonathan Tobin, editor of the Jewish News Syndicate, argued that Beinarts views were indicative of the crisis of faith within much of American Jewry. Weinberg described the two essays as frightening because they charted liberal Jews intellectual journey towards anti-Zionism and self-immolation.

Both understand that, if liberal Jews abandon Zionism, one leg of the Israeli stool will be gone.

The other problem Pfeffer inadvertently highlights with liberal Zionism is contained in his mocking dismissal of Beinarts claim that the justification for a Jewish home needs to be rooted in morality.

Pfeffer laughs this off as utopianism, arguing instead that Israels existence has always depended on what he vaguely terms pragmatism. What he means, once the euphemism is stripped out, is that Israel has always pursued a policy of might is right.

Beinart is doubtless ahead of most liberal Jews in the US in rejecting Israel as a Jewish state. But it would be foolish indeed to imagine that there are not many others already contemplating following in his footsteps

But Pfeffers suggestion that Israel does not also need to shape a moral narrative about its actions - even if that narrative bears no relation to reality - is patently implausible.

Israel has not relied solely on its own might. It has needed the patronage of western states to help it diplomatically, financially and militarily. And their enthusiastic support has depended on domestic perceptions of Israel as a moral agent.

Israel understands this only too well. It has presented itself as a light unto the nations, a state that redeemed a barren land, and one that has the most moral army in the world. Those are all moral claims on western support.

Beinart has demonstrated that the moral discourse for Israel is a lost cause. And for that reason, Israels chief allies now are states led by covert, and sometimes overt, antisemites and proud authoritarians.

Beinart is doubtless ahead of most liberal Jews in the US in rejecting Israel as a Jewish state. But it would be foolish indeed to imagine that there are not many others already contemplating following in his footsteps.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

See more here:

Liberal Zionism begins to make the journey towards a one-state solution - Middle East Eye

So far, 2020 has been quite the year.

President Donald Trump continually attracts news coverage, until even he was upstaged by the novel coronavirus departure from China. Black Lives Matter rose up, protestors burned police precincts, and defund the police became a politically-viable policy position.

Confederate monuments have been (rightly) removed. But how were murder hornets only a thing for a week? And, not to be outdone, police in Tennessee have warned about meth-gators. That latter one may be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but Japanese bears have undisputedly learned to use nunchucks.

Eventful is probably an understatement.

With all that and more going on, you may have not seen what happened in Washington with Native Americans. No, Im not talking about the football team formerly known as the Redskins.

Im talking about McGirt v. Oklahoma.

Plenty of popular ink has been spilled surrounding some of the Supreme Courts other cases this past term. Subpoenas over Trumps records created rancor, even though they had seven justices including Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority. Abortion cases garnered their fair share of political attention.

But McGirt v. Oklahoma is a pretty compelling story. Jimcy McGirt was a convicted sex offender in Oklahoma. However, he is a member of the Seminole Nation, so he claimed the state could not legally prosecute him. In 1885, Congress passed a law known as the Major Crimes Act that said any Indians committing certain crimes within the Indian country must be tried in federal court.

Compelling background, right?

The wrinkle for McGirt concerned the definition of Indian country. Our nations history with Native Americans is complex, to say the least.

Going back to 1832, Congress made a treaty with the Creek Nation. The United States received the land of the Creeks east of the Mississippi while guaranteeing them their lands to the west. Those lands are now in Oklahoma.

Ill jump to the punchline. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court of the United States held that 19 million acres essentially the entire eastern half of Oklahoma remained Indian country for the Creek Nation. So McGirt could not legally be tried by the state of Oklahoma; federal authorities would now need to charge him.

Gorsuch wrote, essentially, that Congress had legally ratified the treaty and would be held to it. If they wish to change it or the underlying statute, that is their prerogative, but they must actively do so. A valid treaty, however old, deserves enforcement.

It is also telling that Gorsuch was the author of the LGBT cases this term. Again, he wrote that Congress duly-enacted statutory text should be applied. Which led to the liberal result.

This is great perspective to keep as we head towards what seems as if it will be the worst part of 2020: the general election. Even with the primary over, the onslaught of ads attacking Susan Collins and bolstering Sara Gideon has not abated. And outside groups will undoubtedly try to make the Supreme Court painfully political in their attempt to win a Senate seat.

But it is the legislative branch of government which makes law. Gorsuch confirmed by Sen. Collins, attacked by Gideon recognized that. If Congress passes a bad law, so be it; that is their prerogative. Yet it is not for the courts to override the foolishness of legislators, but rather incumbent on legislatures to go to work and attempt to make better laws.

Although this process may be slow, Gorsuch reminds us unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law.

The same should hold true as we approach November. Political acts, performed vigorously through the remainder of election season, will hopefully not turn the Supreme Court into a mere political battleground. If they do, that will be the worst outcome of this crazy year.

Michael Cianchette is a Navy reservist who served in Afghanistan and in-house counsel to a number of businesses in southern Maine. He was a chief counsel to former Gov. Paul LePage.

Follow this link:

Murder hornets, unexpected court rulings and nasty politics: 2020 has it all - Bangor Daily News

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

Those are the transcendent words that begin the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson. But was he a true American hero? Does he deserve the major monument building erected in his honor and superbly visible to all as they cross the Potomac into Washington, D.C.?

Let us consider some facts that can be assembled about the man. He owned more than 600 people over the course of his life and profited directly from the institution of slavery. It is also contended, with convincing evidence, that he fathered a number of children with one of those slaves.

Just stopping here, we might conclude that he was no hero, but just another enslaving despot who should have the historical cloak of heroism snatched from his back. But if we look closer if we look broadly with an eye that is not only critical but discerning and circumspect a singular conclusion becomes more difficult.

At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slaverys abolition. In a draft of the Virginia Constitution (actually the second draft he submitted on June 13, 1776) he would have prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans.

Then again, on June 18, 1779, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories. Admittedly, in a sea of complacency, he always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process.

Abolition would be stymied until slave owners consented to free their human property, together, in a large-scale, orchestrated act of emancipation. To Jefferson, it was contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition by forcing planters to free their slaves. He knew that realistically, it would never happen.

But in a preserved letter to Thomas Cooper on Sept. 10, 1814, he continued to describe slavery as a moral depravity and a hideous blot, and in another to William Short on Sept. 8, 1823, he voiced the opinion that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the American nation.

Jefferson consistently espoused the opinion that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, views that were radically liberal in a world of Southern states where slave labor was the norm and reality was that slavery was becoming more economically entrenched. The slave population in Virginia skyrocketed from 292,627 in 1790 to 469,757 in 1830.

Jefferson had hoped that the slave trade would weaken, and slavery would come to an end. Instead, slavery became more widespread and profitable. In an attempt to erode Virginians support for slavery, he discouraged the cultivation of crops heavily dependent on slave labor, specifically tobacco, and encouraged the introduction of crops that needed less field labor, such as wheat, sugar maples, short-grained rice, olive trees and wine grapes. But by the 1800s, Virginias most valuable economic asset was neither crops nor land but slave labor.

Jeffersons belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed. From the mid-1770s until his death, he advocated the same plan of emancipation. First, the trans-Atlantic slave trade would be abolished. Second, slaveowners would improve slaverys most violent features, by bettering Jefferson used the term ameliorating living conditions and moderating physical punishment. Third, all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free, followed by total abolition.

Like others of his day, he supported the removal of newly freed slaves to the lands of their origin. However, the unintended effect of his plan was that the goal of improving slavery, as a step toward ending it, was used as an argument for its perpetuation. Pro-slavery advocates after Jeffersons death argued that if slavery could be improved, abolition was unnecessary.

Jefferson had written that maintaining slavery was like holding a wolf by the ear. We can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. He was concerned that his cherished federal union, the worlds first democratic experiment, would be destroyed by slavery.

To emancipate all slaves, immediately, on American soil, Jefferson feared, could result in a large-scale race conflict that could be as brutal and deadly as the slave revolt in Haiti in 1791. But he also believed that to keep slaves in bondage, with part of America in favor of abolition and part of America in favor of perpetuating slavery, could only result in a civil war. It did, and the result was more young American deaths than any other war we have ever fought.

Our forefathers should have listened to him early on from the beginning. He was right. I submit that his monuments should stand.

Don Tortorice is a former attorney and professor at the Law School of the College of William and Mary.

Read the original post:

Column: Should Slave Owner Jefferson Be a Hero? - Southern Pines Pilot

Supreme Court(Photo: Getty Images)

In a decision hailed as a landmark in federal Indian law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that much of Oklahomas tribal lands had never been rescinded, and that the state had no criminal jurisdictionover those lands.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the courts four liberal justices in the 5-4 decision and wrote the opinionfor the case, McGirt v. Oklahoma.

The ruling primarily affects who gets to prosecute tribal members for serious crimes on tribal lands, and it won't affect non-Indian prosecutions by tribes or property ownership. However, some Indian law experts believe the ruling may lead to more civil and regulatory oversight by tribal governments on land within historic reservation boundaries.

And it's unclear yet whether the case can be used by some Arizona tribes to reclaim sovereignty over lands that were removed from original reservation boundaries.

Robert J. Miller, a law professor at the Sandra Day OConnor College of Laws Indian Legal Program in Arizona State University, said language holds the key to determining if any Arizona tribal nations are eligible to pursue a similar remedy."What did Congress say?" he said. "Ifit did not expressly take away the tribe's reservation or change its borders, then things that happen later do not."

The case was brought by Jimcy McGirt, a citizen of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma in east-central Oklahoma. McGirt was convicted in state court on rape charges and sentenced to life in prison. The crime was committed within the reservation lands that had been established for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in 1832. A subsequent treaty enacted in 1866 reduced the Creek land base to its current 3-million-acre historical boundary, but also compensated the tribe for the lostlands. Serious crimes committed by American Indians on tribal lands come underfederal jurisdiction through the Major Crimes Act.

The state of Oklahoma argued in part that since the lands had been allotted in small parcels to individual Native citizens through an 1887 law known as the Dawes Act, the trust land status of the reservation had been rescinded, and the land should now be considered subject to state law.

However, McGirts attorney, Ian Gershengorn, countered that since the law authorizing the allotments never actually removed reservation (also known as trust land) status from those lands, federal and not state courts had jurisdiction over the case.

The Supreme Court agreed. On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise, Gorsuch wrote. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever.

The case, he wrote, asked the Supreme Court whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.

Gorsuch is versed in federal Indian law, and his appointment in 2017 was hailed by many Indian law experts and tribal nations as a voice for understanding and applying the law to the governments interactions with tribes. Hes known as an originalist or, as one legal blog notes, Gorsuch believes the U.S. Constitution should be construed as it was by its original drafters. Hes also the only Westerner on the court.

Miller said that the ruling affects only the Creek treaty lands and the nearly 1.1 million people living within the historic Creek boundary line.Miller is an enrolled citizen of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe in far northeastern Oklahoma, which also was part of the allotment act era.

However, if all the so-calledFive Civilized Tribes, which also include the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Seminole nations with lands that were placed into trust in the 19th century choose to pursue similar remedies, some 1.8 million residents would be affected. AndMiller said that others of the 39 tribes in Oklahomamay have similar standing to reassert sovereignty over their historic reservation boundaries.

In the second paragraph of the decision, Gorsuch states the issue the court is answering, Miller said. The Supremes are very specific and careful about the exact question they are addressing in appeals; it is only about criminal jurisdiction.

Indian nations don't have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians except for narrowly-defined circumstances, most notably when a tribal court obtains authorization from the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute domestic violence suspects under the Violence Against Women Act.

Also, a document shared by the Native American Rights Fund and the Native American Journalists Association said that land ownership in the historic Creek lands would not beaffected by the ruling.

But Miller also said that there could be some changes underway in the historic Creek lands. For example, tribal members may no longer be subject to state taxation if they live and work within the boundaries, he said. Non-Indians who own land within the Creek Nation may find that the tribe now has some zoning or regulatory jurisdiction. They might be taken to tribal court for civil cases.

Miller said that McGirt could now be prosecuted by the federal government, given the heinous nature of his crime, which involved raping a 4-year-old girl."Federal criminal penalties are often harsher than state ones. So Mr. McGirt or future Indian defendants sometimes face higher criminal sentences because of the federal system," Miller said. The Creek Nation could also prosecute McGirt, but since tribes can only sentence a convicted person to no more than 1 year in jail, the feds would be the logical court totake the case, he said.

Miller said that the 21 Indian reservations in Arizona may or may not be affected by the decision. "If Congress did the removing [of tribal lands], it's valid," he said. "Congress has the power to abrogate Indian treaties and U.S. treaties with foreign governments." However, Miller said Congress must say "expressly" that a reservation is diminished, or its lands reduced, or disestablished, or returned to federal, state or local control, as several other cases specify.

If a tribe were to determine that parts of its lands were taken without express congressional statement and some kind of payment for those lands, a suit could be brought to remedy that, Miller said.

At least one Arizona tribe, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, has had their original trust lands reduced.

Their lands werediminishedfive times between 1872 and 1902 by a series of presidential actions. This included oneof themost sacred places to Apache people.Dzi Nchaa S'an, known now as Mount Graham, was placed under public domain in 1873 and is now part of Coronado National Forest.

Miller comparedGorsuch's written opinion to "judicial poetry," and said that the justice has been what Native rights organizations like the National Congress of American Indians hoped for;"Gorsuch knows some Indian law and does not hesitate to vote for tribal positions even when conservatives would probably argue that he has turned into a liberal."

Debra Utacia Krol covers Indigenous issues atthe intersection of climate, culture and commerce in Arizona and the Southwest. Reach the reporter at debra.krol@AZCentral.com or at 602-444-8490. Follow her on Twitter at @debkrol.

Coverage of tribal issues at the intersection of climate, culture and commerce is supported by the Catena Foundation and the Water FunderInitiative.

Support local journalism. Subscribe to azcentral.com today.

Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2020/07/11/supreme-court-ruling-expanded-tribal-land-what-does-mean-arizona/5410782002/

More:

Supreme Court ruling expanded tribal land. What does that mean for Arizona? - AZCentral

Within one family, both the mother and daughter had important roles to advocate for the people they represented in their seats of power: The mother, Magdalena (Carpenter) Birch, advocated figuratively, and the daughter, Jocelyn (Birch) Burdick, did so literally.

Magdalena, Baums niece, is said to have been the inspiration for Dorothy in her uncles classic childrens book. Jocelyn Burdick was a U.S. Senator, the first woman to represent North Dakota in the Senate.

Magdalena (Carpenter) Birch. Special to The Forum

"The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" was published in May 1900 and proved to be very popular, selling out within weeks of its publication. The text of the book was then adapted into a theatrical musical and it premiered at the Chicago Grand Opera House on June 16, 1902.

Because of its huge success, the musical was moved to the Majestic Theater on Broadway on Jan. 21, 1903, where it ran for 293 performances. The original cast then went on traveling tours across the U.S.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Meanwhile, life was changing for Magdalenas family. Dry summers, severe winters and poor grain prices had forced the Carpenters off of their land. In 1899, they moved their house off of the farm and into Edgeley, N.D., where her father, James, started a dray line business, transporting goods within the town. In 1901, the Carpenters moved to Fargo, and James became an insurance salesman.

Despite his new fame and fortune, Baum continued to remember the Carpenters. This was evidenced during the early part of the new century when Baum, under the pseudonym Laura Bancroft, began publishing "The Twinkle Tales." Originally, there were six individual stories, each published in a booklet, centering on the adventures of Twinkle in Edgeley that were reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland.

Twinkle was an inquisitive farm girl who was constantly swept away into the world of enchantment. She and her friend, Chubbins, were miniaturized by a prairie dog magician and then entered the world of sugar people. In 1906, these six stories were combined into a book titled "The Twinkle Tales," which was followed by "Policeman Bluejay" in 1907 and "Babes in Birdland" and "Twinkle and Chubbins" in 1911.

With his success as a writer established, a new opportunity was opening up that Baum hoped to capitalize on motion pictures. In 1908, he wrote, produced and starred in the two-hour movie "The Fairylogue and Radio-Plays." Even though it received good reviews, it did not have adequate funding and closed after appearing in only two cities.

Undeterred, he and his wife, Maud, moved from Chicago to Hollywood in 1910 and bought a home that he named Ozcot. For the next six years, Baum produced eight movies based on his writing, and on May 5, 1919, he died at his home in Hollywood.

Magdalena attended public schools in Fargo and went to college at the University of Wisconsin, graduating in 1913. She then taught school in Iowa and South Dakota before marrying Albert Birch on Nov. 20, 1913. Albert, who was originally from Minto, N.D., was also a graduate of the University of Wisconsin, where he majored in civil engineering.

The newlyweds relocated to Great Falls, Mont., and Albert was employed as an engineering contractor. The couple later moved to Fargo and Albert joined his father, Steven Birch, in establishing a construction firm, S. Birch and Son. When Steven died in 1942, Albert became president of the company and Magdalena became vice president, a position she held until her death on Oct. 9, 1948.

Albert and Magdalena Birch raised two daughters, Jocelyn and Helen. Jocelyn, who was born on Feb. 6, 1922, was named in honor of her great-grandmother, Matilda Joslyn Gage. Jocelyn grew up in Fargo, but also spent considerable time living with her aunt, Maud Baum, in Hollywood.

Following her graduation from Central High School in Fargo, Jocelyn attended Principia College, a private liberal arts college in Elsah, Ill. Two years later, she transferred to Northwestern University, in Evanston, Ill., and graduated in 1943 with a degree in speech.

Jocelyn (Birch) Burdick. Special to The Forum

Jocelyn returned to Fargo and worked as a radio announcer and disc jockey for the KVOX radio station. Jocelyn married Kenneth Peterson in 1948, but 10 years later, he suffered a fatal heart attack.

On July 7, 1960, she married Quentin Burdick, who had been elected U.S. Senator one week earlier. Quentin was reelected to the Senate five times, and when he died in office on Sept. 8, 1992, North Dakota Gov. George Sinner appointed Jocelyn to fill his vacancy four days later, which made her the first woman to serve as a U.S. Senator from the state of North Dakota.

Jocelyn finished out her husbands term, which lasted until Dec. 14, 1992, and then returned to her home in Fargo, where she remained active in politics. On April 6, 2019, she again made news when, with the death of Fritz Hollings from South Carolina, she became the oldest living former U.S. Senator. Jocelyn died on Dec. 26, 2019.

In 1964, historians began to look at "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" in a new light. Similar to Jonathan Swifts "Gullivers Travels," it is a childrens book that is also believed to be a satirical take on the political, social and economic situation of the time.

While Baum was a newspaperman in Aberdeen, S.D., during the late 1880s and early 1890s, many farmers lost their land because of the low prices they received for their produce and the severe drought that occurred at the same time. Baum embraced populism, a political movement that opposed the tactics of the railroads, bankers, millers and elevator owners who exploited the small farmers.

Many historians saw similarities between the characters in "Oz" and the groups of people in the Midwest. The Wicked Witch of the East represented the eastern industrialists and the bankers who controlled the people (the Munchkins). The Wicked Witch of the West represented the drought that melted away after Dorothy threw a bucket of water on her.

The Scarecrow was based on the wise but exploited Midwestern farmer, and the Tin Woodman was the dehumanized industrial worker. The Cowardly Lion represented William Jennings Bryan, who roared about the way the people were treated, but lacked the courage to do anything about it. The Wizard represented the presidents of the time who operated out of Washington, D.C. (Emerald City).

Who did Dorothy represent? Some wrote that she represented the American people: level-headed, innocent and naive, but when determined, capable of defeating the evil forces around her.

Baums description of Dorothy Gales home is that of Magdalena Carpenters home. Dorothy lived on a farm with her aunt and uncle, who were poor. Dorothys simple wood-frame home on the gray prairie very closely paralleled the Carpenter home as Magdalena described it to her daughter, Jocelyn Burdick.

The bleak setting near Edgeley was well-experienced by Baum, who was a frequent guest at the Carpenters' farmstead. In 1899, the Carpenters were forced to give up their farm, one year before the publication of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz."

If Magdalena indeed was the inspiration for Dorothy, isnt it ironic that, 90 years later Magdalena Carpenters daughter, Jocelyn Burdick, represented North Dakota Munchkins in Emerald City?

ARCHIVE: "Did You Know That" columns

Did You Know That is written by Curt Eriksmoen and edited by Jan Eriksmoen of Fargo. Send your comments, corrections, or suggestions for columns to the Eriksmoens at cjeriksmoen@cableone.net.

Curt Eriksmoen, Did You Know That? columnist

Read this article:

Eriksmoen: North Dakota mother and daughter represented people they cared about in 'Wizard of Oz' and the real-life Emerald City - Grand Forks Herald

Beatrice Mompremier gave herself about a week of disappointment before getting back to the basketball grind.

Mompremier was drafted in the second round by the Los Angeles Sparks on April 17 and was cut a little over a month later (May 26) before WNBA teams even had training camps.

"It was a downer for me not to get an opportunity to actually try out," Mompremier said. "My high school coach that I was working out with (Sam Baumgarten from Miami High in Florida) was like, 'yourtime will come. Just continue working.'"

Mompremier's time came a little over a month later. The Connecticut Sun needed to add post depth when All-Star Jonquel Jones announced on June 22 that she was opting out of this season due to concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Sun signed Mompremier the next day.

"I had an overseas contract that I had recently signed (with CMB Cargo UNI Gyor in Gyor, Hungary)," Mompremier said. "Then a couple of days later, I got the call from (Sun head coach and general manager) Curt Miller. He said I had an opportunity to come in if I'm interested in playing this summer, and I was, and now I'm here and excited about that."

Mompremier, a 6-foot-4 post, averaged 16.82 points and 9.82 rebounds in 17 games during her redshirt senior year at Miami(she missed 13 games due to an acute foot injury). She was the 2019-20 ACC Preseason Player of the year afterranking ninth in Division I in rebounding (12.2 rpg) and fifth in double-doubles (25) during her junior year. She was also a finalist during her final two seasons for the Lisa Leslie Award, awarded to the best center in women's basketball.

She transferred to Miami after playing for Baylor as a freshman and sophomore.

"I feel like I can bring defense, rebounding and blocking shots," Mompremier said. "I think I'm capable of doing whatever the team needs me to do in order for us to win."

Mompremier was one of many players who never got a chance to compete for roster spots at training camps. Teams had to cut their rosters down to a maximum of 12 players on May 26 so that the league could start paying players on June 1.

Shes an underrated offensive player, Miller said. She can really drive it from the elbows. She can be creative from the short corners as a five (center).

Shes typically going up against either Alyssa (Thomas) or Bri (Brionna Jones at practices), and thats not easy for a seasoned pro. Shes just got to make the quick adjustment to the physicality that this level has.

New players such as Mompremier have little time to adjust because of the WNBA's compacted season, which will be held on the campus of IMG Academy in Bradenton, Fla. Every team except the Indiana Fever arrived last Monday and went into quarantine. Those teams started training camp last Friday.

The regular season starts July 25. The Sun play their first game the next day against the Minnesota Lynx at noon.

Mompremier will be busy off-the-court, too,as she's taking online courses to earn a masters degreein liberal arts from Miami. She graduated in December with a degree in economics, and while she's not certain what she'd like to do after basketball, she thinks it might be social work.

"I could take year off and come back and do it," Mompremier said about getting her masters. "I honestly know myself and if don't get it done now, I would probably never come back and finish it off. And I only have one more semester. It's one more semester. ... Why not get my masters done?

"Helping kids. ... being in that system where I go into people's homes and just make sure everything is okay, stuff like that, that's what interests me more than anything else."

n.griffen@theday.com

View post:

Mompremier happy to land with Sun - News from southeastern Connecticut - theday.com

The People, No

The People, No

Photo: Metropolitan, Handout

The People, No

The People, No

Book World: How elites distorted the meaning of populism

The People, No: A Brief History of Anti-Populism

By Thomas Frank

Metropolitan. 307 pp. $26.99

---

If one were to try to pinpoint the birthplace of populism, eastern Kansas - home to the honest-to-God geographical center of the U.S.A. - would be a solid bet, historically and metaphorically. During the drought-ridden years of the 1880s and 1890s, movements such as the Farmer's Alliance flourished there, promoting a vision of government that supported the interests of America's farmers over those of bankers, corporations and railroads. In the city of Winfield, the radical American Nonconformist and Kansas Industrial Liberator newspaper was the first to use the term "populist" in print, referring to the new People's Party formed in 1891 to push collective bargaining, a graduated income tax and other people-centered policies. The Nonconformist was firmly in the populists' corner, but 150 miles to the north, Kansas's leading Republican newspaper derided the reformers as a gang of disgruntled hayseeds.

Nearly 130 years later, in the decade of Trump, Brexit and Bolsonaro, both of these views are alive and well. And as always, the populist label remains easier to apply than to define.

"From the very beginning . . . populism had two meanings," Thomas Frank instructs in his brilliantly written, eye-opening "The People, No: A Brief History of Anti-Populism." "There was Populism as its proponents understood it, meaning a movement in which ordinary citizens demanded democratic economic reforms. And there was populism as its enemies characterized it: a dangerous movement of groundless resentment in which demagogues led the disreputable."

Frank - a former Harper's columnist, founding editor of the Baffler and best-selling author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" - is the ideal public intellectual to grapple with this duality. From 1891 to the rise of Trumpism, Frank walks readers through a minefield of assumptions about populism's nature and history. His reflections on the 1896 presidential election set the narrative's pace and tone, describing the new alliance between populists and Democrats that delivered the latter party's nomination to William Jennings Bryan, and the competing alliance of big business and Republicans that ultimately propelled William McKinley to victory and precipitated the populists' decline.

Stressing populism's egalitarian roots in the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, Frank rails against modern Democratic and GOP elites for a disdainful attitude toward ordinary, hard-working people - an attitude he considers as "poisonous today as it was in the Victorian Era, or in the Great Depression." Frank calls out TV talking heads for stripping the populist label from Martin Luther King Jr. and the AFL-CIO, and instead linking it only to the xenophobia, racism and Twitter rants of the current president. By devaluing populism, he believes, America has abandoned the organic political values that produced the labor and civil rights movements and contributed to decades of broad-based prosperity. What's left is an almost cartoonishly polarized choice between Beltway elite meritocracy and bigoted, authoritarian Trumpism.

Frank devotes the middle chapters of "The People, No" to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, which fused populism with a smart liberalism. Though it helped millions survive the Great Depression, it also earned endless opposition from Republicans, their Wall Street backers and most of America's big-city newspapers. Frank documents how the DuPont family and other wealthy industrialists founded and lavishly funded the right-wing American Liberty League to destroy Roosevelt, smearing him as a socialist and a traitor to his class.

Having enacted a flurry of New Deal programs in his first term, Roosevelt offered a full-throated lambasting of his conservative adversaries when he accepted the Democratic nomination for a second term in 1936. "These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America," he thundered. "What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for."

For Frank, the lineage is clear between the People's Party of the 1890s and Roosevelt's New Deal liberalism. Roosevelt succeeded, Frank insists, because he rejected his generation's accepted wise men of finance and industry and instead sought counsel from progressives like Harry Hopkins, Harold Ickes and Frances Perkins - genuine reformers who recognized that the historic moment called not for doubling down on the system but for devising smart new solutions to meet grave new challenges.

"Painful though it may be for liberals to acknowledge nowadays, it was Roosevelt's willingness to disregard elites that won that war," Frank concludes. "These were the reasons the New Deal succeeded and democracy lived. If the heroes of those days were cranks, then thank God for cranks. Thank God for populism." Given our current historical moment, that's a lesson Joe Biden would do well to heed.

Among postwar anti-populists, historian Richard Hofstadter receives particular scorn for his influential book "The Age of Reform" (1955), which valorized professionalism, pluralism and benevolent, administrative capitalism while depicting the People's Party as low-IQ racists and proto-McCarthyites.

"When reform came from the bottom up, in other words," Frank complains of Hofstadter, "it was moralistic, demagogic, irrational, bigoted, and futile. When reform was made by practical, business-minded professionals - meaning lobbyists and experts who were comfortable in the company of lobbyists and experts from other groups - prosperity was the result."

Throughout "The People, No," Frank takes pains to look at populism through a broad lens - from Paul Robeson, Bayard Rustin, Fred Harris and Frank Capra to Father Charles Coughlin, Pat Buchanan and Steve Bannon. His reflection on how the jeans-clad Jimmy Carter wrapped himself in populism to avoid being tagged as a socialist, liberal or conservative is spot-on. In Frank's view, Carter was "a bland technocrat" who donned populism to win the White House but then chose as his Fed chairman Paul Volcker, who famously said, "The standard of living of the average American has to decline" and raised interest rates to 20% to make it happen.

Frank also accuses Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and "blue-collar billionaire" Donald Trump of being faux populists in bed with Wall Street and the ruling class. Obama earns scorn from Frank for leaning on tropes of populists as anti-science zealots clinging to guns and religion, and for his 2016 charge that an unnamed candidate had "embraced a crude populism that promises a return to a past that is not possible to restore." Hillary Clinton is chastised for stereotyping half of Trump's supporters as "deplorables" and "irredeemables."

By the close of "The People, No," readers know where Frank stands. He bristles over an elite that dreads "the lower orders" and uses its power and wealth to squash peace movements, labor strikes and demands for universal health care. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are the type of politicians Frank thinks we need more of.

"For whom does America exist?" he asks in closing. "Its billionaires? Its celebrities? Its tech companies? Are we the people just a laboring, sweating instrument for the bonanza paydays of our betters? Are we just glorified security guards, obeying orders to protect their holdings? Are we nothing more than a vast test market to be tracked and probed and hopefully sold on tickets, fast food, or Hollywood movies featuring awesome new animation technology? Or is it the other way around - are they supposed to serve us?"

Frank wants readers to ponder this fundamental question and come away knowing that at its heart, populism means just one thing: This land was made for you and me.

---

Brinkley is Katherine Tsanoff Brown chair in humanities and professor of history at Rice University and the author of "Rightful Heritage: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Land of America."

Read more here:

Book World: How elites distorted the meaning of populism - The Advocate

M Rajivlochan

Historian

As India goes about dismantling the underpinnings of the structures that had nurtured separatist movements and ideas in the country, it is an apt time for us to reflect upon the idea of self-determination, its connection with the will of the people and the nation. Self-determination is an idea that is frequently used to accuse the government in India of being oppressive, imperialistic etc. Few today recall that the USSR was created by Russia subjugating over two dozen countries in the name of self-determination. Much like China today goes about unhindered, subjugating over six nationalities and claiming everyone to be part of the Middle Kingdom.

In European usage, the idea of a nation has had many meanings. I am born was its meaning some 2,000 years ago. The term nation was a derogatory term, used in common language in the Roman empire to refer to a non-Roman group bound together by some similarity in birth; either birth in the same city or land. The Romans never used it for themselves. Cicero used it for foreign peoples, like the Jews and Syrians, as being born in servitude.

After the collapse of Rome, feudal Europe used it in the councils for representatives of different European rulers at the great ecclesiastical meetings that were presided over by the Pope. The council of nations was an elite body which ruled over the commoners, who in turn, had no political or social identity. Till the 18th century, the term nation was used for the rulers and aristocrats. The people had no existence. It was the ruling class that represented the nation. When in 1731, in the Transylvanian parliament, a priestly delegate spoke of the Walachian nation, he was shouted down by the rest, who said that there was no Walachian nation, only Walachian plebs.

In the 19th century, the humungous growth in the production of almost all goods seemed to empower the plebs. So much so, that the deep distancing between the commoners and those who ruled over them gave people like Karl Marx the hope that the plebs would recognise a sense of commonness between themselves and stop sacrificing their lives in the wars that benefited only their national elite. Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains was based on the hope that the workers were disconnected from the land where they worked. It was this connection, which Marx was not able to see, into which began to merge the concepts of people, nation and state all of them to uniquely define those who lived in a specific geographical region. The nineteenth century wars between the European nations that led to the First and the Second World Wars, fostered nationalism, forcing people to pay a heavy price for being part of that nation.

India, in contrast to Europe, was characterised by an easygoing culture in which people lived together, irrespective of language, religion or ethnicity. The common people knew three or more languages, the slightly educated knew four to five languages routinely, with the well-educated and well-travelled being comfortable with 10 or more. This was how Indians lived till as recently as the 1950s. The monolingual Indian, ever willing to protest the learning of other languages, was the creation of the crazy 1960s, when all of a sudden, Indians began to fight each other over identity. The easygoing ways of the past were now gone. People forgot that it wasnt any idea of inclusivity which was behind appointing a Momin governor for the Konkan by a Hindu king in the eighth century. Neither were the Mughals appointing Hindu Rajputs as governors in order to appease the local Hindu population. The fact was that the mindscape in India was rarely based on religion, caste or ethnicity. A persons individual capabilities were all that mattered. Till as late as the eighteenth century, the Brahmin Peshwas had Shindes, Gaekwads, Bhonsles and other people of lower caste working as trusted soldiers and generals. Pune had a habshi kotwal, as did Hyderabad.

The idea of a nation began to haunt Indians only in the nineteenth century. By this time, Indians had lost all their social and cultural moorings, saw themselves as losers, considered their society degenerate and began to find ways to fit themselves into some imagined European paradigm of being a good nation.

Indians never realised that the textbook idea of a European nation with a single language and religion did not exist in reality. France, despite the efforts of Napoleon to privilege the language of le-de-France as the national language, continued to have many regional languages. As recently as 1999, the French Government recognised as many as 75 languages as regional or minority languages. China, great as it is today, comprises Han control over six major nationalities, representing between them eight main languages, each of which has hundreds of variations, not counting minority languages like Mongolian or Tibetan and their variants.

In fact, the only one time in history when the principle of self-determination was actually implemented was in the early 1920s when Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin used it as an excuse to militarily overthrow the governments of as many as 32 countries which had been forcibly occupied by Tsarist Russia at one time or the other. The Russians then installed puppet Communist governments in these territories which then were pulled together in the name of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

Since the simplistic Western notions of nation and nationalism did not seem to gel with the reality of India, Western observers of India have been predicting the falling apart of India since 1950. This was the time when the people of India gave to themselves a Constitution by which to live together. The Constitution did not specify a national religion or a national language. It did not even make clear whether India was a union or a federation of states. Not only that, it provided every adult Indian, irrespective of caste, class, gender, wealth or education, an equal weightage in electing a government.

The liberal British had promoted the idea of Islam being a separate nation in India that resulted in a disastrous partition, creating Pakistan as the only nation in the world for Muslims. Indians, despite suffering the Partition, have refused to be drawn into the morass of equating religion with nation. An unthinking acceptance of these Western ideas of what constitutes a nation created the bogey of self-determination in Kashmir and became the basis of much tragedy.

Here is the original post:

Being a nation and the bogey of self-determination - The Tribune India

TORONTO -- Ontario Premier Doug Ford says that municipalities wont have to wait long to find out what their share will be of the billions in federal funding that was announced on Thursday.

The Liberal government has said that it will provide provinces and territories with $19 billion in funding to help them restart their economies in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic with at least some of that money earmarked for municipalities and transit providers facing large operational deficits.

Speaking with reporters during a press conference in Kitchener on Friday afternoon, Ford said that his government is in the process of crossing the Ts and dotting the Is on the allocation of the money right now and expects to be rolling it over the next week.

He did not directly answer a question about whether Toronto would receive enough money to cover the entire $1.35 billion shortfall it expects to face by the end of 2020 but did say that his government will do everything it can to cover as much of the operational deficits faced by Ontarios 444 cities and towns as possible.

I want to work with the City of Toronto. They are the big white elephant in the room of the 444 (cities and towns) and I understand that, he said, noting that the losses faced by the TTC alone make Torontos challenges particularly acute. But everyone needs money. We are going to split it up equally and make sure that the people that need it get the money.

Ford has previously indicated that Ontario will receive about $7 billion in funding from the feds but that money also has to go towards a number of other areas, including expanding testing and contact tracing and acquiring personal protective equipment.

For his part, Tory has said that he is cautiously optimistic that the city will get enough money to stave off major cuts but he has also said that it would be premature to declare victory without reading the fine print.

On Friday, Ford credited city officials for finding more than $500 million in savings in Torontos budget and reducing the expected deficit from $1.9 billion to $1.35 billion.

He said that while it would be hogwash for any municipality to suggest that it cant find savings in its budget, the financial challenges faced by the municipal level of government as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic are very real.

In Toronto, the TTC alone faces a $700 million budgetary pressure, mostly due to reduced ridership during the COVID-19 pandemic. The city also expects to lose out on $249.2 million in budgeted Municipal Land Transfer Tax revenue in 2020 as a result of real-estate slowdown that accompanied the pandemic.

We have to work together, Ford said. We are going to do everything we can to cover as much as we can in all areas and I just want to thank the municipalities that have been prudent fiscal managers.

Originally posted here:

Ontario premier won't say if province will cover $1.35B deficit faced by Toronto - CTV News

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a huge swath of Oklahoma is Native American land for certain purposes, siding with a Native American man who had challenged his rape conviction by state authorities in the territory.

The 5-4 decision, with an opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, endorsed the claim of theMuscogee (Creek) Nation to the land, which encompasses 3 million acres in eastern Oklahoma, including most of the city of Tulsa.

The decision means that only federal authorities, no longer state prosecutors, can lodge charges against Native Americans who commit serious alleged crimes on that land, which is home to1.8 million people. Of those people, 15% or fewer are Native Americans.

"Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law," Gorsuch wrote.

"Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word," he wrote.

The ruling in the case of convicted child rapistJimcy McGirt, and in a related one Thursday by the Supreme Court involving another Muscogee Nation member, convicted murderer Patrick Murphy, overturns their convictions on state charges. Murphy was sentenced to death.

However, both men can now be prosecuted for the crimes by federal authorities, according to a lawyer for the tribe.

The cases hinged on application of the Major Crimes Act, which gives federal authorities, rather than state prosecutors, jurisdiction over serious crimes committed by or against Native Americans in Native American territory.

"For MCA purposes, land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains 'Indian country,'" Gorsuch wrote in the opinion in McGirt's case.

Gorsuch, a conservative justice, was joined in the majority by the court's four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the ruling, as did his fellow conservatives, Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh.

In his dissent, Roberts warned that "across this vast area" now deemed to be Native American land, "the State's ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out."

"On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma," Roberts wrote. "The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State's continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation to family andenvironmental law."

"None of this is warranted," Roberts added. "What has gone unquestioned for a century remains true today: A huge portion of Oklahoma is not a Creek Indian reservation. Congress disestablished any reservation in a series of statutes leading up to Oklahoma statehood at the turn of the 19th century. The Court reaches the opposite conclusion only by disregarding the 'well settled' approach required by our precedents."

Republican Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt said,"I am aware the ruling inMcGirtv. Oklahomawas handed down this morning by the U.S. Supreme Court."

"My legal team has been following the case closely and is reviewing the decision carefully.They will advise our team on the case's impact and what action, if any, is needed from our office," Stitt said.

McGirt is serving a life sentence after being convicted in Oklahoma state court of raping a 4-year-old child in 1997.

McGirt had argued in state courts that Oklahoma lacked the jurisdiction to review his case because the crime took place within the boundaries of the Creek Nation's historic territory. He had appealed to the Supreme Court after state courts rejected his appeals.

The state of Oklahoma in turn argued to the Supreme Court that the Creek Nation's claimed territory was not a reservation at all.

The state said that if the Supreme Court accepted McGirt's reasoning it would "cause the largest judicial abrogation of state sovereignty in American history, cleaving Oklahoma in half."

In court filings to support McGirt's claim, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation noted that although the tribe had "no role in the genesis of this litigation" it "now finds its Reservation under direct attack."

Riyaz Kanji, an attorney for the tribe, wrote in a filing that Oklahoma was "exaggerating" the jurisdictional problems that would ensue if the state lost its case.

"To the extent they hold any water, the State's posited consequences stem from the fact that both executive branch and state officials actively sought to undermine Congress's determination that the Nation's government and territory would endure," Kanji wrote.

Gorsuch endorsed that argument in Thursday's decision.

He noted in the majority opinion that, "No one disputes that Mr. McGirt's crimes were committed on lands described as the Creek Reservation in an 1866 treaty and federal statute."

"But, in seeking to defend the state court judgment below, Oklahoma has put aside whatever procedural defenses it might have and asked us to confirm that the land once given to the Creeks is no longer a reservation today."

Gorsuch flatly rejected that request by the state.

"Under our Constitution, States have no authority to reduce federal reservations lying within their borders. Just imagine if they did," he wrote.

"A State could encroach on the tribal boundaries or legal rights Congress provided, and, with enough time and patience, nullify the promises made in the name of the United States. That would be at odds with the Constitution, which entrusts Congress with the authority to regulate commerce with Native Americans, and directs that federal treaties and statutes are the 'supreme Law of the Land,'" he wrote.

Gorsuch added that if that happened, "It would also leave tribal rights in the hands of the very neighbors who might be least inclined to respect them."

Kanji, in an interview after the decision, said that despite the arguments by the state and in Roberts' dissent, "I don't think this case is going to have earth-shattering consequences" on the residents of the land, be they Native American or not.

"It just doesn't change anything with respect to non-Indians" in terms of criminal cases, Kanji said.

He said the tribe will be able to exercise civil and regulatory authority over the affected land, but noted that in areas that were already acknowledged by the state to be tribal land there already is "a tremendous amount of cooperation" between the state and the tribe on laws and regulation.

"We would fully expect that cooperation to continue," Kanji said.

He also noted that "the court itself has placed a lot of limitations on Indian tribes with respect to non-Indians" who live on tribal land.

McGirt's lawyer, Ian Heath Gershengorn, in an emailed statement said, "The Supreme Court reaffirmed today that when the United States makes promises, the courts will keep those promises."

"Congress persuaded the Creek Nation to walk the Trail of Tears with promises of a reservation and the Court today correctly recognized that this reservation endures," saidGershengorn, a partner at the firm Jenner & Block.

"We along with our co-counsel Patti Palmer Ghezzi and the Federal Public Defender of the Western District of Oklahoma are immensely pleased for Jimcy McGirt and Patrick Murphy, whom Oklahoma unlawfully prosecuted for alleged crimes within the Creek reservation."

In the related case decided Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that tossed out the murder conviction of the other Muscogee Nation member, Murphy, who was charged with killing a man on the tribal land in question.

In Murphy's case, Gorsuch did not participate in the vote, because he had heard the case while serving on the lower appeals court.

The Supreme Court had heard arguments in Murphy's case during its prior term, but declined to issue a ruling at the time. In the interim, it heard McGirt's case, which made the same claims.

The cases decided Thursday are formally known as McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526, and Sharp v. Murphy, No. 171107.

Read the rest here:

Supreme Court says eastern half of Oklahoma is Native American land - CNBC

THE controversial decision to sell off a publicly owned field in Highbridge to make way for 110 homes will be reconsidered by the district council.

In February developer Coln Residential won outline planning permission to build 110 homes, a play area and a fitness trail on land between Lakeside and Isleport despite more than 140 objections from residents.

Last month Sedgemoor District Council's Executive met and approved the plans to sell the land but a few weeks later Liberal Democrat councillors from Sedgemoor District Council (SDC) 'called in' the Executive's decision to sell the land and a meeting was held to discuss the plans again.

At a meeting on Monday (July 13) SDC's Scrutiny Committee heard presentations from Cllr Phil Harvey, Cllr Janet Keen and Cllr Mike Murphy as well as evidence from Highbridge resident, Joy Russell who urged the committee to refer the decision back to the Executive.

The committee unanimously voted to send the plans back to the Executive and they are due to be considered again later this month.

Cllr Phil Harvey said he is pleased the decision will be considered again by the Executive.

He said: The committee considered what we had to say, and the passionate representations from the local people. Officers of the Council made their responses to the points raised and this helped to clarify some issues.

"At the end of the meeting, the committee unanimously voted to refer the matter back to the Executive for re-consideration.

The retention of this land, and its use as a natural greenspace, are supported by many people in Highbridge who feel that it is a vital resource for future generations.

"The strength of feeling was very evident at the meeting. Whether this will be sufficient to sway the Executive remains to be seen.

"I would urge people to lobby Executive members between now and Wednesday, July 22 which is the date when I believe the Executive will consider the matter again.

Excerpt from:

Controversial decision to sell off land for 110 homes at Lakeside to be reconsidered by committee - Burnham and Highbridge Weekly News

The irreconcilable tension within Zionism has been laid bare once again by prominent columnist and commentator Peter Beinart. For a number of years, the 49-year-old has had the status of Americas pre-eminent liberal Zionist intellectual. His trenchant essays and books buttressed the hope of liberal Jews in the possibility of rescuing the Zionist State of Israel from its very illiberal instincts.

Though Israels decades-long takeover of Palestine has been a constant source of shame and a test of faith, liberal Zionists, exhibiting clear signs of cognitive dissonance, still back the ethnic state. They hold to the possibility of, at the very least, an eventual two-state solution. Israels continued and proposed land theft makes such a prospect unlikely ever to materialise, however.

I no longer believe in a Jewish State, declared Beinart in a New York Times article. For decades I argued for separation between Israelis and Palestinians. Now, I can imagine a Jewish home in an equal state.

Renouncing his previous convictions, his conversion was no doubt caused by the overwhelming burden of holding on desperately to a liberal vision of Israel while watching simultaneously as it speeds down a path towards Judeo-fascism, with its elected leaders displaying the kinds of racism that any white-supremacist would be proud of.

Lets embrace Israeli annexation and work towards a single democratic state

Like so many liberal Jews, it seems that Beinart was willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt; understandable, some would say, given the tragic history of Jews in Europe. I believed in Israel as a Jewish state because I grew up in a family that had hopscotched from continent to continent as diaspora Jewish communities crumbled, he explained. Hence, Israel was always a source of comfort to his family and millions of other Jews.

Beinart has written extensively about the crises of Zionism and described the tension between his support for Israel and seeing the tragic impact its foundation had on the Palestinians. I knew Israel was wrong to deny Palestinians in the West Bank citizenship, due process, free movement and the right to vote in the country in which they lived, but the dream of a two-state solution that would give Palestinians a country of their own let me hope that I could remain a liberal and a supporter of Jewish statehood at the same time.

He insists now that events have extinguished that hope. This was an allusion to Benjamin Netanyahus planned annexation of the occupied West Bank. Challenging liberal Zionists to be honest about the direction in which Israel is headed, he added that, Israel has all but made its decision: one country that includes millions of Palestinians who lack basic rights. Now liberal Zionists must make our decision, too.

In the same week, the author also published a major essay in Jewish Currents, declaring the two-state solution to be dead. The harsh truth is that the project to which liberal Zionists like myself have devoted ourselves for decades a state for Palestinians separated from a state for Jews has failed, he wrote. He pointed out that, In most Jewish communities on earth, rejecting Israel is a greater heresy than rejecting God.

Laying out his new vision to reconcile Zionism with safeguarding the rights of Palestinians, Beinart suggested that, Equality could come in the form of one state that includes Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. He named several Palestinians writers, such as the late Edward Said, who proposed something similar. Or, he added, it could be a confederation that allows free movement between two deeply integrated countries.

Responding to Beinart, another self-declared liberal Zionist, Jonathan Freedland, asked, What next, if the two state dream is dead? Echoing Beinart, the Guardian columnist concluded that the hope of a two-state solution allowed many Jews to hide from the reality that Israeli Jews and Palestinians now inhabit a single political space. Now that this hope is vanishing, Freedland urged, we can hide no longer.

It should be said that critics of the two-state model have never harboured any illusions that a state founded on an ideology of ethnic supremacy Zionism would be willing or able to abandon its colonial ideology and subject itself to liberal principals of equality and the rule of law. Such critics opposition to Israels colonialism, decried by the likes of Freedland, is not rooted in antipathy towards the idea of a Jewish state per se. Rather, it stems from the belief that displacing hundreds of thousands of people and gerrymandering a Jewish majority to accommodate the fantasies of European Zionists was from the outset morally and legally indefensible.

Beinart suggested that Zionism itself isnt the problem, but Israel is due to its appropriation of a type of Zionism that seeks ethnic domination. A Jewish state has become the dominant form of Zionism, whereas the essence of Zionism is a Jewish home in the land of Israel, a thriving Jewish society that can provide refuge and rejuvenation for Jews across the world.

Optimism of the Will: Palestinian Freedom is Possible Now

Though Beinarts political conversion should be applauded, his suggestions are not very original. Palestine was earmarked for a national home for the Jewish people by Arthur Balfour himself in his eponymous 1917 declaration, not a Jewish state. Though many insist that the Balfour Declaration was indeed support for the creation of an ethnic state for Jews alone, they misread history; the Jews made up just 5 per cent of the population of Palestine at the time, and Balfour went on to say, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine Not even the most liberal of Zionists can say with any degree of honesty that that aspect of the Balfour Declaration has been followed in any way, shape or form.

I dont think its a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the aspiration of Palestinian nationalists at the turn of the 20th century was not far from what Beinart envisages now: an equality-driven nationalism, embracing all faiths and communities, to achieve self-determination for all who live within the territory. The source of civil unrest during the British Mandate for Palestine (1923-48) was unregulated immigration of European and American Jews who sought to undermine the political aspirations of the indigenous community by using violence to secede from the majority population that was simultaneously campaigning for an independent State of Palestine as a homeland for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.

This vision of territorial nationalism was obstructed violently to accommodate the ethnic domination of European Zionists. However, a century of politically and socially engineered segregation has been nothing but a miserable failure.

From Balfour to US President Donald Trumps so called deal of the century over a hundred years later, the enforced fragmentation of Palestine has been the main source of conflict. A return to equality-driven nationalism, one that embraces every religious and ethnic group within historic Palestine, as Beinart notes, has a far greater chance of securing peace than one based on the domination of one racial group over another. The fact that someone like Peter Beinart no longer believes in a Jewish state tells us a lot about what that state has become.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

See more here:

The fact that Peter Beinart 'no longer believes in a Jewish State' tells us a lot - Middle East Monitor

KANESATAKE, Que. Slow-moving vehicles waving flags and sounding their hornsmarked the 30th anniversary of the Oka crisis on Saturday, with community activists urging real reconciliation and a settlement to the long-standing land claim that remains unresolved three decades later.

Land back, we want our land back, thats part of reconciliation, said Ellen Gabriel, a Mohawk activist and spokesperson for the People of the Longhouse in Kanesatake.

Giving our land back and having us partof the decision making process on what happens on our land, thats reconciliation, and it has to be done in a decolonized framework, in a way that respects Indigenous laws, that respects the rights of the women who are the title holders of the land youre standing on.

The commemoration was to honour those community members who played a critical role during in the summer of 1990, when the countrys attention was on Oka, a small town about 50 kilometres northwest of Montreal.

The stand taken that summer became an important symbol for peoples across North America, inspiring them to take similar stands against the emancipation of their ancestral lands, Gabriel said.

Thirty years ago Saturday, on July 11, 1990, Quebec provincial police moved in on a barricade erected by Mohawksthat March to protest the planned expansion of a golf course and development on what is ancestral land.

A provincial police officer was killed and the situation escalated into a tense, 78-day standoff between Mohawks and Canadian soldiers.

Our basic human rights were violated by the Surete du Quebec (provincial police), the Canadian army, condoned by the governments of Quebec and Canada, pushed forward by private enterprises including those within the municipality of Oka, Gabriel said.

The 1990 siege ended when the expansion was cancelled and the barricades came down.

Three decades later, however,the underlying land dispute remains unresolved.

The trio of federal ministers that oversee Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada said in a statement the pain and trauma inflicted continues to this day.

Today, we must acknowledge that progress in our relationship has been unequal, halting, and often, far too slow, thegovernment said, addingmistakes must be learned from.

We must resolve to never order the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces against Indigenous Peoples, as we remain deeply committed to dialogue and peaceful resolution of conflict.

Likethe conversation around residential schools and murdered and missing Indigenous women, Gabriel said the issue in Kanesatake wont be an easy one.

Its going to be an uncomfortable discussion, Gabriel said. But when are we actually going to see actions and have a voice in what reconciliation is going to be.

Under a light rain, a rolling convoy made its way through the community to a nearby provincial park, passing by a real-estate development in Oka that has been a flash point in recent years, before returning home.

A similar event took placeSaturday in Kahnawake Mohawk Reserve, southwest of Montreal, where a rolling convoy of vehicles from that community stopped briefly on the Mercier Bridge, which was barricaded in 1990 in solidarity for those manning posts in Oka.

A lot of people joined in and it lasted a good two hours, driving on the highway at about 10 kilometres an hour, said Joe Deom, a sub-chief in the Bear clan.

I felt it good about the attention our own people had to this anniversary a lot of our own people werent even born at that time, so its good that theyre enthusiastic about it.

Among those present in Kanesatake on Saturday was NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Manitoba NDP MP Leah Gazan, invited by the Longhouse.

Singh said thirty years removed, lessons clearly havent been learned.

The problem was created by Canada, Singh said. Its 2020, with the resources this country has, theres no excuse why this cannot be resolved.

In many ways, Gabriel said, the situation remains unchanged land rights arent respected and systemic racism remains at the core of Indigenous peoples relationship with governments.

Ghislain Picard, the grand chief of the Quebec Assembly of First Nations, marked the 30th anniversary with an open letter calling on Quebec Premier Francois Legault to change his tune on systemic racism, which the premier has said repeatedly doesnt exist.

Systemic racism and discrimination are not just concepts or theoretical notions, Picard wrote. Rather, they are a set of facts and behaviours and we should not be afraid to name and denounce them if we are genuinely willing to correct them.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 11, 2020.

Sidhartha Banerjee, The Canadian Press

Read more from the original source:

Convoys mark 30th anniversary of Oka crisis as land dispute... - Todayville.com

In the wake of the George Floyd protests and the subsequent social unrest that has arisen in response to the tragedy, it has been immensely saddening to witness the recent events that have cast a shadow over race relations and policing in the United States. My heart and prayers go out to my friends and for the future of their great nation.

I myself am not an American but have deep connections to the U.S. through my education at the University of Dallas. I am an international student of Chinese descent hailing from Singapore. I transferred to UD in the summer of 2016, joining my sister in pursuit of a liberal arts education.

We both graduated in 2020 and are immensely grateful for the liberal arts education we received, and for the bonds we have forged with our classmates and professors in Texas. It was a shame we had to leave so soon.

As a citizen of a young but vibrant multiracial country, Singapore is no stranger to racism and social tensions, though our issues with discrimination are different than those in the United States.

However, as many in UD have noted that the voices of our international community are often left unheard, I aim to provide an outsider/insider perspective about concerns around racial discussions, offer examples of racism on campus and perhaps even give a possible long term solution to help bridge differences within our small but tight-knit community.

Through a difficult topic to broach, the UD community overall is not racist at heart.

A vast majority of my peers, professors, and staff have always been immensely respectful and even inquisitive about my life in Singapore. As an alumnus from our university rooted in the Western tradition, I am grateful for UDs thought-provoking education that has led me to gain a better understanding of my own culture and identity as a Singaporean. Though not always the case, I am also appreciative of the willingness of our student body and teaching staff at times to tackle difficult topics such as race and culture, even if we have not always agreed.

However, many including myself feel that our community-at-large has struggled with discussions on race. Particular experiences in my time at UD have highlighted such negative tensions.

These examples are by no means blatant acts of racism but do indicate a level of abrasiveness within the UD community when engaging in such racial discussions. Though these incidents are disheartening, President Thomas Hibbs, the recent results of our diversity poll, and numerous members of our community have rightly indicated that silence and ignorance will never be the solution to racism.

Aside from racially charged epithets from intoxicated students (a common occurrence), the encounter I remember most vividly occurred during my freshman year. I was having dinner with a bunch of newly acquainted friends, and I shared my difficulties in my Spanish core class. They questioned me about my second language, Mandarin, as they knew from a previous conversation that most Singaporeans are bilingual.

I shared that I had attempted to substitute my language requirement with Mandarin, but could not due to complications that would arise from finding a Mandarin speaker that was able to certify my proficiency in the language. I nevertheless made it clear that I accepted the outcome, as I was more than happy to pick up Spanish as a third language. However, one of my friends seemed insulted by my attempt to use Mandarin as a language substitute.

When I probed further, he bluntly stated that he believed that I should not have even asked to use Chinese as a language requirement substitute. He argued that as I was entering a Western liberal arts university, I should have known that such an institution could not accept non- Western influences. In particular, he believed that Asian culture contradicted core Western principles such as the dignity of the individual and freedom of expression. He recommended that I leave UD if I maintained this attitude. We quickly dropped the controversial discussion and shifted to other topics.

Another similar instance occurred during a conversation in my sophomore year. A UD student brought up a social media controversy where a high school student of Caucasian descent had worn a Qipao (also known as a Cheongsam), a traditional Chinese dress, to her prom.

Unfortunately, photos of her outfit circulated on social media, where some Asian-Americans accused her of appropriating a culture that was not hers. While I made it clear that I was not insulted by her choice of dress, this UD student argued that these criticisms were racist towards whites, as the same could be said of Asians appropriating Caucasian culture by wearing denim and suits, among other articles of clothing.

Personal experience has also revealed that students find it difficult to engage in discussions on race-related issues. For instance, a classroom discussion on how Hegels philosophy helped spur Eurocentric and dehumanizing views towards the non-Western world was met with complete silence from most of my peers.

While concerning, I would wager that a vast majority of the UD community is aware of the inherent immorality of racism. Catholic social teachings have always vehemently rejected any form of discrimination as dehumanizing and immoral.

In recent years, both Pope Francis I and Pope emeritus Benedict XVI have decried all forms of racist sentiments. Our current Holy Father has responded to the George Floyd protests, condemning racism and violence. Cardinal Ratzinger shared similar views in a 2008 speech in the Vatican. He noted the continued prevalence of racist sentiments in modern societies, and that no conditions exist for such views to be justified. Not limited to the highest order of the Catholic Church, the condemnation of racism from countless lay people throughout the United States is indicative of Catholicisms desire to see a world free from all prejudice.

Furthermore, while not a well-known document by most Catholics, the Nostra Aetate declaration from the Second Vatican Council indicates the Churchs immense respect for other faiths across the globe. While it does not directly address the issue of racism per se, Nostra Aetate reiterates the Churchs position against discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion, and recognizes our shared humanity through mans search for a higher purpose as seen throughout all civilizations. Our Catholic identity clearly condemns any and all forms of prejudice.

However, personal experience has indicated that as UD is a liberal arts university rooted in the Western tradition, one could argue that any recognition of the negative aspects of Western civilization (in this case: racism and the legacy of colonialism) could be interpreted as critical of the West, and hence antithetical to UDs mission.

While not the only obstacle in engaging in discussions on race at UD, I would argue that this conundrum has led to a no mans land in racial dialogue on campus. Even though the brutal legacy of colonialism justifiably remains an unavoidable stain on Western civilization, any critique of the West and/or the introduction of non-Western influences could be interpreted as an attempt to undermine the very principles that UD is based upon. The occasional racist epithets I have heard on the Mall in response to the playing of Korean pop music is an example of such sentiments.

Compounding this issue is an emerging hostility towards any form of racial dialogue in the United States. The real-world consequences, like losing your job from espousing views that could be deemed as racist, have led many to dismiss the expression of anti-racist declarations as merely pandering to US mainstream society. As UD is an institution that often prides itself on its counter-cultural principles, some members of our community share similar sentiments with regard to racial issues.

In keeping with that spirit of counter-culturalism in contrast to the fatalistic perceptions of race relations in the U.S., evident in the rise of cancel culture, I believe that UD is in a unique position to potentially be a standard-bearer for race relations on American campuses. As a small liberal arts university, we have a level of social and administrative flexibility that other colleges do not have, and as such can experiment with introducing changes. While I recognize that change can be a taboo subject in our community, I believe that small incremental steps to improving racial dialogue need not distort UDs identity.

I humbly suggest we consider the introduction of a class on racial dialogue. Given the potential controversy that such a class might generate within the UD community, it need not be a compulsory addition to the Core, but rather an optional one-credit class to engage with cultures within and beyond the United States. The aim of this class would be to foster mutual respect between the various beliefs and identities within UD, without compromising our Catholic and Western foundations. Mutual understanding of other cultures need not translate to a complete dismissal of our own.

Strongly rooted in the Western tradition as we are, I believe that UD should place equal emphasis on the positive and negative aspects of Western civilization. Though I acknowledge the unwillingness to engage in a critical analysis of ones own history, the importance of self-reflection has always remained a crucial exercise per our Catholic tradition.

As Americans celebrate their independence, they can be proud of their great nation. Though issues like slavery, internment camps and mass incarceration (among others) indicate that the United States has not always recognized the dignity of all peoples as inherently equal, most Americans have always valued their nations declaration of the equality of all human life through its founding documents and ideals, an aspect of the American identity that its people do and should continue to hold dear.

As an institution and community that embraces the pursuit of truth and justice, UD should always strive to combat racism. In doing so, we acknowledge an unalienable truth: our shared commonality through the struggle of the human condition, indicative of our equality as Gods people.

The rest is here:

An international student's perspective on race relations on campus - University of Dallas University News

By InYourArea Community

PHOTO CREDIT: Steve Bould/Stoke Sentinel

Every Tuesday the Cambridge News asks local party representatives their views on local matters.

This week they tackled the following question:

What more can be done to support the homeless in Cambridge?

When the lockdown started City Council workers sprang into action to find places for 104 people who were homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

That shows what can be done when there is a will and a clear vision.

As in so many other areas the pandemic has broadened our horizons of what is possible and taught us to think radically.

Sadly over recent decades we have become all too used to seeing homeless people on the streets of our towns and cities.

We come to think of homelessness as an inevitable fact of life, when it is a product of the unjust and unequal economic system we have fashioned for ourselves. With will and determination we can end homelessness. We know that now.

Back in 2012, a government study estimated that each homeless person costs the public purse 30,000 per year in the costs of healthcare, benefits, police time and local authority resources and that is before the personal costs to the people who are homeless are factored in. That indicates how much is theoretically available to address the need.

Green Party policy is to jettison a treatment first policy in favour of a housing first policy i.e. to spend money on finding places for homeless people to live and then addressing their other needs. Now that the Council has experience of imaginative initiatives to find space for homeless people, Greens would urge them to make greater use of the powers they already have to take over unused property, such as Empty Dwelling Management Orders.

A root cause of the problem is the runaway cost of housing in Cambridge. Greens advocate a land value tax to take the heat out of the property market and to discourage speculation.

Rising levels of homelessness in Cambridge represent a failure of national and local policy on housing, health and social care.

The Covid-19 pandemic has acted as a rallying call, providing us with a unique opportunity to make a real difference to this issue: as a result of the pandemic, around 15,000 rough sleepers have been provided with emergency accommodation nationally, of which 140 are in Cambridge.

This represents only a small proportion of the true homeless population, many of whom are living with friends or in other temporary or insecure accommodation.

The Council should make a commitment that no one accommodated as part of this emergency response should have to return to sleeping rough and guarantee that nobody will be evicted from emergency housing without an alternative.

We need to provide sufficient accommodation for a range of housing options, so that they can be tailored to individual needs.

This will include social housing for those on the housing needs register who are at risk of becoming homeless, as well as safe accommodation for women, supported housing for those moving on from hostels and a dedicated Housing First scheme to help the most entrenched rough sleepers.

Beyond bricks and mortar, our approach must be holistic and integrated with healthcare services many people struggling with homelessness have complex issues related to addiction and mental health which make holding down tenancies difficult, even when available.

We need to improve on the current fragmented approach and provide co-ordinated support that accompanies individuals on their journey from the streets to accommodation until it is sustainable.

Finally, we need the whole community to play its role in helping to end homelessness Oxford has a well-established rough sleeping charter which aims to bring citizens, businesses and charities together with the shared goal of ending rough sleeping: it is high time Cambridge had one too.

I am proud of the role played by Cambridge City Council during the coronavirus health emergency, together with the wonderful community sector, to shield rough sleepers in our city.

We found safe accommodation for more than 140 people who were sleeping rough or at risk of homelessness.

One silver lining of this is that we now have an opportunity to turn around as many lives as we can for the better.

Many who sought shelter were previously resistant to existing support on offer by the council and street outreach agencies.

We have conducted interviews with those in temporary accommodation to discuss what support they need to sustain a longer-term housing placement.

Without support to overcome mental health and addiction issues, there is a risk they will end up back on the street.

We have already found 35 rough sleepers longer-term housing placements, and currently in the process of sourcing more homes for those remaining. We hope to complete this work by October.

When considering the future, we need to see a more determined approach by central government in tackling homelessness.

Conservative and Liberal Democrat governments since 2010 have allowed rough sleeping to rise in the UK by 140 per cent, a sad outcome of a decade of austerity.

Austerity must end, with urgent investment required to underpin a strategy that fully grapples with the causes and effects of homelessness.

That means more affordable homes with greater freedoms and incentives for councils to build their own council housing. Rent controls must be enacted in the private rental sector, together with more rights for tenants.

We also need better and sustainable long-term funding for councils so our existing homelessness work can be improved and enhanced, linked to a stronger commitment to support vital street outreach, mental health and rehabilitation services.

In 2005 a local author, Alexander Masters, working at the time in a Cambridge hostel for the homeless, wrote a prize-winning account, told backwards, of his remarkable friendship with Stuart Shorter, a longtime homeless person.

Stuarts life story, told backwards, started with his death on the July 6, 2002 when he was hit by a train on the London to Kings Lynn railway line, back to his childhood, which had begun happily enough but due to a series of misfortunes in later life led him into petty crime and homelessness.

Alexander had intended that readers of his book should empathise with Stuart and how his life had unravelled, but my focus was always on the extraordinary friendship between them.

The basis of that friendship was a non-judgmental mutual acceptance but Alexander was also able to offer practical support during bad times and to help Stuart negotiate a pretty merciless society.

I had a similar experience when I served as a board member of Wintercomfort many years ago. A small group of clients and I would make regular visits to local bird sanctuaries, take woodland walks or play soccer on Midsummer Common and as a result we became pretty close friends, though nowhere near to the same degree as that between Alexander and Stuart.

What these anecdotes lead up to is that in answer to what more could be done to support the homeless I suggest that the council and local charities might consider setting up a scheme of volunteer buddies so that homeless individuals always have a friend to whom they can turn to for advice and support

Buddies would, of course, need to be trained and their suitability assessed but essentially they would become heirs of that special friendship between Alexander and Stuart which may have ended with Stuarts tragic death but which for much of his adult life was his mainstay.

Do you have a question you would like to see answered in the Cambridge News?

Post a general message in your InYourArea live feed here using the hashtag #TalkingPointTuesday and we will pass it on to the local community news team.

See the original post:

TALKING POINT TUESDAY: Party representatives give their views on homelessness in the city - In Your Area

In November, Covid-19 permitting, there will be an election in America. Many are now convinced that Biden will break the tradition of a president getting two terms and win the election. However, this does not mean that the legacy of Trump will be easy to erase.

Well in the short term, it will be a badly handled crisis that caused thousands of deaths. An administration that advocated violence against those protesting Institutional racism. And a country with a faltering economy. However, long after the protests die down and the American economy recovers, his longer-term legacy will be one of discord, resentment, and polarisation. People will look back on this time, as one where the press was no longer trusted by anyone and where politics came before anything else, even the truth.

There are many ways in which this will manifest itself in the American political system, and there is a danger to the legislative and political process within America itself. The clearest and most obvious way is through the judiciary. Trump has appointed two justices, one of which replaced a more liberal-leaning judge. This means that all decisions relating to constitutional issues must be put before a far more conservative Supreme Court. This would mean even a democratic president with all the backing of the house and the senate would struggle to get any gun control law passed, and we can say goodbye to Medicare or changes to abortion laws. Moreover, if he does win four more years, he will likely get another pick at a justice which could mean a conservative-leaning judiciary for 20 more years to come. However, outside of the external threat to liberal values, he has also made a tear in the fabric of American politics. One that may be impossible to repair.

Trust in the media has hit an all-time low and Trump has both driven and profited off of this. In discrediting any news source that comes out about him, he now has a band of loyal followers who refuse to believe anything other than what Trump and Fox News says. This has also had the opposite effect as well; those who dislike Trump are tending to not believe anything other than CNN and agreeable politicians. This has, by many, been classed as a culture war.

People live in an echo chamber of their own ideas, Trump has pushed this and legitimised the dangerous idea that you do not have to discuss things with people you disagree with. This has also led to one of the most significant things that can happen in a political system: polarisation. One side cannot talk to the other and when they do, they become irritated and entrench themselves further. This trickles down into legislation that does not listen to other points of view and culminates in government shutdowns and worse legislation for it.

Now, no-one is claiming that America was the land of the respectful political debate before Trump. Polarisation in America has been around since the start of democracy in America the system has a lot to answer for. Despite this, it seems obvious to spectators that he has turned up the volume on polarisation to the max, in an attempt to gain more political power. People that vote for Trump are angry. Polarisation gives that anger a political avenue and pushes polarisation further. But then again, this might just be fake news!

When voters come to the polls in November, I believe that they will elect Trump once again. But even if the Democrats manage to make Joe Biden an attractive option for president (no small feat in itself), the trace of Trump and so-called Trumpism will live on in American politics for years to come. Bitterness and divisiveness, where the economy takes a backseat and cultural issues are thrust forward will be the new normal. To misquote Bill Clinton: its not the economy stupid. Because cultural issues are far less likely to be won by facts and debate but by shouting the loudest.

Polarisation is okay and populism is good, but only when you win of course. When the left win again in America, they will be harder left and more aggressive than ever before because of Trump. As many Trump supporters will soon find out, popularism swings both ways. Trump may have just about found a way of removing the centre-ground and bipartisanship from American politics forever.

Trump has ultimately pulled the right away from the centre and pushed the left away at every opportunity. His weapons of choice are anger and divisiveness. The result means less compromise, less pragmatism and fundamentally meaner politics. Every president has a legacy and changes America forever. However, Trump will have changed America more than most, and this new style of politics is bad for it, bad for legislation and ultimately bad for the people. This will not change come Novemeber.

Read this article:

America may vote Trump out, but will it ever lose his legacy? - Shout Out UK

Around 15 vans arrived on Coppice Farm park in New Invention, Willenhall, on Wednesday prompting worried calls to local councillors from residents.

The park spreads across the boroughs border with Wolverhampton and the group has settled on land belonging to the city.

But it has emerged a number of vans have also set up near a Bentley church, arriving earlier this week, while there is currently a group on undisclosed private land in Walsall town centre.

Walsall Council officers dealt with travellers who had illegally set up camp at the Challenge Building site in the town centre and they have been moved on.

West Midlands Police and both local authorities are aware of the encampments.

Willenhall North councillor and Walsall Liberal Democrat group leader Ian Shires said: "There have been four incursions across the borough with those at Coppice Farm the last to arrive.

"So it really does appear that Walsall is being targeted. The sheer volume of incursions is going to stretch the community protection team at Walsall Council."

He added that when he was contacted about the Coppice Farm incursion, he contacted the authority and also alerted his elected counterparts in Wolverhampton.

Conservative Willenhall North councillor Adam Hicken said residents in the area were worried following incidents last week where a large group of travellers broke into New Invention Junior Schools playing fields, destroyed a fruit tree orchard planting by children and started bonfires and reportedly committed theft and anti-social behaviour in the area.

The group which had been escorted into the area by Staffordshire Police were finally removed on July 2.

Councillor Hicken said: "People are definitely fearful. Ive not had any reports yet of anti-social behaviour or crime.

"Im hoping we dont get those following what happened in New Invention so its a case of wait and see.

"If they are well behaved and not creating a mess then thats fine and I wish them safe travels."

A West Midlands Police spokesman said all the incursions were being monitored currently.

A spokesman for Walsall Council said: "We have been made aware of Unauthorised Encampments (UEs) and the community protection team are working hard to resolve the issues.

"Occupants have now vacated the land on the Challenge Car Park, Hatherton Street following prompt action and a forced eviction.

"Officers have responded to and are following up the UE on land adjacent to Emmanuelle Church in Cairn Drive.

"We have also been made aware of caravans on private land in Walsall Town Centre and have advised the landowners on this matter.

"Community protection continue to respond swiftly to all reports of UEs in the borough."

A Wolverhampton City Council spokesman added: "We are aware of a traveller incursion on public land behind Coppice Performing Arts School. We are liaising with bailiffs and have started the legal process to move them on."

More here:

Four traveller groups arrive in the Black Country - expressandstar.com

Three decades ago, driven by a quest to reclaim their sovereignty and recalibrate the power relations between the state and society, the people of this country went to the streets to push for political and constitutional reforms, a major inflection point in the history of our nation. Through a protracted, peaceful struggle by Kenyans in the country and in the diaspora, the country finally transitioned into a multi-party democracy.

The struggle is not over; Kenyas politics have taken a backward trajectory, moving towards dictatorship in the midst of an intra-elite succession struggle that could descend into violent conflict, chaos, and even civil war.

Kenya is a fake democracy where elections do not matter because the infrastructure of elections has been captured by the elites. There is a danger of normalising electoral authoritarianism, where the vote neither counts nor gets counted. The Judiciary is under constant attack and disparagement by the executive while parliament is contorted into a body increasingly unable to represent Kenyans and provide oversight over the executives actions. The security services are unleashed on the poor and the dispossessed as if they are not citizens but enemies to be hunted down and destroyed.

A range of constitutional commissions are in a state of contrived dysfunction while our media business model is failing, accelerated by political interference. Grand corruptionperpetrated by a handful of families and by the elites collectivelyhas been normalised and the fight against corruption has been politicised. In the creeping descent into dictatorship, civilian public services have been militarised and the 2010 Constitution that was in many ways a culmination of the struggle that started on 7 July 1990 when the late Kenneth Matiba and Charles Rubia called for a meeting at the Kamukunji grounds in Nairobi, is being deliberately undermined.

We have a duty and a responsibility to defend Kenyas constitution; to resist efforts to undermine devolution in particular; to resist those determined to continue looting an economy already on its knees; to stand up against efforts to brutalise, dehumanise, and rent asunder the essential human dignity of Kenyans as a people.

Three decades is a generation. The generation that voted for the first time in 1992 is a venerated demographic that is 48 years old today. It is the generation of freedom (the South African equivalent of the born-frees), and a significant part of the cohort that participated in the struggle as teens or young adults. It is the generation that bore the brunt of the struggle for freedom but which has been denied the opportunity for real political leadership. That part of its membership that has had access to state power is drawn from the reactionary wing of the groupthe scions of the decadent YK92 and drivers of the NO campaign against a new constitution.

Despite having successfully fought for a new constitution, three decades after Saba Saba, the frustration felt by this generation and its children runs deep. Why? Power is still largely imperial, exercised in a brutal and unaccountable manner, as institutions flail and falter. The country is still ethnically divided, the fabric of our nationhood is fraying and its stability remains remarkably and frighteningly fragile. Foreign domination, exploitation, oppression is still with us. Poverty and inequality still reign as a tiny economic aristocracy consolidates wealth at the top, while a large pool of the poor underclass expands at the bottom. Why is this the case? Why, after three major successful transitions over three decadesmultipartyism in 1992; power transition in 2002; and a new constitution in 2010are we still being frustrated by our politics and economics? Why is our quest to advance Kenya as a prosperous, democratic and stable country floundering? I see five main reasons why Kenyas democratisation and development have been stymied.

First, and most importantly, is the moral bankruptcy of Kenyas elite. It is the loyal facilitator of our continued colonisation by the imperialism of the West and the East. We have a political elite whotogether with their acolytes in the middle classesview this constitution as inconvenient and who have in the last decade taken every step to undermine it, now even audaciously threatening to overhaul it. This mythmaking of how the constitution doesnt work for us; or how it is expensive (despite analytical evidence to the contrary), or how it does not promote inclusivity, is basically political mischief-making that must be roundly denounced and firmly rejected.

But this hostile attitude by the political class towards the constitution should not surprise us. The constitution was imposed on them by the people through a people-driven process. And we must remember that they proposed more amendments to it on the floor of the House than there were articles in the constitution. To be sure, when the political class finds a constitution, a law or an institution to be an inconvenience, that is a clear indicator of success.

We must actively resist the schemes by the political class to hijack, mangle and wreck the constitution, and thus remove the checks that make the exercise of political power onerous. The constitutional product is only as goodand as secureas the process that creates it. And whereas we must salute the decision of Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga to stop the grandstanding and step back from the brink to save lives, the framework for dealing with the issues that created the problem in the first place (such as electoral theft right from the party primaries to the general election, ethnicity, police brutality and vigilante massacres) should have been broader, more structured, and more inclusive than the present process which is private, exclusionary, unstructured and partisan.

The moral bankruptcy of the political elite is pushing us into a false choice between dynasties and hustlersa very superficial and shallow narrative masquerading as a class-based political contest yet it is merely a joust between gangs. It is a (mis)-framing that obscures the underlying forces that create underdevelopment, instability and violence and those who benefit from the end result. We must not buy into this misframing of our political choices, whose guile in placing a confederacy of familiar surnames on one side, and a well-known economic rustler of public assets on the other, seeks to hide the common denominator of those two groups: the plutocrats within the state that are the beneficiaries. Both are extractive and extortionist, only distinguished by the differences in their predatory styles and their longevity in the enterprise of shaking down the Kenyan public. This is a club, a class of state-dependent accumulationists and state-created capitalists united by a history of plunder of public resources and unprincipled political posturing, and only divided by the revolving-door cycle of access to the public trough.

My second argument as to why, despite the many progressive political and constitutional transitions the country still feels restless and dissatisfied, has to do with the performance and the posture adopted by parliament. Whereas the judiciary has emerged as an effective and consequential arm of government since 2011, simultaneously playing defender and goalkeeper of the constitution, parliament, has since 2013, and even more so now, acquiesced as an adjunct to the executive. In a complete misreading of the presidential system, parliament sees itself as an extension rather than a check on the executive. The senate is even worse; instead of playing its constitutive role of protecting devolution against the excesses and encroachment of the national government, senators got into the most parochial contest of egos with the governors, bizarrely siding with the executive to stream-roll and undermine devolution. It took the judiciary, through a number of bold decisions, and the public, who rallied around devolution, including in the ruling partys backyard, to save devolution from an early collapse.

Third is the suboptimal output from devolved governments. Devolution has been good but is not yet great. Because of a hostile national government and endemic corruption in the counties, devolved governments have not performed optimally although, compared to the central governments record of the last 50 years, they have made a big difference in peoples daily lives. Although devolution has been revolutionary, a combination of frustration from the top (especially from the Treasury the Devolution Ministry (particularly the first one) and the Provincial Administration) and the extremely poor and corrupt leadership of some governors have delayed the devolution dividends.

I dare say that without the strong backing of the judgesa raft of decisions by the High Court and two decisions by the Supreme Court on the Division of Revenue Billdevolution would long have unravelled. These decisions are part of the reason for the animosity towards the judiciary that we have witnessed in the last decade.

Fourth, political parties have not been operating optimally. Political party primaries have been heavily rigged and violent, which has undermined peoples faith in the democratic process. Further, the Political Parties Fund is operated in an opaque manner, with the size of the allocations to some parties being equal to the allocations that are given to some counties. The disorganisation and privatisation of parties is nurturing a feeling of despondency and a lack of belief in parties, yet our constitution envisages a party-based constitutional democracy.

Fifth is the countrys economic collapse due to mismanagement. This economic failure preceded the COVID-19 pandemic. Never before has the country witnessed such a spectacular mismanagement of the economy. There is absolute incoherence and inconsistency in the public policy priorities. From a glitzy manifesto that has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance, to the Big 4 Agenda, the Nairobi Regeneration Team, the Anti-Corruption, we are all over the place, and are now consumed by succession politics. We have a ballooning debt that is unprecedented in stock (over Sh6 trillion), in composition (much of it expensive commercial debt); and in impact (Eurobond monies are yet to be accounted for).

In this context, it would be extremely foolish to think that individuals who have been partners in this mismanagement could be plausible alternatives. The authors of the last seven years of corruption, debt, and underdevelopment are known and so, if the country is to stand a chance of realising the benefits of the transitions that it has undergone, then it would be utter tomfoolery to consider parading any of these characters as the agents of that change.

Our Constitution is not defective. The quality of our elite isfatally so. The problem is not in the structure of power as expressed in our constitutional architecture, but in the exercise of power in the conduct, choice and decisions that leadersand to some extent the massesmake. The structure of power does not command us to have a President, Speaker, Prime Minister (that is what the Majority Leader would be in a parliamentary system), Attorney General, Chief of Defence Forces, Director General of Intelligence, Head of Kenya Police, Director of Directorate of Criminal Investigations, Governor of Central Bank, Commissioner General of Kenya Revenue Authority, and Auditor General, all from one region.

It is the exercise of that power, both by the nominating and confirming authorities, that allows for this construction of an ethnic hegemony at the heart and in the commanding heights of state affairs. This is not to question the competence and patriotism of these compatriots; it is to question the effect of this apparent singular concentration of competence in one ethnic identity on the fabric of our nationhood. The absolute necessity for diversity and inclusion in public positions and policy cannot be gainsaid. That is how you create a strong and united nation. The argument that changing the constitution will, ipso facto, foster inclusivity is a false one. With an already expansive government of 22 ministers, over 40 Principal Secretaries, parastatal chiefs, and an expanded leadership in both Houses of Parliament, how come we are still not able to be inclusive?

Vuguvugu la Mageuzi (VUMA) or Kongomano la Mageuzi. These are possible names of a transformative movement made up of all the social movements that exist in the country and that, going forward, would tackle a number of issues.

First, the middle class civil society must reactivate its engagement and build strategic and effective alliances with grassroots movements and the over 40 social justice centres countrywide to keep both national and county governments in check and create a strong central defence for the constitution. Indeed, the countervailing power of the civil society must be strengthened.

VUMA should be the crucible for the development of alternative leaderships drawn from such movements as The Artist Movements of cartoonists, film makers, singers, poets, and song writers; 100 Days of the Citizens Assemblies; Congress for the Protection of the Constitution; DeCOALonise; Friends of Lake Turkana; Inuka Kenya Ni Sisi, Okoa Mombasa, Kenya Tuitakayo Movement and SwitchOffKPLC. There are many others in formation: the movement to protect the rights of tea workers in Kericho; the movement to protect the cane farmers in Western Kenya; the movement to protect devolution in the NFD; the movements that defend community land from commodification; farmers revolts against crony capitalism in the Rift Valley and Central Kenya; and the movement to withdraw our troops from Somalia, among others.

Second, the movement must give voice and support the Council of Governors demands for the arrears in development funds that the national government continues to refuse to disburse.

Third, this is a good moment for the emergence of an alternative leadership for Kenya. The political elites are in fear of each other and there is a hurting stalemate in their relationship and negotiations. We need to invest in the rupture of those negotiations.

Fourth, we need to support a principled and fair fight against corruption, both at the national and county levels, and establish whether public policy and the law have been used for public good or private gain.

Fifth, we also need to set up at least three Judicial Commissions of Inquiry, the first one being on the public debt incurred since independence so that we can establish the rationale, basis, terms, impact and beneficiaries of these debts. This includes Ken-Ren, Goldenberg, Anglo Leasing, SGR, Eurobond and other scams. The second one should be on all government technology projects from IFMIS to OT-Morpho, to Huduma Number to E-Citizen. The third commission of inquiry should target police brutality and the vigilante and police massacres of 2017, especially in Western Kenya and in the slums of Nairobi.

Sixth, we should revisit all the solutions devised by the Saitoti Report; the Akiwumi Ethnic Clashes Report; the Ndungu Land Report; the InterParty-Parliamentary Group Report (particularly its unfinished business); the Truth and Justice Commission Report; the Kreigler Report; the Kroll Report; Kofi Annans Agenda 4; the Waki Report and all the reports developed by the civil society as solutions to our societal problems. That rich and robust material should be debated and refined for implementation.

Seventh, we must undertake mass civic education on the contents of the 2010 Constitution with a view to triggering the citizenry to demand its implementation;

Eighth, we must form a united front with political parties that are against imperialism and baronial rule and their respective narratives.

Ninth, we must nurture a political party or political parties that will contest for political power in the interests of the motherland.

And lastly, we must ensure that the failure of the ruling elite to secure the social and economic rights of the Kenyan people as provided for under the constitution (the right to food, housing, water, education, health, social security, employment) during the ongoing pandemic is an important lesson about the kind of leadership this country should not have.

The future of the constitution and our democracy will depend on the quality of leaders the country elects. That is when the full dividends of Saba Saba and 2010 will be fully realised. As the United States has shown, even constitutions, institutions, and customs that have been nurtured over hundreds of years can come easily undone by a rogue leadership and a pliant public.

Go here to see the original:

WILLY MUTUNGA - Saba Saba at 30: The Struggle for Progressive Alternative Political Leadership in Kenya Continues - The Elephant