Daily Archives: April 15, 2021

The Chicano Movement:

The mid to late sixties were a time for radical organization by minority groups. Following the Civil Right Movement (which peaked from 1955-1965) many separate movements began to emerge. There was the Young Lords Party formed by the Puerto Ricans in Chicago and New York, the Black Panthers formed in the California bay area, and the Chicano Movement started to emerge in many different forms.

The first part of the Chicano Movement began with Cesar Chavez and the creation of National Farm Workers Association. This organization later became the United Farm Workers (UFW). He and co-founder Dolores Huerta organized grape strikes, non-violent protests, hunger strikes, and marches against the farmers. Some of the major accomplishments of the UFW include improved working environments (the outlaw of DDT), unemployment benefits, and the Agricultural Labor Relations Act. 19

The Alianza Federal de Mercedes, founded by Reies Lopez Tijerina, was a group that focused on Chicano history within the United States. It wanted to "restore" ownership to those who lived on the land prior to the Mexican- American war. The motto of this movement was "The Land Is Our Inheritance, Justice Is Our Creed." Alianza, as well as the UFW, focused most of its attention on rural and land-related issues. They had failed to address issues of the barrio.

The Crusade for Justice, founded in 1965 by Rodolfo "Corky" Gonzales, did address urban Chicano communities. The goals of this organization were to establish communities controlled by Chicanos and to embrace their cultural nationalism. It focused on Chicano youth and was mainly comprised of students. They rejected assimilation and embraced their culture. They fought to have their culture become part of the curriculumin their schools. It was an organization for "Chicano Power."

La Raza Unida party was formed a in Crystal City, TX, in 1970 by Jose Angel Gutierrez. It attempted to "institutionalize Chicano students in national political terms and on a nation wide basis." Crystal City was 80% Mexican-American but they had no representation in the city counsel or on the school board. They organized a boycott against the school through walkouts. Through student walkouts at school, the adults in the Chicano Communities were reached. On April 4th, 1970 four Chicanos from the La Raza Unida party were elected to the school board. Because of the success of La Raza Unida party in Crystal City, many other cities and states in the southwest United States organized their own branches of the party.

These are a few of the major organizations that took place in the Chicana/o movement in earlier and later part of the sixties. Other groups include: the Brown Berets, Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), and many other student organizations. 21

The Anglo Feminist Movement:

The Anglo Feminist Movement came to life in two different ways. The first was with the formation of the National Organization for Women (NOW) which was started in 1966. Adult women and men were those represented in this part of the movement. They wanted equality for women in government, employment and labor unions. The other movement consisted of young women; most of them were currently in just out of college. It was unofficially named the Women's Liberation Movement. The majority of them had been active earlier in the civil rights and antiwar movements. This group was considered more radical than NOW. They focused on issues such as reproductive rights, violence to women, and sexuality. They wanted to change the patriarchal society. Both groups were comprised primarily of women whom were white and middle class to upper class. Some of the main victories of Women's Liberation Movement was the legalization of abortion in 1973, laws dealing with rape and abuse to women, laws pertaining to sterilization, affirmative action programs, and Title IX passed in 1972. 11

The Chicana Feminist Movement:

In March 1969 the Denver Youth Conference took place. At this conference a workshop was held discussing the role of women in the movement. The women of this workshop stated, "It was the consensus of the group that the Chicana woman does not want to be liberated." This was one of the principle actions that sparked the Chicana Feminist Movement. Soon after this, woman began to organize. In May 1971 over 600 Chicanas met in Houston, TX for the Mujeres Por La Raza Conference. The two largest workshops held at this conference were "Sex and the Chicana" and "Marriage- Chicana Style." A survey was taken at this conference showed that 84% of the women there felt as though they were not encouraged to seek professional careers and education was not considered important for Chicanas, 84% thought that there was not equal pay for equal work, and 72% felt as though there was discrimination towards them in La Raza. 4 Along with organizing women's caucuses and holding conferences Chicanas also know that getting their words out there was important as well. In 1973 Encuentro Femenil, the first Chicana Feminist journal, was published. This journal explores the sexism and racism facing Chicanas at the time. It also made distinctions between its movement and the Anglo Feminist Movement. There were other important publications emerging at this time such as the newspaperHijas de Cuauhtemoc and a book of articles called La Mujer En Pie de La Lucha. 5 Chicana feminism, which paralleled to the Chicano movement, helped the Chicana become recognized as a valuable asset in her community. A few prominent names in Chicana Feminism are Mirta Vidal, Anna NietoGomez, Martha Cotera, and Gloria Anzaldua. There aremany more that emerged from the feminist and Chicano movement in the seventies and eighties. The struggles for these women were not always easy ones.

The Chicana could not rely on the men in the Chicano Movement or the women in the Women's Liberation Movement. Each of the movements wanted the Chicana to sacrifice her needs for the larger movement. Women who fought for their rights were often told by both groups that they had to choose between being women and being Chicana.

Chicanos and Chicano loyalists often accused Chicanas of being venditas or traitors to the movement and compared to Anglos of the Women's Liberation movement. They are viewed as being anti-family, anti-cultural, and anti-man. They accused them of trying to split the movement and not supporting the cause. The Chicano movement often ignored the request of Chicanas to incorporate issues such as abortion and reproductive choice (along with other issues important to Chicanas) into their platform. This backlash from the community forced Chicanas to discuss how Chicana Feminism should relate its movement to the rest of the Chicano Movement. 20 Loyalists to the Chicano movement felt that racism needed to be addressed before sexism. They used arguments against Chicanas were disrupting the roles or males and females with in the Chicano community. The more independent she became, the more she was labeled by the movement as Mujer Mala (or Bad Women) and the more they were accused of taking up the Anglo woman's fight.

Chicana had two main arguments to counter these accusations. They pointed out historical independent women in Chicano and Mexican history. They used examples of women who fought in the Mexican Revolution. They used examples of indigenous women prior to colonization by Spain and how they were strong, independent equals in the society. They also used nun and writer Sor Juana Inez de la Cruz, and more modern references of UFW co-founder and activist Dolores Huerta. The other argument used by Chicanas was "the need to remake the family in struggle against Anglo domination." This was different from the Anglo movement because there was not much importance placed on the family structure in the Anglo movement. Through restructuring the family Chicanas thought the movement would progress further. They wanted to change the traditional gender roles imposed on them while recognizing the importance of the family structure in the Chicana/o community.

There were other differences between the Women's Liberation movement and the Chicana Feminist movement was the inclusion of race and class. The Anglo women focused on gender and felt that Chicanas should choose gender over culture. Chicanas had faced oppression concerning all three of these and did not think that one was more important than the other. Also, Chicanas lack of participation in the Anglo Feminist movement helped to reassure Chicano loyalists that they were not traitors to their culture and community. 22 The Women's Liberation movement viewed the Chicana women, and other minorities as well, as all similar. The classism of the movement failed to recognize the diverse background that these women came from. Anglo feminists felt superior not only in race but in class and often undermined and disregarded the ideology of different minority feminist movements. 26

See more here:

Chicana Feminism - History

I should not have to care whether my religious beliefs conflict with the majority of those in any branch of our government. The Constitution as enumerated in Article VI Section 3 and the First Amendment is supposed to guarantee that government should not care that for the first time ever the number of Americans who belong to a church has fallen below a majority. Unfortunately, a lot of people do care. In fact, some are downright terrified at the decline in religion. And it just so happens, many people who are terrified are also in government.

According to the most recent Attorney General, William Barr, this country was founded on the premise (expressed by John Adams that one time) that our government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people. An attorney general saying this country is only intended and suitable for religious people is deeply disturbing for a couple of reasons. First, one John Adams quote notwithstanding, the Constitutions plain language that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States directly contradicts it. It takes a massive, unsubstantiated leap to say our government was intended only to be suitable and sustainable for religious people when religious oaths were banned from the beginning and the only other mention is that government must stay out of religious affairs. Second, and more troubling, is believing government is only suitable and sustainable for religious people means those citizens who does not believe by very definition become unsuitable. Which is exactly what William Barr thinks.

To Barr, nonbelievers are everything thats wrong with this country. Barr views nonbelievers, as a collective, as directly responsible for the wreckage of the family, and record levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing number of angry and alienated young males, an increase of senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic. Such views are not only facially bigoted (imagine saying Christianity and Christians were responsible for such things) but provably untrue.

Violent crime has not increased but drastically decreased during the period of religious decline. Families are not being wrecked. In fact, divorce rates have not only fallen significantly in the past year, but have also dropped appreciably over the past decade. The decline of religion is driving an irrational demonization and hatred of nonbelievers, and we are seeing this play out not just rhetorically, but in the courts.

Federal courts have banned nonbelievers from speaking to their own legislatures, banned nonbelievers from holding private jobs such as wedding celebrants for nonbeliever couples. Another federal panel (that included the liberal-minded Diane Wood and now-Justice Amy Barrett Coney) held last fall that states can favor religious gatherings over nonreligious expressive gatherings, including political gatherings. Never mind that political speech has been universally recognized as being at the heart of the First Amendment guarantee. Never mind there are many cases in which the Supreme Court has held, again, and again, and again, that religious expression must be treated equally with nonreligious expression. Because it is painfully obvious the law has nothing to do with such decisions.

Favoring religion in the law and disfavoring nonbelievers can only be explained by bigotry. Only a bigot would claim religious citizens and religious expression is worth more to this country than nonreligious citizens and nonreligious expression. Only a bigot would claim this country is only suitable and sustainable for a religious people.

But what can a nonbeliever do against such bigotry?

The absolute worst response to bigotry is more bigotry. Dr. Martin Luther King led a successful movement of American citizens (who had suffered far worse oppression than nonbelievers currently are), because he and these Americans rejected responding to bigotry in kind. Fear, hatred, and anger does not make lasting peace. Nonbelievers must respond by being better and fighting for universal freedom of conscience and denouncing any attempt by government to favor or disfavor citizens or their expression based on religious belief. Standing up for universal free conscience rights also means acknowledging where religious fears are legitimate.

If this now decades-long trend continues, nonbelievers will become the majority. In the short term, with a religious conservative ideological takeover of the courts, the continued rise in nonbelief is going to result in more restructuring of the First Amendment to favor the religious at the expense of nonbeliever free conscience. Last Friday, the Supreme Court reinvented religious liberty using an entirely new interpretation where the oldest precedent cited was from 2020. If or when a nonbeliever majority is achieved, nonbelievers must work to rebalance the courts to reverse the bigotry and restructuring of the law to serve partisan ends.

Tyler Brokers work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email himor follow him onTwitterto discuss his column.

View post:

The Legal Oppression Of Nonbelievers Will Escalate The More Religion Declines - Above the Law

MY NAME is Lily Tang Williams and I grew up in Communist China under the reign of Mao Zedong during a painful era called the Cultural Revolution. The origins of the Cultural Revolution preceded my birth, when a Western ideology, Marxism, was injected into China by Mao.

Marxism would later evolve into Maoism. Like all forms of Marxism, Maoism epitomized the worst in humanity: division, hatred, envy, and vengeance. Unlike most revolutions, the Cultural Revolution was not a war against a regime, but a regime-inspired holy war against its own people, society, and culture. Maos Cultural Revolution sought to destroy the Four Olds: traditional ideas, culture, habits, and customs. Through it, he led a campaign to silence dissident opinions, purge his political enemies, and, in the process, destroy age-old social institutions and gain absolute power.

Identity politics was a hallmark of Maoism, dividing people into five red classes and five black classes. The red classes were identified as poor and lower-middle-class peasants, workers, revolutionary soldiers, cadres, and revolutionary martyrs. The black classes were landlords, rich farmers, counter-revolutionaries, bad-influencers, and rightists. Mao shut down the schools and universities, urged the Red Guard (urban youth) to hate and hold Struggle Sessions to shame the black classes publicly by forcing them to self-criticize, confess their crimes and denounce themselves. The consequences for defiance were assault, torture, or imprisonment at a re-education camp. Some children were so brainwashed they would even change their surnames, cut ties with their families, and publicly denounce and betray their families.

Maos Cultural Revolution was a top to bottom orchestrated social justice movement like no other. An estimated 20 million Chinese died during the Cultural Revolution due to Maos toxic ideas and murderous policies. Today in China, no memorials or museums to those of this forgotten holocaust exist; even the phrase Cultural Revolution is banned on the Internet by the Chinese government.

In todays populist, racially-charged social justice movement in America, I see the shadows of the Cultural Revolution in Critical Race Theory (CRT), and in the ideology that inspired this movement. For those unfamiliar with CRT, it is the idea that American law, society, and institutions are inherently racist. Whites are born racist because of the cultural domination by White people in furthering their own economic and political power at the expense of people of color.

After I left China for America at the age of 23, arriving in Austin with nothing more than a suitcase, I discovered Texas to be filled with the kindest and most generous people I have ever encountered. There I was, a stranger in a strange land, being invited into American homes and offered help. Now, 33 years later, I am living the American Dream. This is not something one would expect to happen to a non-White, non-English speaking foreigner in a country that is systemically racist. My experience is certainly not unique. Many people of color agree with me that America has made huge progress since the Civil Rights Movement.

While CRT and Maoism are not identical ideologies, they share five features in common. The first is the development of a quasi-religious following of zealous youth devoted to unrestrained destruction of what is old to advance that which is new. Whereas Mao called for traditional Chinese culture to be destroyed, CRT calls for dismantling systems of oppression, which, like Maos definition of the old, is subjectively dependent on what they define as oppressive. The second feature is that both ideologies reduce complex problems to the classical Marxist dichotomy: society is constituted of those who oppress and those who are oppressed. CRT divides society into oppressor class (White) and oppressed class (people of color). Third, the processes in CRT training are similar to those in Struggle Sessions: writing self-criticizing letters, apologizing for being born White, public shaming, instilling guilt and hatred. Fourth, both ideologies are taught to school-age children without parental consent. The students are made to feel ashamed and guilty about their family history going back generations. Children are taught and trained to be social justice warriors by advocating for racial equity, which is about wealth redistribution. Fifth, the chaos, violence, identity politics and social division conjured up by both ideologies open the way for political factions to systematically divide and conquer until usurpation of the existing political system is one check-mate away.

I genuinely believed that the spirit of American individualism would resist the Sirens song of Marxism that I left behind. I was nave. It once again returns under a different name as it always does and now threatens to poison America, my refuge. This time, however, I have nowhere to run. I plead with you, learn from this immigrants story and the lessons of history fight back.

Lily Tang Williams is co-chair of New Hampshire Asian American Coalition. She lives in Weare.

Read the rest here:

Lily Tang: A Chinese immigrant's warning on Critical Race Theory - The Union Leader

The government has been warned by its own equalities watchdog that covid-status certificate schemes or vaccine passports could be discriminatory, it has been reported.

Ministers are considering whether the documents could be required as a condition for entry for public spaces such as sports events or despite significant opposition from Tory MPs as well as Labour and the Lib Dems.

The certificates are expected to allow users to display whether they have received a vaccine, undertaken a recent test or have antibodies.

However, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is reported to have told the Cabinet Office that such a measure would create a two-tier society in the UK.

Boris Johnson himself has said that the risk of discrimination is one of the sticking points in developing a scheme for protecting public spaces.

Sun rises over Aintree ahead of Grand NationalWhy Labours Commons defeat over Greensill wasnt really a defeat Second inquiry into Greensill lobbying scandal announced

The EHRC advice, reported in The Guardian, also warns employers should hold back on no jab, no job policies until all young people have been offered immunisations, that plans to make jabs mandatory for care workers may be unlawful, and that there is a risk of unlawful discrimination if decisions taken in this process disadvantage people with protected characteristics who have not received, or are not able to receive, the vaccine, unless they can be shown to be justified.

Earlier this month, figures including Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey and Tory 1922 committee chair Graham Brady said the certificates should not be used to deny individuals access to general services, businesses or jobs.

Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday

Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday

The politicians joined by Labours Dawn Butler, Rebecca Long Bailey and Jeremy Corbyn; Lib Dems Layla Moran, Tim Farron, and Alistair Carmichael; and Tories Iain Duncan Smith, Peter Bone, and Steve Baker signed a joint letter with the support of more than 70 MPs opposing the measure.

Baroness Chakrabarti, a Labour peer, added: International travel is a luxury but participating in your own community is a fundamental right.

So internal Covid passports are an authoritarian step too far. We dont defeat the virus with discrimination and oppression but with education, vaccination and mutual support.

It comes after a leaked letter from the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital Foundation showed the NHS trust was planning to make vaccinations against coronavirus a contractual requirement for all they employ.

Meanwhile, the the Department of Health and Social Care has announced it will launch a consultation on proposals to make vaccination among care home staff a requirement of their employment.

The department warned the current staff vaccination level was below 80 per cent in 89 separate local authority areas and across all 32 London boroughs.

Unison general secretary Christina McAnea said: Boosting the number of vaccinations in the social care sector is essential for everyones safety. But mandatory jabs are the wrong approach and a massive distraction.

Too heavy-handed an approach could backfire badly. Some staff may simply up and go, leaving a poorly paid sector already struggling with thousands and thousands of vacancies in a terrible state. That could damage the quality of care for the elderly and vulnerable, and no one wants that.

Read the original here:

Covid: Government told vaccine passports could be unlawful by rights watchdog - The Independent

The Australian government has sought to reassure more than 3,300 Myanmar nationals in Australia that it wont force them to return when their visas expire.

But despite mounting calls to provide greater reassurance to Myanmar nationals in Australia, Canberra has stopped short of across-the-board visa extensions or offers of asylum, insisting the issues will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Australias immediate past ambassador to Myanmar, Nicholas Coppel, told Guardian Australia the government needed to provide more security to visa holders, saying they were in in limbo and should be offered a pathway to permanent residency as this crisis shows no signs of ending.

With hundreds of civilians killed by security forces in Myanmar since the 1 February military coup, the Australian government has been urged to grant visa extensions similar to those given to Hong Kong nationals last year.

There were 3,366 visa holders from Myanmar in Australia at the end of February, government figures show, about half of them students.

Senior Labor frontbenchers have written to government ministers to say: No one should be involuntarily deported to Myanmar if they dont want to go back.

In response to questions from Guardian Australia, a spokesperson for the Department of Home Affairs said Myanmar citizens who wished to remain in Australia should contact the department to ensure they are aware of the range of options available to extend their stay and remain lawful.

Australia is not considering removals given the current situation in Myanmar and the restricted travel options caused by Covid, the spokesperson said.

Australia provided protection to individuals consistent with international human rights obligations, the spokesperson added, and does not return individuals to situations where they face persecution or a real risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary deprivation of life or the application of the death penalty.

The spokesperson said individuals who wished to seek Australias protection may be granted permanent protection provided they are also able to fulfil the relevant visa criteria, which includes the health, character and security requirements that apply to all Australian visas.

However, each case is assessed on its individual merits and protection visa decisions are not based on broad assumptions about the safety in particular countries, the spokesperson said.

April Khaing, a representative of the Global Movement for Myanmar Democracy, said the government needed to offer Hawke-government style amnesties and asylum to visa holders.

This will ensure those currently residing in Australia are not required to return to Myanmar where they will face the violence and oppression of the military junta, she told a parliamentary hearing in Canberra on Tuesday.

We urgently request these amnesties to be extended to the immediate families of those already here to join them.

Coppel, who served as Australias ambassador to Myanmar from 2015 to 2018, said Australia should move quickly to give the small number of Myanmar nationals in Australia security over their futures.

The former envoy said an immediate announcement on the extension of all temporary visas held by Myanmar nationals should be followed by the establishment of a pathway to permanent residency, and said other countries had moved far more swiftly to reassure Myanmar nationals.

There is a clear humanitarian argument: we cannot push these people to return to Myanmar, Coppel said.

But this crisis shows no sign of ending, we dont know how or when it might end, and in the meantime, Myanmar nationals here are left in limbo. They cant establish lives here, their employment prospects are limited, they need certainty, and I think it makes sense to establish a pathway to permanent residency for those who want it.

Australia, too, Coppel said, needed to be more forceful in its advocacy for the release of Australian economist Sean Turnell.

He said Turnell was not a victim of hostage diplomacy: Myanmar was not looking to leverage Turnell in a dispute with Australia, but that the Myanmar military totally wrongly suspected Turnell of wrongdoing because of his close association with Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Australian government should not be shy about being stronger in its calls for his release, Coppel said.

This is a brutal regime, they are bullies, the idea that quiet diplomacy, that softly, softly is going to be effective is laughable, the only thing they understand is brute force and very strong statements.

Australian government officials have argued their response to the coup has involved active, engaged and sustained diplomacy.

Ridwaan Jadwat, who is in charge of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trades southeast Asia division, brushed off criticism that a phone call between an Australian defence force leader and Myanmars deputy commander in chief had been used by the regime as a propaganda tool.

Jadwat said the call was made to express concern about Turnell and there were elements of that call that resulted in some additional contact with the detained Australian.

But in no way are we seeking to legitimise [the military regime] and we will not ever do that. We will try to use our lines of communication with the regime where needed in a limited fashion to prosecute our national interests, Jadwat said.

Go here to see the original:

Australian government tells Myanmar nationals they wont be forced to return - The Guardian

Toronto, April 12 (CNA) The Canadian government said Monday there was no truth to a news report that it was planning to withhold funding from a United States-based non-profit organization, which reportedly has proposed giving an award to Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen ().

The Halifax International Security Forum (HFX), which holds its signature forum in the Canadian city of Halifax each year, is planning to present its "2020 John McCain Prize for Leadership in Public Service" to Tsai, according to the American publication Politico.

Upon learning of the decision, however, the Canadian government threatened to withdraw its financial support of the HFX if it went through with the plan to give the award to Tsai, Politico reported, saying that Canada feared such a decision would provoke China.

At a meeting Monday of the Canadian Parliament's Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan strongly denied the Politico report, according to Canadian media.

"That is absolutely false," Sajjan was reported as saying. "The Halifax International Security Forum is an independent organization and they make their own choices with regards to the awards."

He said that when the funding request comes to him, as it does every year, he will "take a look at it," according to the media reports.

Sajit spokesman Todd Lane told CNA that the Canadian government had provided funding for the forum in 2020 under a contribution agreement but had no part in the forum's decisions.

"While financial support has been provided, the (Canadian) Department of National Defense and the Canadian Armed Forces are not involved in the planning of the Forum," Lane said in an email response to CNA on the issue. "The organizers reach out to us, as well as many other organizations, for panelists on various topics and we try to support when appropriate."

According to the Politico report, the situation remains at an impasse, as HFX's has "not yet announced the winner" of the prize since the November 2020 forum but it has said Tsai would be "an ideal fit."

The John McCain Prize, named after the late U.S. senator, is awarded annually by the HFX to individuals from any country, who have demonstrated uncommon leadership in the pursuit of human justice. The award in 2018 was made to the people of Lesbos, Greece, for their "valiant actions to rescue refugees fleeing conflict in the Middle East," while in 2019 it was given to the people of Hong Kong for their "brave fight for their rights in the face of oppression from the government of China."

Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said that if Tsai received the award, it would be an affirmation of the Taiwanese people's democratic achievements and efforts against COVID-19, but the ministry also stressed that it would respect whatever decision the HFX reached.

According to Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, 2019-2020 federal budget documents show that the Canadian Department of National Defense's annual contributions to the forum are around CA$3 million (US$2.38 million).

The newspaper also reported that two Taiwan government ministers took part in the 2020 HFX forum, which was held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Foreign Minister Joseph Wu () spoke during an off-the-record session, while Minister without Portfolio Audrey Tang () joined the discussions on intellectual property in one of the sessions, it said.

(By Hu Yu-li, Emerson Lim and Matthew Mazzetta)

Enditem/pc

See the rest here:

Canada denies plan to pull NGO funding over proposed award to Taiwan leader - Focus Taiwan News Channel

Over the years, feminism has been instrumental in highlighting the differential conditioning that women are subjected to in society. Many structures are placed in the public sphere that negate the inclusion and participation of women in society, thereby side-lining one half of the population.

Since its genesis, the feminist movement has undergone many radical changes and the last three decades have given rise to increased visibility of third world feminist struggles.

In the Indian context, Dalit feminism strikes a two-pronged attack on caste and gender. No form of oppression ever occurs in isolation and so, when it comes to the oppression of Dalit women, one has to take into account their caste as well as their gender.

The early decades of the 20th century witnessed protest movements that sought to reform the social, economic and political conditions of Dalit women. These movements highlighted the link between industrialisation, colonialism and the commodification of womens body as the main factor that furthered their oppression.

While reading BR Ambedkar, one cannot skip the profound insights Babasaheb had on social issues relevant to his times. On the occasion of Ambedkar Jayanti, when the world will celebrate his 130th birth anniversary on April 14, it would be profoundly wrong to recognise him only as a Dalit leader. His work also reflects his massive contribution towards the cause of womens rights. The social movement in 1920s and 1930s helped shape Indias modern Dalit feminist theory.

In his journals-- Moon Nayak and Bahiskrit Bharat, Ambedkar wrote extensively on womens oppression and their issues. He advocated for a Hindu Code Bill aimed at reforming Hindu personal law in India by ensuring women have economic security in the form of inheritance after marriage. Ambedkar remained particularly dissatisfied with the then Parliament for stalling the Hindu Code Bill and their lack of enthusiasm for womens cause. He was the first feminist thinker of his time to resign from his position as the Law minister of the country due to the inability of the Nehru government to pass the same.

Uniform Civil Code

Ambedkars advocation for a Uniform Civil Code focused on marriage, divorce, inheritance and guardianship of women and was aimed at eliminating the communal divide by ensuring legal and social justice to all. I personally do not understand why religion should be given this vast, expansive jurisdiction, so as to cover the whole of life and to prevent the legislature from encroaching upon that field.

During the Ambedkarite movement in the 1930s, Dalit womens organisations passed many resolutions against dowry, child marriage and caste system. They also extended their political support to the Independent Labour Party and the Schedule Caste Federation. These instances highlight the significance of the then Dalit feminist movement and the need for Dalit feminists to tun to Ambedkars political thought, today.

Tyrannical Imbalance

Ambedkar understood the necessity to provide women with a space where they can realise their true potential. He advocated for womens rights and their dignity in society. Brahmanical rituals and moral obligations have suppressed women, especially the Dalit women.

The central idea of Ambedkarite thought is to ensure education for women, provide them with economic security and a political voice to raise their own concerns. In these terms Ambedkar was far ahead of his times. His main mission was to reconstruct Hindu society along the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity. Given the complexity of todays world and the ongoing plethora of politics of differences, there is a need to discuss Dalit feminism through the Ambedkarite lens of empowerment.

During the 6th Ambedkar Memorial Lecture held at Tata Institute of Social Science (TISS), Sharmila Rege said, There is an urgency for feminist discourse to turn to Ambedkar. A category of women undifferentiated by caste does not exist for feminists to mobilise. Now the pressure is not to talk about gender in isolation but to include class, caste and other factors. Therefore, there is a need to reclaim Dr Ambedkars writings as feminist classics.

In order to accentuate a responsive conscience of the community, the attainment of political and economic empowerment is crucial for any group and the Dalit feminists need to work relentlessly to break free from the mainstream shackles that the society has placed on them. Within the political sphere, the current government has worked efficiently to emancipate women from their disadvantageous position and provide them with a life that ensures stability and security and dignity in its truest sense.

Laudable steps

The BJP government has advocated for womens empowerment and this has been reflected in their 2019 Lok Sabha election manifesto which covered areas like womens education, security and all-round development. With its Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao programme the party is committed towards providing accessible and quality education to all women in the country.

By taking concrete legislative measures regarding triple talaq, the government has ensured equal legal rights to Muslim women. The Mission Indradhanush programme ensured full immunisation of 3.39 crore pregnant mothers and its schemes, comprising Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, Ujjwala, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna, Saubhagya, has been functioning effectively in ensuring a safe and dignified life for women.

The government is aiming to strengthen womens position in society by drawing upon Ambedkarite thought. The Uniform Civil Code that the BJP government is keen on bringing has its roots in the modernisation philosophy of Ambedkar that irrespective of religion, the basic legal rights of marriage, divorce and property inheritance must be enjoyed by all. The Maternity Bill 2016 passed in Parliament ensures women get paid leave. The passing of the Maternity Bill 2016 is a landmark moment as it recognises the caregivers of the society.

While discussing this issue we need to go back to the year 1928 when Babasaheb defended and argued for the Bill for the first time in Bombay Legislative Council where he stated, I believe, therefore, that it is in the interests of the nation that the mother ought to get a certain amount of rest during the pre-natal period and also subsequently, and the principle of the bill is based entirely on that principle.

The discourse of Dalit feminist has long been pushed behind the subaltern critique and has been used time and again by different mainstream narratives but now it is due time for them to secure a presiding narrative for themselves that reserve their social standing as well economic entitlement. The empowering politics that Ambedkar embraced throughout his life is crucial for Dalit feminist to turn to.

Ambedkar used the modern ethical norm to formulate and conceptualise the identity of woman in the society through social emancipation and empowerment and emphasising the individuals autonomy as a political agent. Through this, he emphasised upon how the social and political models have synthesised and resulted into enriching the potential of women in Indian society.

(Aditi Narayani is a Phd Scholar at the Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policies, School of Social Science, JNU and founder of DAPSA (Dalit Adivasi Professor Scholar Association). Views are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Outlook Magazine)

More here:

The Need For Dalit Feminists To Base Their Movement On Babasaheb Ambedkars Thought - Outlook India

As a group of House Democrats urges presidential action on gun control, others are pushing the Senate to vote on House-passed gun control bills. In either case, the result would make people more vulnerable. When the right to keep and bear arms is suppressed by a government, the doors to oppression and abuse are opened. I know because Ive seen it.

Hardwired, the global human rights organization I founded, fights against the oppression of religious communities of all faiths in countries around the world. Among these countries is Nigeria, where Fulani herdsmen have been waging a war against Christian farmers for the past decade, but in recent years, it's grown much worse. The Fulani herdsmen are attacking farmland throughout the region to force Christian farmers out of the area and take over their land. The attacks typically increase in the spring and are carried out with AK-47s and machetes.

In Nigeria, the law does not permit citizens to own firearms. As a result, the Christian farmers are sitting ducks. Not only will their government not protect them, but their government is also preventing them from protecting themselves. Herdsmen attack entire villages, burning churches, killing pastors and worshippers, kidnapping and forcibly converting young children, and destroying homes, businesses, and crops.

The Nigerian government is complicit. According to reporter Doug Burton, who has been covering Nigeria closely for many years, the Fulani have been buying weapons from illicit sellers as well as from Nigerias military. The government is not only to be condemned for its silence about attacks on Christians but also for its apparent complicity in arming the Fulani and leaving the Christians defenseless. As a result, the conflict in Nigerias Middle Belt states continues to worsen.

The situation in Nigeria is a perfect example of what happens when innocent civilians are unable to defend themselves and why our Founding Fathers made a point to secure the right to bear arms, second only to the freedom of speech and religion. You cannot have one without the other.

I have seen this happen elsewhere. When Islamic State militants stormed into northern Iraq, within hours, they decimated and took control of villages. The police fled, and the people could not defend themselves. As a result, hundreds of thousands of families were forcibly displaced overnight. Yazidi men were taken and shot to death, lining 18 mass graves with their bodies. And then, ISIS took the women to a large hall, where men raped and tortured them before selling them into sexual slavery.

After ISIS moved into northern Iraq, I met a woman named Aida, whose 4-year-old daughter was taken from her at gunpoint. She was told she could leave the child, or she could be shot. She cried and pleaded for help as she recounted the last moments with her daughter.

This is what happens when people cannot defend themselves and their families, when their government fails to protect them or, worse, is complicit by suppressing their rights. As a mother and person of faith, I cant imagine living in Nigeria, Iraq, or any other country where I do not have the right to arm and protect myself and my family against horrors like this.

It's so easy for those of us to take for granted the simple freedoms we enjoy by virtue of living in this great nation. I am amazed at how easily we will give up our freedoms without understanding the consequences. As Benjamin Franklin famously said, They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has described herself as a Second Amendment absolutist. She explained that growing up in the late 1950s and early 1960s in Birmingham, Alabama, her father and his friends would deter the Ku Klux Klan members who came into her neighborhood by firing their guns in the air. Even in the United States, the Second Amendment has been crucial to the self-defense of those who have not always been protected by the government. Its astonishing that we would consider taking this away.

Even leaving aside the long history of governments disarming their citizenry as a means of oppression, the right to defend ourselves against any existential threat is among the most basic rights, which is why our founders fought so hard to protect it.

I am a single mother of a young daughter. I pray that my daughter and I are never in a situation where we need to use a gun to protect ourselves from an attacker or our own government. But having seen the repercussions firsthand, I will always stand against any move to force us into defenselessness.

Tina Ramirez is the Virginia chairwoman of Maggies List and was a candidate for Congress. She is the president of Hardwired Global, a human rights organization, and was the founding director of the bipartisan International Religious Freedom Caucus in Congress.

See the rest here:

As a single mother, I support the Second Amendment - Washington Examiner