Daily Archives: May 6, 2022

There's something shifting at the breakfast club in Dutton land Get Access Code.

Enter your email address and Crikey will send a Verification Code

Enter the Verification Code sent to

to confirm your account.The Verification Code will expire in 1 hour.

Contact us on: support@crikey.com.au or call the hotline: +61 (03) 8623 9900.

Candidates' forums are unique. Not only do you get to rise before the sun, but you see politicians such as Peter Dutton face the public.

"Ha ha ha, our next question is from Evan, one of the students here today," said the wiry, moustachioed host from the lectern, a local radio star, I was told. "Evan says he wants to be a politician! Evan..." (pause) "...WHYYYYYYY?" Evan, who I'd heard earlier describing himself as a young Liberal and a stalwart of the United Nations (UN) club, looked taken aback.

As did, on the podium, 12 political candidates, the bald pate of Peter Dutton among them.

It was 7.15 in the morning. There were about 100 of us there in the main room of the Arana Leagues Club in Brisbane's north-west, plates loaded with soggy scrambled eggs and blood-foaming baked beans, having hauled ourselves up at some godawful hour and now fighting off a second wave of carb drowse. That we were into politics was probably a reasonable assumption.

Already a subscriber? Log in to keep reading.Or, register your email address for a FREE 21-day trial.

Guy Rundle

Correspondent-at-large

Guy Rundle is correspondent-at-large for Crikey. He is also an associate editor at Arena Quarterly and contributes to a variety of publications in Australia and the United Kingdom.

Insert

" + _localizedStrings.redirect_overlay_title + "

" + _localizedStrings.redirect_overlay_text + "

See the rest here:

There's something shifting at the breakfast club in Dutton land - Crikey

MY PERSPECTIVE, Gary Damron

Last week we considered some early history of David, who wrote close to half of the Psalms in the Bible. He was the youngest son of Jesse, grandson of Ruth the Moabitess (Ruth 4:17). Through his great-grandfather Boaz, David was related to Rahab the foreign harlot who helped the spies enter the Promised Land through Jericho (Joshua chapters 2 and 6; Matthew 1:5). Known as a man after Gods own heart, David was around age fifteen when he was anointed king by the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 16:13).

Through Samuel and David, we learn traits of servanthood and obedience. Samuel years before had anointed Saul to be the first king of Israel (1 Samuel 10:1) and seemed to have great affection for the king and his family. When God revealed to him that Saul would be replaced, it was difficult for Samuel to accept Gods judgment on Saul and move on to the future. Change is difficult, but Samuel was faithful to Gods direction, and anointed the new king.

No doubt thinking back to when he chose Saul, who stood head and shoulders above most men, the old prophet assumed that Sauls successor would be found in Jesses older, stronger sons. But at last, when the youngest son was called in from keeping the sheep, David was revealed as the Lords choice. He was described as ruddy [healthy], with beautiful [fair] eyes and a handsome appearance (1 Samuel 16:12). Though the same term was used in describing the eyes of Jacobs wife Rachel (Genesis 29:17), God doesnt choose based on appearance.

Davids brothers and father didnt appear to give attention or thought to him. Samuel insisted, however, that no one be seated until David was brought from the fields. He then took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward (1 Samuel 16:13).

Gods choices outlined in Hebrews chapter 11 show that He often found less qualified people, overlooked or neglected, perhaps even damaged folks. God preferred Abels sacrifice over Cains. He chose Isaac over Ishmael, and Jacob over his older twin Esau. Joseph seemed an unlikely one among his eleven brothers. But God always looks for a person whos prepared to accept His authority, leadership and guidance. Even Davids ancestry included at least two non-Jewish people, Ruth and Rahab. Discounted by his own father, David was chosen by the heavenly Father.

The Spirit of God had made special visits to people before this time, but the reference to the Spirit of God remaining upon a person was unusual in the Old Testament. God continues to look for hearts that will allow the Spirit to abide. After being anointed by God, David spent another fifteen years learning to be a servant before he became king of Israel.

Tending flocks on the lonely Judean hillsides was monotonous, but allowed time for thinking, dreaming and meditating. The shepherd boy who had no bed at night often thought of a dwelling place where God could abide with His people. His lifelong desire was to create a sanctuary for the presence of God.

When the Ark of the Covenant was brought into a tent built by David, he sang a Psalm of Thanksgiving (1 Chronicles 16:8-36).

Psalm 132 was written about David, and portions were used by his son Solomon when the Ark was finally brought into the newly-constructed temple (1 Kings chapter 8) that David had envisioned much of his reign. This psalm contains the only reference to the Ark, and appears to speak of the Messiah rather than the actual gold-overlaid box. Peter spoke on Pentecost, Brothers, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. So because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ (Acts 2:29-31).

Davids early life was devoted to seeking God; he was loyal and trustworthy. He received his training as a servant, protecting and guiding sheep, and all that time he was learning traits that would make him a good shepherd of Gods people.

View post:

David in the Psalms: learning to lead - Leader & Times

Ontario's three main political parties all enter the provincial election campaign with something to lose in the northwest, but potentially more to gain.

For the first time in decades, the Progressive Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats are each hitting the campaign trail in a position to retain seats in the region.

At the dissolution of the Legislature, the NDP held two of the four seats in the northwest, while the Progressive Conservatives and Liberals each had one. This election marks the first time since 1987 that the Progressive Conservatives will have an incumbent candidate in the region.

Here's a rundown of candidates in the four ridings:

Greg Rickford, a former two-term federal MP, broke through in 2018 to give the governing Progressive Conservatives a presence in the region.

As a member of Doug Ford's cabinet, whose ministerial responsibilities included northern development, mines, natural resources, energy, and Indigenous affairs, Rickford was involved inmoving forward with construction of the East-West Tie electrical transmission line, as well as the development of the government's critical minerals strategyannounced earlier this year.

The NDP officially nominated JoAnne Formanek Gustafson, a First Nations educator and teachers' union official, on Wednesday night. Prior to 2018, the riding had been a stronghold for the NDP, mainly by former party leader Howard Hampton.

The Green Party will be represented on the ballot by Catherine Kiewning, while Kelvin Boucher-Chicago is running for the New Blue Party of Ontario. The Liberals have yet to nominate a candidate.

In Thunder Bay-Superior North, one of the longest-serving representatives in the Legislature won'tbe returning to Queen's Park. Liberal Michael Gravelle, who was voted into office in 1995 and subsequently won re-election on six occasions, announced last week he's not running again as he faces health challenges.

In 2018, Gravelle was one of only seven Liberals to be elected across Ontario as the governing party for the last 15 years lost its official status in the Legislature.

The departure of the former Liberal cabinet minister throws open the race. The NDP's Lise Vaugeois, the 2018 runner-up who came within 813 votes of winning, is taking another try at turning the riding orange.Current Thunder Bay city Coun.Peng You is running under the Progressive Conservative banner. The Liberals are also looking to Thunder Bay city hall, tapping Shelby Ch'ngto try to retain the seat.

Other candidates include the Green Party's Tracey MacKinnon, who most recently ran federally for the Greens last year, as well as Kathy Suutari for the New Blue Party of Ontario.

The NDPis the only party that will find themselves looking to defend multiple seats in the region.

Incumbent Sol Mamakwa is seeking a second term inKiiwetinoong. The riding, first established before the 2018 vote, has the largest land area in the province, but one of the smallest population bases, and is the one with a majority Indigenous population. Mamakwa was the party's key critic on Indigenous affairs and raised awareness aboutissues facingremote communities.

He will be joined on the ballot byPickle Lake Mayor Dwight Monck, the Progressive Conservative candidate. Also running are Suzette Foster of the Green Partyand Alex Dornnfor the New Blue Party.

The Liberals have yet to nominate a candidate.

The other NDP incumbent, Judith Monteith-Farrell, is bidding for re-election inThunder Bay-Atikokan. She unseated 15-year Liberal incumbent Bill Mauro four years ago by arazor-thin 81-vote margin to swing the riding to the NDP.

Mauro, who went on to be elected as Thunder Bay's mayor, isn't jumping back into the provincial race. Instead, Rob Barrett, a social worker and owner of a consulting business, will make his political debut as the Liberal candidate,

The Progressive Conservatives nominated a well-established regional politician, though this will be his first foray into the provincial level. Kevin Holland, the longtime mayor of Conmee township west of Thunder Bay, has been an elected official in his community for 30 years and has served on various municipal advocacy boards.

That riding also includes Green Party candidate Eric Arner and the New Blue Party's David Tommasini.

Candidates have until May 12 to register.

See the rest here:

Parties head into Ontario election campaign on relatively even footing in the northwest - CBC.ca

In Denmark, while addressing the Indians there on May 3, Modi claimed that he has been able to keep his commitment made to the people. But even a poor layman knows it well that he has not.

Indian rightists and religious nationalists blame the past secular governments for their indifference to matters of religion and active tolerance of an ideology of multiculturalism that welcomes and supports the ethnic and religious diversity of a society.

Right wing politics is not simply politics, but rather a form of capitalism, which is the modern religion. The RSS cadres have been striving to eliminate the Muslims from this new mode of capitalist market.

The primary mission of the RSS and BJP is clearly to deprive the Muslims of economic gains and benefits. The BJP in Karnataka, for instance, has restricted Muslim traders from being present at temple fairs.

In Karnataka, annual local fairs are held in temples, dargahs called Urus, and also churches in most rural areas. They are a representation of local culture and folklore. These fairs are documented in ancient scriptures as well. Thousands of fairs are held in rural Karnataka. Some of them were started by Muslims. The temple fair at Bappanadu is celebrated both by Hindus and Muslims for several generations.

But this year, Muslim vendors were made to stay away from the temple festivals.

(IPA Service)

Views are personal

Original post:

The policies of RSS-BJP are aimed at marginalising Muslims economically - National Herald

1/ On February 24th, 2022, the Russian army, on the orders of Vladimir Putin, crossed the Ukrainian border and launched a particularly brutal invasion of the country, with more than 100,000 men deployed. Particularly intensive bombing rained down on the countrys main cities, Kiev and Kharkiev. Civilians are deliberately targeted, as shown by the missiles launched on Freedom Square and on the University of Kharkiev. At the time of writing, a convoy of armored vehicles about 60 kilometers long is heading for Kiev, with thermobaric weapons, weapons designed to cause maximum casualties among the civilian population. According to the information we have received, the Chechen troops of President Kadyrov, known for their brutality and their exactions against the civilian population, have joined the ranks of the Russian military.

2/ All this confirms the totally imperialist character of this war. Putin has not hidden this fact: he is taking up the Great Russian nationalist discourse, according to which Ukraine historically belongs to the Russian Empire. In his February 21st speech, one of Putins main targets was the policy of the Bolsheviks at the time of the Russian Revolution. "Modern Ukraine was created entirely by Russia, specifically by Bolshevik and Communist Russia. This process began almost immediately after the 1917 revolution, and Lenin and his associates did it in a very rude way towards Russia itself - separating, tearing away part of its own historical territories." He blamed Lenin for "handing over" Donbass to Ukraine. With these attacks on the internationalist policy of the Bolsheviks, Putin clearly shows who he is and whom he represents: a representative of the new Russian bourgeoisie, born of the ruins of the Soviet Union, and with its roots in the tsarist feudal empire.

3/ The large-scale invasion launched by Russia against Ukraine gives a new dimension to the conflict between Russian imperialism and Western imperialism on the backs of the peoples of the region. But it would be wrong to believe that the current war began on February 24th. Since 2014, in Donbass, more than 10,000 people have been killed in clashes between the Ukrainian army and the fighters in Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea.

4/ The Kremlins current anger has its roots in the 2013-2014 uprising against the pro-Russian capitalist Viktor Yanukovych. Elected with a very low score, he brought the Ukrainian state closer with the Russian state, breaking with the policies of his predecessors, while pursuing a liberal, anti-social policy based on the squandering of public services. The revolt of 2013-2014 partly stemmed from anger against these liberal and authoritarian policies. But it was the petty-bourgeois classes that took the lead in this uprising, with an anti-Russian and pro-European Union orientation. This political line favored the presence of far-right groups such as Svoboda or Pravy Sektor, an openly neo-Nazi party claiming to follow the ideas of the collaborationist Stepan Bandera. Since 2014, with the emergence of neo-Nazi paramilitary forces in the Madan movement (financed by both the Ukrainian oligarchy and the West), massacres of Russian civilians, leftists, LGBT people have taken place in Ukraine. For example, the arson of the headquarters of Trade Unions in May 2014, where more than 50 people were burnt to death and murdered.

On February 22nd, 2014, the Ukrainian Rada the parliament deposed Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia, and appointed Oleksandr Turchynov, an ultraconservative homophobe, as interim president. One of the first measures of the new government is the repeal of the law on regional languages, removing Russian from the official languages (but also Hungarian, Moldavian and Romanian). Concretely, this means that from now on all official documents must be written only in Ukrainian, but also that city names and proper names must follow the Ukrainian spelling and pronunciation.

5/ Faced with these measures of discrimination against the Russian-speaking populations in the east of the country, on February 23rd massive demonstrations broke out in the cities of Donetsk, Kramatorsk, Luhansk, Mariupol, and Sloviansk, in the Donbass region, and on the Crimean Peninsula. The demonstrators were demanding respect for their rights, i.e., the repeal of the law on regional languages, but also a decentralization of power from Kiev to the regions, and more autonomy. These demonstrations put real pressure on the government and the law on regional languages was never applied.

But taking advantage of this situation of division caused by the decisions of the government of Kiev, Putin deployed the mercenaries of the Wagner militia alongside the separatist fighters in Crimea, Donetsk, and Lugansk. On March 11th, 2014, the Crimean parliament declared the independence of the Crimean Republic. On March 16th, a parody of a referendum conducted under Russian military occupation, formalized the attachment of Crimea to the Russian Federation. In the following months, the separatist fighters of Donbass, supported financially and militarily by Russia, proclaimed the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republic. This military intervention by Russia is clearly a way to use the demonstrations of Russian speakers for its own benefit and has nothing to do with the right to self-determination of the people of Donbass and Lugansk: it is a manifestation of the aggressive will of Russian imperialism towards Ukraine.

On May 25th, 2014, Petro Poroshenko, a billionaire who made his fortune in the chocolate industry, was elected president with 54.7% of the vote, with only 18 million Ukrainians participating in the poll, which could not be held in Crimea and the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Immediately, Poroshenko developed an ultra-nationalist and revisionist policy: recognition for the fighters of the Bandera militias who participated in the extermination of Jews during the Second World War, recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, a law providing that all schooling in the country be in Ukrainian... It was under his government that far-right militias that had demonstrated on Madan and then fought in the Donbass, be allowed to integrate into the Ukrainian army, under the leadership of the leader of the Pravy Sektor party, Dmytro Iaroch, who was appointed advisor to the Ministry of Defense in April 2015 (a position he has since left). With full support from the United States and NATO member countries, he increased the defense and security sector budget from 1% of the GDP to 5%. In November 2018, he declared martial law following an armed incident between Ukrainian and Russian ships.

At the same time, he pursued a policy of economic austerity: under pressure from the IMF, which criticized the slow pace of reform, he proceeded with numerous privatizations, attacked the pension system, while gas and food prices exploded. Poroshenkos unpopularity grew in the country. In the last two years of his mandate, the Gallup Institute indicated that, in the world, Ukraine was the country with the lowest level of trust in its government . Following a series of financial scandals (his fortune increased by $400 million between 2012 and 2020), Poroshenko was largely defeated in the 2019 elections, which saw the victory of Volodymyr Zelensky, who had been an actor until then, known mainly for his roles in television series.

6/ The current president, Zelensky, is a populist, elected based on a program filled with mixed bag of policies, combining the defense of direct democracy and the fight against corruption, in word, with ultra-liberal measures, such as the liberalization of the land market. Since 2001, a moratorium has blocked the privatization of public land and prevented almost all transactions on private land. This liberalization of the agricultural market has provoked demonstrations by small farmers. Indeed, the creation of a market for agricultural land in Ukraine allows oligarchs and large agricultural companies to continue to monopolize land, while satisfying the interests of foreign investors and banks .

Paradoxically, one of the bases on which Zelensky was elected was the loosening of the chokehold around Russia . He got his best scores in Russian-speaking regions, which are considered pro-Russian. A Russian speaker himself, he criticized laws expanding the use of Ukrainian in broadcasting and introducing Ukrainian language tests for civil servants. At the same time. Zelensky declared wanting Ukraine to integrate the European Union, and to put in place a referendum on Ukraines membership to NATO.

7/ Since 2014, US imperialism and Russian imperialism have been waging a proxy war on the back of Ukraine. Even before the Russian army crossed the Ukrainian border, this war had already caused 14,000 deaths in the Donbass region. While the "Minsk Protocols" signed by Russia, Ukraine, representatives of the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), were supposed to ensure a cease-fire, none of the parties has respected these agreements. Between February and March 2021, the OSCE observed a 30% increase in ceasefire violations. While Russia amassed its troops on the Ukrainian borders and financed the separatist fighters in Donbass, at the same time the United States accelerated the delivery of weapons to the Ukrainian army. Between 2018 and 2021, the United States delivered 77 Javelin missile launchers. This number increased significantly in 2022 as 300 missile launchers were delivered in January alone. In 2021, the United States provided more than $450 million in aid to the Ukrainian army .

These massive arms deliveries to the Ukrainian army are a continuation of the logic of NATO expansion pursued since the 2000s by US imperialism. Contrary to the commitments of Germany and the United States in 1994, 7 countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia) joined NATO on March 29th, 2004. They were joined in 2009 by Albania and Croatia, in 2017 by Montenegro, and in 2020 by Macedonia. These accessions are obviously accompanied by large-scale troop deployments and military exercises, following the imperialist logic of bloc expansion, which has led to the establishment of military bases practically on the entire Russian border, except for Ukraine and Belarus. NATO and the European imperialisms therefore bear the greatest responsibility for the military escalation.

The war in the Donbass, for a long time the Western media was totally silent around this war, has provided a formidable training ground for far-right militants from all countries: on both sides of the border, on the pro-Russian side as well as on the pro-Ukrainian side, racist, anti-Semitic militias, explicitly claiming to be Nazis, are taking part in the fighting .

8/ Imperialist powers are fighting over the riches of Ukraine. This country is in fact in fourth place in the world in terms of total value of natural resources: the first European reserve of uranium ores, one of the main world reserves of manganese, iron, mercury, and coal. Ukraine is also the breadbasket of Russia and Europe: the worlds largest exporter of sunflower, the second largest producer of barley, the third largest producer of corn... And above all, this country has the second largest gas pipeline network in Europe (142.5 billion cubic meters of gas flow capacity in the European Union). Thus, the blocking of the commissioning of the Nord Stream II gas pipeline, linking Russia to Germany, risks reshuffling the cards among gas exporting countries. However, among the main LNG exporters - in addition to Qatar, Russia, Algeria, and Nigeria - the United States sells part of its shale gas . What motivates the war in Ukraine is not the defense of democracy in a country, as the media propaganda tells us. It is simply a war to defend the economic interests of Russia or the United States. The latter are the main beneficiaries of the disruption of trade between Europe and Russia, because they are the ones who will replace Russia in gas exports to Europe. Currently, 40% of natural gas consumed in Europe comes from Russia.

9/ The war in Ukraine is the latest and most brutal jolt in the global crisis of capitalism, which sees the historical imperialisms weakened while other imperialist powers try to impose themselves. While the Trump administration had focused the main efforts of U.S. imperialism on the Asian continent and the Pacific sphere, the historic defeat it suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan have led it to shift its efforts to the European continent. This explains much of Bidens particularly aggressive and hawkish rhetoric towards Russia.

In Europe, France is facing a historic challenge to its dominance on the African continent. The withdrawal of French troops from Mali, even if not immediate and accompanied by redeployment to other Sahel countries, is as much of a defeat for Macron as Afghanistan was for Biden.

Faced with these historical imperialisms in difficulty, Chinese imperialism has begun to show its teeth with Taiwan. The development projects of the "New Silk Roads" show the desire of this imperialism to expand throughout the Asian continent.

In this context, Russia, as an imperialist power, is trying to play its part. At a time when Western imperialisms are facing contradictions, it is playing a certain role as a counter-revolutionary police officer : intervention in Syria, deployment of Wagner militias on the African continent, financing of the far right in Europe and the United States... But, faced with the Chinese giant and Western imperialisms, Russia remains a second-rate imperialist power. Apart from oil exports and the arms economy, the Russian economy, essentially mafia-like and dominated by capitalists from the Stalinist bureaucracy, remains very weak . In addition, Vladimir Putin has been facing strong social and political protest for the last two years. In February 2021, following the poisoning of the liberal nationalist opponent Alexei Navalny, tens of thousands of Russians demonstrated . But it is especially in its border countries that the regime has been most challenged. At the end of 2020, the Lukashenko regime was faced with workers strikes and demonstrations. To suppress this protest, Lukashenko had to call on Moscow. In January 2022, very powerful strikes of an insurrectional nature broke out in Kazakhstan. To suppress them, Russia for the first time called in the military forces of the "Collective Security Treaty Organization", a military alliance of Russia and the countries of Central Asia. At the time, all the Western bourgeois leaders, who today make themselves the greatest defenders of democracy and human rights, said absolutely nothing.

10/ The dynamics of regional powers in this context should not be neglected either. Thus, Erdogans Turkey, which in recent years had moved closer to Russia, particularly with their cooperation in the Syrian conflict, has denounced what it describes as NATOs passivity in the face of the Russian invasion, and has closed the Bosphorus Strait to Russian ships. On the other hand, Iran, which is also fighting alongside Russia and Turkey in the Syrian conflict, has sided with Moscow. In the context of its rivalry with Turkey, Greece is also trying to take advantage and appear as the most devoted partner of US imperialism in the region, providing key airports for possible NATO raids and sending weapons to the Ukranian army.

In this little game of global imperialism and regional powers, supposedly opposing camps can find themselves ephemerally on the same side when it comes to preserving their financial and economic interests. Thus, the UN Security Council adopted on February 28th, with the support of Russia, a resolution extending the arms embargo on Yemen to all Houthi rebels. This resolution is a blank check for the coalition led by Yemen and Saudi Arabia, who already receive weapon shipments from the Spanish State and France.

This vote is a new demonstration that the Western and Russian imperialist powers, together with the regional powers, form a fundamentally counter-revolutionary arc.

10/ All these events show the relevance of the theory of the permanent revolution. In the imperialist epoch, the bourgeois democratic tasks are inseparable from the socialist revolution. "For the countries with backward bourgeois development and, in particular, for the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the theory of permanent revolution means that the true and complete solution of their democratic and national liberation tasks can only be the dictatorship of the proletariat, which takes over the leadership of the oppressed nation, above all of its peasant masses. " More than ever, what Trotsky wrote in April 1939 is valid: "We need a clear and precise slogan, which corresponds to the new situation. In my opinion, there is at the moment only one such slogan: for a united, free, and independent soviet, worker and peasant Ukraine! This program is first of all in irreconcilable opposition with the interests of the three imperialist powers, Poland, Romania and Hungary. Only the indecent pacifist fools believe that the emancipation and the unification of Ukraine can be achieved by peaceful diplomatic means, referendums, decisions of the League of Nations, etc. They are naturally not better than the pacifist fools. Of course, they are no better than each other, all those nationalists who propose to solve the Ukrainian question by using one imperialism against the other. Hitler taught these adventurers a priceless lesson by handing over (for how long?) the Subcarpathian Ukraine to the Hungarians, who promptly massacred many of these confident Ukrainians. Insofar as the outcome depends on the military strength of the imperialist states, the victory of either bloc can only mean a further dismemberment and even more brutal enslavement of the Ukrainian people. The program of Ukrainian independence in the era of imperialism is directly and indissolubly linked to the program of the proletarian revolution. It would be criminal to entertain any illusion in this matter. (...) After all these experiences, there are only political corpses to continue to place their hopes in one of the fractions of the Ukrainian bourgeoisie as a leader of the national struggle for emancipation. Only the Ukrainian proletariat is able not only to solve this task, which is revolutionary in its essence, but also to take an initiative to solve it. The proletariat and the proletariat alone can rally around itself the peasant masses and the authentically revolutionary national intelligentsia. (...) The coming war will create a favorable atmosphere for all kinds of adventurers, miracle workers and seekers of the golden fleece. These gentlemen, who particularly like to warm their hands to national questions, must not be allowed within gun range of the labor movement. Not the slightest compromise with imperialism, be it fascist or democratic! Not the slightest concession to Ukrainian nationalists, whether reactionary-clerical or pacifist-liberal! No to Popular Fronts! Total independence of the proletarian party as the vanguard of the workers!

11/ It is from these class criteria that Marxist-revolutionaries must appreciate the situation and the tasks that follow from it.

It is undeniable that today, a popular resistance is developing in Ukraine against the Russian invasion. Even in the predominantly Russian-speaking city of Berdiansk, demonstrators shout at Russian soldiers to "go home. As Marxist-revolutionaries, we must express our full solidarity with this popular resistance.

However, this should not blind us to the class character of the Zelensky government, nor to the fact that through this war, two imperialist blocs are opposed. Putins ultra-aggressive policy has driven the Ukrainian government even further into the arms of Western imperialism. Today, armed by all the countries of Europe and the United States, the Ukrainian army is even more condemned to become only a subsidiary of NATO.

That is why for Marxist-revolutionaries its impossible to demand the delivery of arms by the Western states to the Ukrainian state ; because the delivery of arms to Ukraine will neither contribute to pacify the region nor to strengthen the class positions in Ukraine. On the contrary, it means aggravating the spiral of war in the region, for which Ukrainian civilians will pay with their lives, and the working classes of Europe with policies of inflation and austerity, just to help strengthen the imperialist interests of the US and NATO. We are told that without the arms of the West, the Ukrainian army is doomed, while a defeat of Putin would be a support for the revolutionary struggles. This argument is more than questionable. Since 2011, Western states have poured a lot of weapons into Libya and Syria: has this helped in any way the development of revolutionary struggles there? On the contrary, imperialist interference has only benefited the most reactionary. Libya is now in the grip of appalling chaos - one of the fields of confrontation between Russian and Western imperialisms, and in Syria the regime of Bashar El-Assad is still in place.

As for the economic sanctions, we must clearly oppose them because they will fall first and foremost on the working classes in Russia. Far from detaching the population from Putins regime, while thousands of Russians are taking to the streets against the war, these sanctions will be an additional argument for the regime to try to unite the population behind it.

12/ The first task of the Marxist-revolutionaries in the period which sees the multiplication of military confrontations and the growing risk of a generalized conflict, is the construction of an international movement against the war and for the right of the peoples to self-determination. For this, the multiplication of demonstrations against the war in Russia, challenging the Putin regime, is a considerable point of support. For it is indeed from the heart of Russia that the forces capable of stopping Putins murderous offensive will come. Everywhere we must take initiatives that allow us to express the refusal of the imperialist war by relying on the international experience of the movement against the war in Iraq.

The slogans that revolutionary communists must defend in such an anti-war movement are the following:

No to the imperialist war in Ukraine: immediate withdrawal of Russian troops! Solidarity with the anti-war demonstrations in Russia! Against their repression, let us demand the release of all imprisoned demonstrators! Against imperialist interference in Ukraine! Withdrawal of NATO troops from Eastern Europe and the world! No to military and economic escalation! No to national unity behind our own imperialism or bourgeoisie!Not one penny, not one soldier, not one weapon for war in Ukraine. Against all intervention by our own imperialism!Open the borders and welcome all refugees, whatever their country of origin! No to racist sorting between "good" and "bad" migrants!

These slogans must be combined with an uncompromising denunciation of both pro-Putin and pro-Western campism. In Russia, the main task of revolutionaries is to fight against the Russian invasion. In the Western imperialist countries, the effort to block any NATO or EU intervention in Ukraine must be accompanied by the denunciation of the Russian invasion in Ukraine and also of the crimes committed by these imperialisms in a whole range of countries - be it European or American imperialism. Revolutionaries in all imperialist countries have the duty to remind people that "the main enemy is in our own country": they must therefore denounce the actions of their own imperialism, starting with the ever-increasing amassing of troops on the Russian border and the delivery of weapons to Ukraine.

13/ On the question of support to the Ukrainian resistance, it is essential to start from the class characterization of each of the parties involved. The Ukrainian state is a capitalist state, the Zelensky government and the Ukrainian army are in fact subservient to NATO. In a situation where the workers movement is terribly weakened, divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian, to ask to deliver arms to the Ukrainian state is absolutely not a position allowing to strengthen progressive forces.

The role of the Marxist-Revolutionaries is to block any possible imperialist intervention of their own country, be it direct or indirect (including the arm deliveries decided by many governments like the Spanish State, Germany, Denmark etc) and to seek to create links of solidarity with the progressive and working-class forces of Ukraine and Russia. Thus, the position of the organization Sotsialnyi rukh demanding "nationalization of strategic enterprises, as well as seizure of the assets of billionaires to guarantee the access of the public to medicine, transport, housing, food", is a first step to outline anti-capitalist demands challenging the direction of the resistance to the Zelensky government.

We disagree with the statement released by the FI bureau in favor of weapons delivery to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia. For us, this is a concession to the pressure for national unity in the western countries.

14/ The wars that are multiplying will be the pretext for new anti-social, anti-worker and plans for increased national security. Thus, in France, Emmanuel Macron has already announced an increase in the military budget, while declaring that "many economic sectors are suffering and will suffer, either because they depend on imports of raw materials, or because they export to these countries. The cost of basic necessities will rise again. These plans for austerity and social destruction are bound to provoke resistance. In all these movements that are going to break out, the task of Marxist-revolutionaries must be to maintain total independence from their own bourgeoisie by refusing national unity and to make the link between the social question and the question of war, to develop an internationalist position of struggle against the war and thus be able to put back in the center the necessity of the revolution for a world rid of the imperialists and their wars.

14 March 2022

Read this article:

Let us build an international movement against the imperialist war! No to the intervention of NATO, the USA and the EU! Russian troops out of Ukraine!...

Just as how Korea is referred to as the Easts Land of the Morning Calm, Canada is the Wests. Despite its vast territory, Canada has often flown under the radar on the global stage because of its small population and proximity to the worlds largest economy, the US. From Koreas standpoint, news from the four major powers -- the US, China, Japan, and Russia -- have mostly dominated the headlines here. What we do hear occasionally about Canada, such as the young prime minister coming to power or Canada being the active model country in international development and public diplomacy, gives the image that Canada is a wealthy advanced country.

Meanwhile, Chinese Huawei founder Ren Zhengfeis daughter, Meng Wanzhou, was arrested in Canada in December 2018. At the request of the US, Canada arrested Meng, who is also Huaweis deputy chair, and China later detained Canadians on spying charges. Chinas tit-for-tat move was in response to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus open criticism in 2020 of Chinas Wolf Warrior Diplomacy. He took aim at Beijings human rights suppression in Hong Kong and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region at the 50th anniversary of China-Canada diplomatic relations.

But when we realistically consider that China is the second-largest trading partner to Canada while Canada is not a major country to China, does Canada have the actual power to counteract China? Is it possible for Canada to stand up alone and play its own diplomacy without leaning on the US?

Canadas middle power diplomacy is a significant learning lesson to Korea which has emerged as a new middle power itself, and is seeking to reestablish relations with China as the Korean government changes hands.

In this regard, this week I invited former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson, currently vice president and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He is an executive fellow at the University of Calgarys School of Public Policy and a distinguished senior fellow at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University.

Hwang: What drives Canadian foreign policy?

Robertson: With a relatively small market (38 million) Canada must trade to generate our prosperity. Trade requires peace and stability. For a middle power like Canada to have impact, a rules-based order is essential. We are, by nature and habit, multilateralists. We enjoy membership in just about every multilateral organization going, notably the G-7 and the G-20; NATO; and the North American Aerospace Defense Command; the United Nations and its alphabet soup of agencies; the Commonwealth and la Francophonie; the World Trade Organization; the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation; the Canada-USA-Mexico Agreement; Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership among others.

Hwang: Does Canadian foreign policy have a theme?

Robertson: Canadian foreign policy aims active and constructive internationalist engagement, especially in multilateral fora. At our best, we are a quietly competent helpful fixer. At our worst, we are a tiresome, sanctimonious preacher. Canadians were engineers to the American architects during the post-World War II reconstruction, admitted to the G-7 (1976) and then a godfather to the G-20. In helping to create the rules-based order, Canada introduced the principle of functionalism. This is the abiding legacy of Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson and others -- internationalists by conviction, they were realists by experience. Canada was not a great world power, but in certain sectors -- food and energy -- we had vital interests and capacity. This merited a place at the table. With competence, investment and artful diplomacy we earned our seat in the UNs functional agencies and, albeit temporarily, joined the great powers on the Security Council.

Hwang: Today, Canadas international status is quite impressive. Canada belongs to almost every multilateral club, be it economic, security, or with a general or specific purpose in creation.

Robertson: Yes. On balance this is a good thing, but prioritization of attention and resources is overdue. We pride ourselves on our multilateralism but the defeat (2020) in our quest for a temporary seat on the UN Security Council (we lost to Norway and Ireland) should serve as a wake-up call that proclaiming Canada is back does not make it so. It means investments in collective security and defense as well as development assistance and the kind of helpful fixing that we are doing with the Lima Group in Venezuela and through the Ottawa Group in working to reform the World Trade Organization and in using our convening power as we did by hosting a discussion on Korea during the Trump administration.

Hwang: What is the core national interest from Canadas perspective?

Robertson: Like most nations Canadians strive for prosperity but because we are a pluralistic society -- 1 in 5 Canadians was born outside of Canada -- we must also strive for national unity. Our diversity as a people and as a place to live obliges us to practice tolerance, accommodation and compromise. We try to govern by consent. Managing this diverse, often fissiparous, federation is no easy task. It depends on mutual accommodation, first with our climate and geography and then between political parties, between different interests, between the regions, between rural and urban, between English Canada and French Canada, with the Indigenous peoples and with newcomers. We depend on immigration who bring new skills and ideas with them. The challenge is to weave these many constantly evolving threads into a kilt for every place and every season.

Hwang: Canadas national characteristic is like having no shape in the shape, but also having shape in no shape.

Robertson: We dont have a lot of history in comparison to Europe or Asia. Some would argue that this is a good thing. Canada continues to be a country in development and an experiment in pluralism. The humorist Will Ferguson remarked that the great themes of Canadian history were keeping the Americans out, the French in and the natives out of sight. Weve managed the Americans and the French fact. Today there is realization and recognition on reconciliation with our Indigenous peoples.

To say governing Canada requires the capacity to listen and the capacity to balance would be an understatement. The poet F. R. Scott sarcastically described the modus operandi of our longest serving prime minister, Mackenzie King, a pudgy bachelor who engaged in seances so he could speak to his dead mother:

We had no shape / Because he never took sides; / And no sides / Because he never allowed them to take shape / Do nothing by halves / Which can be done by quarters.

While it was not meant as a compliment, Scott unwittingly captured the Canadian formula of accommodation.

Hwang: How can Canada be a meaningful partner in the Indo-Pacific?

Robertson: For now, our Indo-Pacific policy focuses rather more on promoting trade and investment than on effective geopolitics. Canada needs to invest more in to support security presence -- more naval and air presence -- and by joining the East Asia Summit and AUKUS and looking for a meaningful role in the Quad. We need to take more advantage and increase business utilization of our freer trade agreements i.e. CPTPP, Canada-Korea FTA while continuing our efforts to liberalize trade with ASEAN, India and Indonesia. Ministerial visits need to be regular and results oriented.

Hwang: Standing in between the US and China, what would be a better choice? The strategic ambiguity? Or the strategic clarity?

Robertson: While strategic ambiguity has its advantages for some nations and in some circumstances, in the confrontation between China and the USA, Canada must side with the USA. There is no question that for Canada it will always be the United States and then the rest. for Canada it is America First -- in trade, security and people-to-people relations.

Pre-pandemic, more than 400,000 people cross in both directions over the border daily. We trade nearly $2 million a minute with the US. The US takes 74 percent of Canadas exports (we provide about 18 percent of US imports) and provides 64 percent of our imports. Americans hold nearly half the stock of foreign investment in Canada.

Hwang: There must be both pros and cons for depending on the US.

Robertson: This dependence on the US comes at a price, especially for our oil and gas which are both sold at a discounted price. We need to diversify our trade and increase the number of Canadian companies that export. We need to make better use of the people-to-people relationships. Our active, global immigration adds about 1 percent to our population each year and this adds to our people-to-people ties.

The renegotiation of the NAFTA (1994) and implementation (2020) of the Canada-US-Mexico agreement restores investor confidence and enables the potential for an enhanced North American manufacturing platform with continental supply chains, especially post-COVID and the requirement for security of supply and redundancy in sourcing. While life with Uncle Sam can be frustrating, we cannot change our geography, nor would we want to. Canadas influence in the world is determined in large part by the perception that preferred place. The US looks to us to help interpret the rest of the world and the rest of the world looks to Canada to interpret the USA.

Hwang: What is the lesson that Canada has learned from what happened to Meng Wanzhou and the two Michaels (Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig)?

Robertson: Canadians have had another reminder that authoritarian regimes, this case the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, cannot be trusted. As a first step we need to put teeth -- real sanctions -- on states like China that use hostage-taking.

Hwang: What kind of world do you think is coming after the war in Ukraine?

Robertson: Sadly, a world that is messier and meaner. It will be increasingly divided into three shifting blocs. The liberal democracies -- EU, G-7, NATO, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan -- are small but their economic weight is significant. But they also face internal divisions as the age-old divide between right and left is replaced by the starker division between populists and nationalists on one side and liberals and globalists on the other. The liberal democracies are pitted against the authoritarians -- China, Russia, North Korea, Belarus, Hungary, Serbia, Myanmar -- and sundry others in Latin America, Africa and Asia. A Xi Jinping-led China offers an alternative authoritarian system based on state enterprise and near-total surveillance aligned to a system of what the Chinese call social credit designed to keep the population in check. Both Xi and Putin are also convinced that the West is both decadent and in decline. And, as Putin told the Financial Times, liberalism has become obsolete. The rest include India, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and most of Africa, Latin America and Asia. Like the G-7 and the Non-Aligned Movement before them they will pursue their own interests.

Hwang: What do you think the roles of the international regimes are?

Robertson: The multilateral institutions will fall into further disrepute. The UN Security Council is dysfunctional. The UN General Assembly and WTO are essentially just talking shops. Most multilateral organizations need reform e.g. WTO, WHO, IMF, World Bank at a time when we need them more than ever to deal with the big multilateral issues around climate, pandemics and inequality and nuclear proliferation.

Hwang: How do you evaluate Koreas diplomacy? What direction should Korea head toward?

Robertson: Like Canada, Korea is a middle power. While the approach depends on the government of the day it seems to me that Korea has embraced the middle power concept, defined to suit Korean needs. While Korean policy is focused by necessity on North Korea, its external policy over the years is illustrated through, for example, trustpolitik, the Global Public Diplomacy Network, and the grouping of Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey and Australia as a forum for middle powers to convene on global issues, and more recently in the New Southern Policy Plus.

Hwang: In case the middle power countries group themselves, how large would their influence be in the international society?

Robertson: Not as much as we would hope but in the absence of American leadership the liberal democracies will have to try to hold things together, although the Franco-German Alliance for Multilateralism did not meet the test in its first incarnation. While it is fine to talk about a D-10, the lesson of the Trump presidency is that without American leadership the rules-based multilateral system flounders.

Hwang: Korea will soon have a new government. Do you have any suggestions on where Korea-Canada relations should walk on, and where both can cooperate together?

Robertson: Canada and Korea are joined by ties of trade, history and a shared commitment to internationalism and a rules-based order. Over 500 Canadians gave their lives during that Korean conflict and Canada continues to contribute to the UN mission that continues to this day. Sadly, Korea remains divided and South Koreans live daily with the uncertainties created by Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il and now Kim Jong-un. This underlines the importance of our security relationship. Meanwhile, the Canada-Korea FTA (2014) provides a framework and platform, but the meat of these deals comes from deepening our business-to-business ties and developing partnerships in sectors including medical devices, smart cars and e-commerce as well as in the practical application of artificial intelligence and robotics, all areas in which Canada has interest and growing competence.

Hwang: What can Canada and Korea do as middle powers?

Robertson: To capture our relative potential as middle powers, Korea is sometimes described as a tiger while Canada is presented as a cool moose. We also are both stuck between much bigger neighbors that are variously described as dragon (China), bear (Russia) or eagle (USA). We are not without capacity, ranking as we do in any top 20 ranking of GDP and, perhaps more importantly, in the top 20 of the UN Human Development Index. As middle powers we need to defend those concepts that reflect our values and advance our interests. These include: first, free trade and market economies while recognizing that rising tides dont lift all boats; second, managed migration that relies first on the neighboring nations, with financial and technical support from the wider community; third, peace operations that rely on armed forces from neighboring nations; fourth, sustainable development preserving the global commons, mitigating climate change and addressing pandemics.

Hwang Jae-ho is a professor of the division of international studies at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. He is also the director of the Institute for Global Strategy and Cooperation and now a member of the Presidential Committee on Policy and Planning. This discussion was assisted by researcher Ko Sung-hwah and Shin Eui-chan.

By Choi He-suk (cheesuk@heraldcorp.com)

Read more here:

[Hwangs China and the World] Mapping out Koreas diplomacy through Canada - The Korea Herald

Rachael Lorenzo recalls recently trying to support a woman who spoke Spanish, sought an abortion to flee a violent situation, and had several young children. The woman asked only that Indigenous Women Rising (IWR), the abortion and reproductive health fund that Lorenzo leads as executive director, mail her an envelope of cash to help her travel to Michigan for the procedure, and not call her cell phone unless she first sent a text message. Lorenzo sent the envelope of cash, but within days, it was mailed back to IWR, and they never heard from the woman again.

It is such a sacred thing for someone to be so vulnerable with us, and to let us in on whats happening in their lives when they might be in danger, Lorenzo, who is based in New Mexico but supports Indigenous callers around the country, told Jezebel.

Since IWR was founded in 2014, its helped people seeking abortion care across a variety of circumstances and barriers. These are the patients and abortion seekersyoung people, Indigenous people and people of color, low-income people, victims of domestic violencewho cant always travel, and certainly cant move to another state, when their states enact reckless, devastating abortion bans. With the conservative majority in the Supreme Court making it crystal clear that the constitutional right to abortion must be overruled, as a just-leaked decision draft from Alito spewed, their situation is all the more dire. These spreading precedents are inextricably connected to a rising tide of anti-trans legislation, which similarly attacks bodily autonomy by criminalizing gender-affirming health care for kids, or banning trans youth from school sports.

In the wake of legislation like this, sparking public health emergencies that carry the most impact for marginalized people, residents and supposed advocates from states with more liberal laws often share no shortage of unsolicited advice on social media. Much of this advice hinges on those in affected states just voting harderdespite the fact that abortion bans and anti-LGBTQ laws are widely unpopular, and enabled by rampant voter suppression. Their support also impels people to up and move to another state, as if its that easy. Even leading liberal politicians from Democratic states have co-opted some of this language: Following moves by Texas to criminalize gender-affirming care for trans youth, California Gov. Gavin Newsom tweeted earlier this year, To fearful families in Texas right nowCalifornias door is always open to you. The sentiment was echoed in regards to Floridas Dont Say Gay bill by New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who tweeted: Youre welcome in New York City...Always.

Advocates for bodily autonomy march to the Florida Capitol to protest a bill before the Florida legislature to limit abortions in February 2022.Photo: Mark Wallheiser (Getty Images)

To a keen eye, these messages exude the same hollow, even counterproductive energy of the Womens March of Los Angeles January attempt to shut down a tournament hosted by the U.S. Womens National Soccer team in Texas over its six-week abortion ban, and before that, the slew of Hollywood boycotts of production in Georgia, following the signing of its 2019 abortion ban. Who were these boycotts really punishing? And today, who is it really helping to tell people to leave their communities for health care that should be their constitutionally protected right, anywhere in this country?

This particular breed of well-meaning, if not opportunistic, activism is all the more counterproductive when organizers in impacted states have been clear, time and again, that there are actual actions politicians and advocates in all states can take to support abortion and trans rightsmost notably by listening to those on the ground, who are running local abortion and gender-affirming care funds in their communities.

Its about ownershipnot just ownership from the state in implementing these homophobic, sexist views on gender and abortion, said Lorenzo. But also, for people telling others to move, its another form of saying that your ownership, your ties to your land and communities, are disposable.

No one should have to travel, let alone pack up and move, to access basic health care like abortion or gender-affirming health services. Nor should anyone living through these crises have to put up with being told to just travel or move by folks two timezones, three tax brackets, and six state borders away.

While hundreds of abortion restrictions and bans have passed in the last decade, the most recent and arguably most terrifying surge began with Texas six-week ban S.B. 8, which deputizes citizens to spy on and launch costly lawsuits against other citizens and providers. S.B. 8 took effect last September, prompting over a dozen copycatsincluding in Oklahoma, a state neighboring Texas thats absorbed thousands of Texans seeking abortion care. Meanwhile, other states, primarily across the South and Midwest, latched onto Texas ban to frame their own 15-week abortion bans as generous, all as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on a 15-week ban in Mississippi this summer. To state the obvious, theres nothing generous about any law that would force someone to be pregnant and give birth against their will, at any point in their pregnancy.

Advocates in these states arent going anywhereand they certainly arent looking to Twitter users from California for ignorant platitudes. In fact, Aimee Arrambide, executive director of Avow Texas, tells Jezebel that misinformation is one of the largest barriers to organizing for reproductive rights locally in Texasand much of this misinformation can come from non-Texans, at times inadvertently sowing chaos with each viral social media post they share. At the beginning of S.B. 8s reign of terror, Arrambide says it was a challenge just to inform many Texans about when the law took effect, the existence of abortion funds (which offer direct financial aid to people for both abortion care and all associated logistical costs), and the option to travel out-of-state for care. Social media posts from white women in New York offering to singlehandedly create abortion underground railroads when funds already exist certainly didnt help. Instead, their voices drowned out those of people who could accurately speak to Texans full range of options.

Arrambide has been organizing for reproductive rights in the state throughout her career. Its so insulting to the people that have been on the ground doing this work for decades, trying to ensure access to no avail, to act like you have the answers and we dont, she said. And the answer absolutely isnt to only have a few sanctuary states, and then half the country has to travel far distances, spend lots and lots of money, in order to access basic medical care that we should have within our own community.

Hand-in-hand with the rights invigorated war on abortion, trans people have also been the targets of Republican state lawmakers. Bans on trans youth participation in school sports have recently been signed into law in states like Alabama, South Dakota, Utah, and Kentucky, while Alabama and Texas have been attempting to charge parents and doctors who help kids transition and access life-saving, gender-affirming care with child abuse. And back in March, Idaho Republicans introduced a nightmarish bill that would quite literally trap people seeking gender-affirming care within state lines, while Missouri Republicans floated a bill that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who aids and abets an abortion, no matter where its performed. Meaning, in some states, just move or just travel wouldnt just be condescending adviceit could be legally risky.

Daunting logistics aside, Lorenzo believes telling people in red states to move is tantamount to telling them theyre disposable, or assuming they automatically have the willingness and resources. They argue this is a colonialist, white supremacist way of looking at travel, looking at land.

Nobody should have to move to just survive, they said.

Italia Aranda, an organizer at Mariposa Fund, works closely with callers who cannot moveor sometimes even travelto get abortion care, full-stop: undocumented people. Because of immigration checkpoints scattered all across Texas, attempting to travel great distances or out-of-state to get an abortion can come at the risk of deportation or criminalization.

Of course, barriers to abortion arent new for undocumented people, who are more likely to be uninsured, have zero paid time off, and are already marginalized by the medical system. For patients who are undocumented, traveling in search of access to medical procedures has always involved risk of deportation for something as simple as a routine traffic stop, Aranda told Jezebel. But challenges have certainly grown since S.B. 8especially as she says Mariposa has seen its volume of callers nearly double since the Texas ban took effect.

A woman carries a sign declaring abortion a part of healthcare at a rally at the Texas State Capitol on September 11, 2021.Photo: Jordan Vonderhaar (Getty Images)

Today, many of these undocumented people are forced to contend with a devastating non-choice: Time and time again, we have spoken with patients who feel like accessing abortion services is so vital in their lives that theyre willing to take this huge risk, Aranda said. For instance, she says Mariposa often works with mixed-status families, or people seeking abortions who have undocumented parents. Undocumented parents who arent able to travel with their children who are seeking abortion care instead rely on family members or friends who are documented to chaperone their kids, Aranda says. Laws like S.B. 8 complicate this further by exposing these family members or friends to exorbitantly expensive civil lawsuits.

The fight for abortion access for undocumented Floridians is personal to Julia Desangles, co-executive director of Florida Access Network (FAN), who has family members who are undocumented and is horrified by the number of immigrant detention centers across the state. Even before Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the states 15-week ban into law, FAN already had its hands full with supporting clients through Floridas wide variety of existing abortion restrictions, as well as the concentration of clinics in metropolitan areas, inaccessible to people from poorer parts of the state. And its not platitudes or open-armed, social media welcomes from liberal politicians from other states that will help marginalized Floridians facing the greatest barriers. We need politicians with that kind of platform to be naming and speaking out about abortion funds, the only organizations working directly with clients to financially support them, Desangles told Jezebel.

Aranda similarly says onlookers who are still inclined to render useless advice should be supporting groups like Mariposa instead, which exist precisely to help undocumented families and abortion seekers stay in their communities, either through donations or by amplifying the work they do. Arranda also believes that increasing abortion access for everyone, anywhere, regardless of immigration status, would be a tremendous relief for those who need to travel out-of-state for care. In other words, she calls on people from states with more liberalized laws to look within, and address barriers to abortion that they may not even realize exist in their own states to consequently help those in more abortion-hostile states who will travel there for care. Arranda specifically points to initiatives in Oregon, California, and from city councils in New York City, Austin, and Portland to directly fund abortion access.

These efforts, she says, go a lot further for undocumented abortion seekers than unhelpfully telling them to move.

According to Desangles, many of FANs callers are domestic violence victimsa demographic that is uniquely, devastatingly targeted by the rise of abortion banswhich is why FAN has placed such great emphasis on offering what Desangles calls trauma-informed care. These bans are often highly retraumatizing to sexual assault survivors, whose bodily autonomy and consent are yet again violated, this time by the state.

Lauren Wilson, an organizer at the Roe Fund in Oklahoma, says this sort of retraumatization can be exacerbated by the strenuous, sometimes dangerous journey of traveling out-of-state for care. She recently heard from a driver who helped one Texas woman coming off an 11-hour bus ride to Oklahoma, during which the woman was forced to sit between two older gentlemenone of whom was very inappropriate towards her almost the entire time. She had no other option but to make the trek due to Texas ban, all while carrying an unwanted pregnancy.

Wilson says many non-Oklahomans would be shocked to learn the sheer amount of barriers, costs, and sometimes terrifying situations shes supported callers through. Flippant comments that suggest travel or moving can be easy and accessible add further insult to injury. And with the passage of a recent near-total abortion ban in Oklahoma, the situation is bleaker than ever. I dont think a lot of people realize the reality of thatthat just to access basic health care, someone would have to go through the unimaginable, said Wilson, [and] be in such vulnerable, traumatizing situations.

As Kentucky Health Justice Networks (KHJN) trans health director, Oliver Hall works to ensure trans Kentuckians across the state can access supportive, competent healthcare. Im not going to just move to California, or abandon my state and the people in it, Hall told Jezebel. A lot of us here are committed to living here, and making it the best place it can be for the trans people who live here, and the people who need to access abortionmany who are the same people. We have to have a tight-knit trans community in Kentucky, because we have to be there for each other.

Because the attacks against transgender kids are increasing across the country, Minneasotans hold a rally at the capitol to support trans kids in Minnesota, Texas, and around the country in March 2022. Photo: UCG (Getty Images)

In providing financial assistance for gender-affirming care as well as in-person advocacy and emotional support through KHJN, which also funds abortions, Hall says the idea that trans Kentuckians can easily travel or leave the state because of its recent anti-trans legislation is out-of-touch with reality for many. Trans people, and particularly those of color, face substantially higher rates of poverty than cis people, and Kentucky itself is one of the poorest states in the nation. According to Hall, moving is especially inaccessible to trans people, who, on top of everything, can also experience a lack of family support or support networks elsewhere in the country.

Hall also notes that when people who do have the most ability, the most time to do advocacy work just leave the state, theyre abandoning people who dont have the same privilege. This isnt an outcome for which people from other states should be advocating. Instead, they should be donating to abortion funds and trans health funds, where their money could go a lot further to directly help impacted people than donating to larger organizations, which already have massive budgets. Its likewise important, Hall says, for people everywhere to not just let politicians go unchallenged in their bullying of trans kids and horrifying attempts to criminalize those who help themthose with more privilege have a responsibility to make these politicians answer for that publicly.

In addition to how both struggles are rooted in bodily autonomy and white supremacist, cis-patriarchal oppression, recent attempts to criminalize health care for trans youth reflect yet another way abortion and trans rights are connecteda carceral connection. Lizelle Herrera, a 26-year-old Latinx woman in Texas, was recently jailed and charged with murder for allegedly self-inducing an abortion, in a case that reminds us how state laws can transform the bodies of pregnant and marginalized people into crime scenes, and build upon the ever-increasing trend of their criminalization.

These laws cant just be fundraising pitches for liberal politicians in solidly blue states, or fodder for viral posts from New York City-based liberal activiststhis legislation is fostering dangerous environments for marginalized people, who should be able to live and safely access health care in their own communities. Insisting that pregnant and trans people up-and-leave hostile states all but passively supports the existence of these laws, which will certainly be upheld with smaller and smaller pools of Democratic voters who cannot vote them harder out of existence.

To IWRs Lorenzo, there was always something achingly familiar about the notion that people who oppose the laws in their statesor countriesshould just leave. Its a gentler, more insidious way of pushing people off of their land, out of their homesand its rooted in white supremacist conceptions of gender and bodies. According to Lorenzo, many Indigenous communities have always been practicing reproductive justice and encouraging all kinds of expressions of gender.

We were already raising our families the best ways we knew how, and we knew based on the circumstances we were inthrough famine, drought, whether it was time for migrationwhen it was not time to expand our family, they said. It was just since 1492, since Columbus and his dumb ass arrived at this part of the world, that was the beginning of the removal of our bodily autonomy.

Indigenous people and marginalized communities know whats best for themthey always have. The legislative oppression they face today is no fault of theirs. Perhaps those with more privilege should reflect on their own roles in systems of white supremacy and colonialism, and how they can challenge these systems through redistributing wealth or lifting up marginalized voices, rather than place the onus on others to leave their homes and communities to chase human rights.

Through leading Avow Texas, Arrambide is familiar with uphill battles in her state, and thrilled by recent legislative victoriesnamely in Oregon and Connecticutthat codify meaningful protections for out-of-state abortion patients and those offering care to them. Laws like these, rather than tweets from governors, are what create change, and its on all of us to educate ourselves, each other, and advocate for abortion and LGBTQ-supportive policies within our own communities. One of the most vital ways to support states like hers, though, is to not simply write them off as lost causes. Were a state thats been heavily gerrymandered and voter suppressed, and just to effect any change can be a huge, uphill battle, she said. But the people, the Texanswe believe access to abortion care and all health care should be available in our community, and everyone should remember that before they speak.

Excerpt from:

Stop Telling People in Red States to Move When They're Faced With Devastating Bans - Jezebel