Category Archives: Government Oppression

I recently heard about a group that was praying for Alabama and the nation. Praying that governments will repent of their sins. That sinners will come to repentance.

But the sinners they have in mind arent trans youth or women entering abortion clinics. Not undocumented immigrants or same-sex couples.

The sinners they are targeting seek to undermine democracy by suppressing votes. These transgressors are indifferent to the needs of the poor. Some of them even profit from poverty.

This prayer group includes Christians, Jews and Muslims. Blacks, whites, females and males. They belong to the National Poor Peoples Campaign, launched several years ago by the Rev. Dr. William Barber and other clergy. Their prayer calls are open for the public to observe.

And according to the Rev. Carolyn Foster, one of the co-chairs of the Alabama faction of this movement, the stakes are high for many in our state.

About 45 percent of Alabamians are poor or low income, Foster told me recently. Poverty is not the fault of the poor. Poverty is a systemic problem.

That 45 percent figure may seem astronomically high, especially since other organizations such as Alabama Possible put the poverty rate at 16.9 percent. But Foster and the other movement leaders define poverty more broadly than the bureaucrats.

We define poverty as being one emergency away from a catastrophe or a disaster, she said. So that means one car accident. One hospital stay. The death of a breadwinner. Or a divorce that splits one modest, two-income family into two, poorer one-income families.

We are trying to work with the federal government to redefine poverty, Foster said.

And, as people of faith do, they are praying. I was on the line for the July 12 call earlier this month.

We say no, said the Rev. Dr. Beth Johnson of Palomar UU Fellowship in Vista, CA, to autocrats who make their money off the backs of the poor.

Rabbi Alana Suskin, co-chair of the Maryland Poor Peoples Campaign, spoke of the sin of Sodom, which she described as excess not homosexuality. Hoarding resources, wealth, is a theft from God. One who oppresses the poor blasphemes God.

Imam Khalid Griggs, vice president of the Islamic Circle of North America, challenged the institutionalization of poverty while referencing Islams Mecca pilgrimage, where the rich and poor are indistinguishable. It is our demand of this government to address the inequitable distribution of resources, he said.

140 million are crying out, said Rev. Kazimir Brown, deputy director of religious affairs for the Poor Peoples Campaign.

In the Christian context, this is a red-letter, least-of-these gospel. It stands with the historically disenfranchised as Jesus did when he championed widows, children, women and Samaritans.

This gospel comforts the powerless and makes the powerful uncomfortable. Powerful folks like elected officials. Business, civic and religious leaders. Media titans. Celebrities. Anyone with access and opportunity whos accruing power and wealth without concern for the least of these.

This gospel doesnt bully trans students. Doesnt see mass incarceration as a profit-making opportunity.

This gospel thinks the Jesus who healed the sick at practically every opportunity would want to see Medicaid expanded. Would promote wearing masks, social distancing and getting vaccinated.

Some wont recognize it. Or like it. Their gospel stars a Jesus who was a capitalist. A Jesus who didnt give a damn about the disenfranchised. A Jesus for whom oppression is synonymous with manifest destiny.

I almost dont blame them. When the Moral Majority hijacked Jesus in the 1970s, many of us who knew better watched quietly, as though we were powerless to reclaim him.

Its past time some of us started speaking up, so thanks to the National Poor Peoples Campaign. And Im glad they had the savvy to join with like-minded folks of the other two ancient Abrahamic faiths.

Jews, Christians, Muslims and everyone else, believers or not need to know that capitalist, bigoted Jesus aint our Jesus. His gospel aint our Gospel.

We are taking action, praying and becoming in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King an unsettling force.

Original post:

Opinion | And, as people of faith do, they are praying - alreporter.com

Canada relies on extractive industries and the colonial land-theft that sustains them. My relationship with extraction, as a Canadian, is complex. I believe Canada should respect the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and thus Indigenous law; I believe Canada should live up to our commitments to address global warming and thus not build new oil pipelines; we should fulfil the explicit and implicit treaty agreements that founded the nation; we should end military interventions in other nations (including within our borders); and much more.

As a Canadian, I pay into an unregulated pension plan that invests heavily in oil futures which promote global warming, as well as tobacco advertising, and migrant detention facilities on the US-Mexico border; I cannot change this investment. My taxes pay for military interventions and fund the politicians who ignore treaty relationships. I drive a car, turn on heat and lights, and fly to conferences. Im complicit in Canadas protection of resource extraction from pretty much any angle I think of, simply by virtue of the complex web of relations in which I live and breathe.

I benefit differentially as a white immigrant mortgage-owner from histories of and present social relations of land theft and colonial oppression. In complex situations like, well, simply being alive, we make all sorts of compromises and become complicit in all sorts of things we would like to wash our hands of. Its unsettling.

Want the best of Religion & Ethics delivered to your mailbox? Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Your information is being handled in accordance with theABC Privacy Collection Statement.

I used to teach a class called Unsettling Canada. Students learned about the internment of Japanese Canadians, current indefinite migrant imprisonment, military action in 1990 at Kanehsat:ke, and Indian Residential Schools, among other things. After class one day, one of my non-Indigenous students said to me, I just dont know how to carry on, now that I know these things about Canada. Ive always been a proud Canadian, and I dont recognize myself in this history. I feel so ashamed. Another student, gathering her things after class, said, I often wonder what it is like learn about these things for the first time. To me, they have always been something I knew about. She was Indigenous, and most of her family either had kids taken away and put in genocidal institutions or had been forced to be in the institutions themselves. None of this was news to her.

When people charge someone with being complicit, frequently the result of that charge is a particular kind of immobility. When we are charged with complicity, we tend to turn inwards in shame, or be overwhelmed by a feeling of how impossible it would be to extract ourselves from currently ubiquitous relations of domination. Often, the feeling of being complicit means we give up on action. Indeed, frequently the charge of complicity is meant precisely to entail the claim that if you are complicit in something, you do not have standing to oppose that thing. This is worth investigating, because if calling out complicity is meant to prompt effective ethical or political action, but instead derails precisely that action, the charge of complicity may itself produce further complicity or, at least, it may not help to further the goal of reducing the relevant harm or wrong.

The question is, then: can identifying complicity produce collective solidarity instead of individual immobilisation?

This summer Indigenous communities in Canada have begun using ground-penetrating radar to locate hundreds of unmarked graves long known to be at the sites of former Indian Residential Schools. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau echoed my non-Indigenous students feeling of shame when he said that he is appalled by the shameful policy that stole Indigenous children from their communities. And Indigenous Services Minister Marc Miller characterised it as shameful that Pope Francis has declined to apologise for the Catholic Churchs role in running the schools on Canadas behalf.

Scholars make a distinction between guilt and shame. Guilt is the name for when I recognise that I have done something wrong. So, when Ive hurt someone, or broken a friends favourite mug because I was being careless, I might feel guilt. Shame, in contrast, is the name for a feeling of being wrong, or bad it is sticky, and it attaches to our sense of self rather than our actions. For the most part, shame is the kind of negative feeling about ourselves that we should reject, because it has been forced on us about things in which there is no inherent shame our bodies, our faith traditions, our sexuality, and so on. However, there is a place for naming the feeling of being implicated in collective wrongdoing as shame as long as we dont stop there.

I am a white settler immigrant; and like many non-Indigenous people in what is currently Canada, I am in an ongoing process of learning about Canadas genocidal practices. Gary Kinsman writes about the social organization of forgetting, through which ruling institutions attempt to make both oppression and the struggle against it un-remembered. But only non-Indigenous people are surprised to discover the realities of genocide; Indigenous people, such as my former student, have never forgotten being targeted for erasure. The Tkemlps te Secwpemc First Nation relatives of the children buried at the Kamloops Indian Residential School, where the first 215 bodies discovered this summer were found, always knew they were there and so did the people who ran that school, who buried them. So, what can an ordinary non-Indigenous person grappling with shame about colonialism do with these feelings?

The first thing is to recognise guilt and shame when they arise, rather than trying to deny them. My research has demonstrated that many white people started what became valuable contributions to collective anti-racist transformations when they felt shame about benefiting from racism or racist structures.

Shame is one feeling we white people might have when we look back at the past and recognise all the horror that has been done on behalf of whiteness and by white people to others. We didnt do those things ourselves, personally, so the feeling we have isnt really guilt. But we recognise that we inherit their legacy, that those things were done by our ancestors.

In the present, many white people see that white supremacists are organising and recruiting, and that they enact racism in our name, against our will. Many of us who want to refuse to benefit from structural and interpersonal racism may feel shame and anger about colonialism, police murdering racialised people, and more. This is a starting point for making a different future, changing what we inherit and what we benefit from into something else.

Shame is a common response to the feeling of being complicit in a situation we find ethically objectionable. Awareness of complicity can take the form of identifying the complexity and interrelatedness of our world, or of highlighting the inescapable embeddedness of our being in the world. This can freeze us. The vast and complex nature of the problems confronting moral agents today can make it seem that no one in particular is responsible for taking them on. Dispersed responsibility is one common response someone else will do it!

Alternatively, when there are actions we can take, for example, to oppose systemic racism, or to use less plastic, or to support libraries and education workers, or to reduce our carbon footprint, many of us succumb to a kind of moral fatigue there are so many things we know we would like to do or stop doing, so many ways we are connected to the suffering of the world, that we just get tired. Being overwhelmed can lead to a kind of counterphobic reaction to, for example, thinking about global warming, rising seas, climate catastrophe, and the extinctions of so many nonhuman beings: since I cannot solve all of these things, I may as well fly as much as I like, eat as many single-servings of high-fat yogurt as I want, and so on.

Conservatives and liberals alike particularly the subspecies whose primary political work is trolling people on the internet are fond of charging people with complicity. They cry hypocrite! at people who are now speaking out about something when they did not raise an objection in the past. They delight in pointing out inconsistencies, as when trolls tweeted at a friend that she could not both oppose human-fuelled global warming and drive her car. Or they say that if someone benefits from something, they cannot protest to it.

Each of these criticisms deploys what we can call purity politics: because the person expressing the desire for another world is complicit or compromised, they are supposed to give up. Conservatives and liberals alike use purity politics to try to close down critique and action.

Purity politics points to a problem with the way we normally think about complicity. Only an individual can aspire to be pure, to know everything that it might be important to know. Or perhaps it would be better to say: only the conceit of a delimited individual, sovereign in his skin, independent and unreliant on others, sufficiently potent to be able to make any needful changes in the world around him, capable of knowing in advance what the correct course of action might be and not deviating from it, capable of knowing everything relevant to any given situation, someone who does not make mistakes only such an individual would be invulnerable to charges of complicity.

No such individual exists. All of us are open to one another, offer one another the possibility of mutual regard and recognition, are interdependent and needy, relatively helpless to change things we care about, quite limited in our knowledge and understanding but educatable, changeable in light of new circumstances, and routinely err. Beyond that, of course, the scale and scope of problems we collectively face are laughably far beyond any individuals capacities to solve.

Not every horrible thing that happens in the world is a site of complicity. Perhaps we should be understood as complicit only in horrible things that could be prevented and to which we are in some way connected. When someone dies in a landslide or an avalanche, I may be sad for the people grieving their loss, but barring unusual responsibilities for avalanches I am likely not to be complicit. When a miner dies at work in a cave-in beneath my city which the mining company could have prevented with more investment in safety infrastructure, which they chose not to build because they calculated that the cost of life insurance for one miners death per year was cheaper than the infrastructure, and when my government provides that company with substantial tax-write-offs to keep them in the country, I likely am complicit in that death.

However, there are degrees of complicity and responsibility. I am less implicated than the person in the company who made the decision based on a profit-loss ledger that weighs peoples lives against insurance claims. Complicity is very much a matter of degree of connection, capacity to change the circumstances, and the distribution of power. Thus, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expresses shame, he has much more responsibility to address his complicity than an ordinary Canadian.

Recognising the shame-worthiness of complicity in genocide and racism can be an important starting place for non-Indigenous white people indeed, a much better approach than trying to claim innocence or non-involvement. And we can refuse to allow complicity to sap our will to change things. But what comes next?

Taking connection, complexity, and complicity as a starting point for action rather than a reason to give up opens possibilities for ethical decision-making. Complicity can produce solidarities oriented towards collective action. Although we may not be able individually to solve something, we may still be morally responsible to try solve it as best we can which, often, is going to mean making collective, social, or systemic change.

This kind of ethics is always political, in the sense that moral decisions in conditions of complicity depend on factors beyond the scope of the individual. Political decisions refer outside the individual to receive their weight. They do not depend on innocence for their decision-making. Rather, they depend on the understanding that we confront hard problems problems that always leave what Bernard Williams thought of as a moral remainder. Lisa Tessman characterises us as living a kind of moral trouble that comes from existing in a complicated world. Perhaps we can begin to truly confront moral trouble only once we give up on the idea of innocence and purity, only once we begin from complexity and complicity, only once we regard collective ethical decisions as inherently political.

In the case of addressing the Canadian states genocidal policies, many suggest that settlers educate themselves. They can read the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), follow investigative initiatives, watch films and read books from the viewpoint of survivors. Self-education includes understanding the lines of continuity between past harms and current practice we can see connections between stealing Indigenous children and imprisoning them in residential schools and the Trudeaus government decision to fight Indigenous kids in court today, between starvation policies of the past and undrinkable on-reserve water in the present. A next step would be to demand accountability from the Canadian government by writing to elected representatives and lobbying for legislative change. And non-Indigenous people can donate money to support survivors or for reparation work.

Self-education, donating money, and lobbying can all be parts of building a genuinely transformative approach. However, white settlers in particular may have a tendency to focus on ourselves when confronted with racism and colonialism our self-education, our political self-expression. Feeling complicit, or ashamed, tends to turn people inwards, and self-abnegation is not actually helpful to political change.

So, we can consider what have been historically effective roles for white people in the struggle against racism: participating in collective work against racism. Non-Indigenous people who arent white might also find some traction in these approaches, but because racialised people have been and are themselves targeted by both the Canadian state and white racists, their collective work will be different.

Quite often, instances of shame such as an implication in genocide are points of connection in our lives. They might show us things we are genuinely moved to work on. If someone is deeply committed to their church community, for example, and discovers that it was directly involved in residential schools, educating their congregation and initiating its responses to the TRC Calls to Action might be a natural next step.

A person who cares about the environment might turn towards supporting Indigenous land defenders in places they care about, both in Canada and abroad. Someone who cares about teaching and education can support school-centred actions.

Non-Indigenous people have been involved in solidarity work for many years in ways that might be instructive for responding to the legacies of Indian Residential Schools. In the 1990s, there were examples like Settlers in Solidarity with Indigenous Sovereignty, Anti-Racist Action members in Toronto who fought against white supremacist fishing and hunting groups and Raction SIDA members who supported the Kanienkehka people as they defended their land from development during the Oka Crisis at Kanehsat:ke.

Today, we see some settlers protesting alongside Wetsuweten, Secwepemc and Pacheedaht, Ditidaht and Huu-ay-aht First Nations in their efforts to defend their land against logging, chemical spills from mining slag and the effects of petroleum pipelines. Showing solidarity and getting involved are connected to the work of actively responding to the TRC Calls to Action. We can be more effective working together than alone.

Many of us will never have been part of a collective response to something we have identified as requiring change. And since every aspect of settler Canadian life in some way connects to Canadas genocidal practices, we might feel not only ashamed but also overwhelmed. White people who have contributed to collective action against racism share some key practices that we can emulate.

The most effective non-Indigenous participants in antiracist work resist the impulse to act like individual heroes, martyrs or white saviours. They support and stand by Indigenous people instead of making it about themselves. For people getting involved in ongoing projects of which there are many key starting points include listening more than talking, not trying to introduce big new ideas, taking up the non-glamorous work, and not speaking for others.

People who dont burn out by trying to do everything, who are in it for the long haul, and who help build useful collective organisations those whom other people can count on for years of support and collaboration turn out to be the most effective contributors to social transformation at the scale needed for addressing Canadas treatment of Indigenous people.

I return to the work of social movement scholar Gary Kinsman, and his conception of a politics of responsibility which he defines this as involving those of us in oppressing positions recognizing our own implication within and responsibility to actively challenge relations of oppression. A politics of responsibility recognises our relative, shifting, and contingent position in social relations of harm and benefit; it enjoins us to look at how we are shaped by our place in history. We can take responsibility for creating futures that radically diverge from that history, seriously engaging that work based on where we are located, listening well to the people, beings, and ecosystems most vulnerable to devastation.

The question, then, is not: How can we be innocent of implication in complex and distributed harms? The question becomes: What forms of implication will we take up as points of connection for anchoring our activities? With whom will we become complicit? Whose side are we on?

Asking which side we are on raises the prospect of binary, purist thinking about politics, as though it was easy to delimit sides. If we take that approach, complicity would make it impossible for us to be on the side of justice. Its probably clear by now that I believe were complicit no matter what we do, that we cannot excuse ourselves from implication, that were always connected. It is precisely these political features of ethical decision making in complex and relational contexts that makes this ethically interesting terrain.

The good news when there are no easy answers is that we have the capacities to elaborate the stakes and reasons for our decisions; we have the capacities to make strategic decisions and to know when we are effectively fighting shameful situations.

Ive learned the most about how to approach this in training in activist strategy notably in the model of a spectrum of allies. Picture a rainbow, with yourself and the people with whom you thoroughly agree on one end; directly across from you, 180 degrees away, are the people with whom you disagree and who you oppose. Following the arc of the rainbow are people on a spectrum of agreement with you and your opponents. There is a tendency to think that we should direct our attention and work towards the people we most oppose, the people most directly responsible for the harm we have identified as the problem at hand. In the case of Canadas ongoing incursions into Indigenous land, I might address my moral and political work to the provincial government, the chief of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or the Prime Minister of Canada. Or I could work on changing the heart and mind of the most racist fellow Canadians I can find (usually in the comments section of my national paper).

But the spectrum of allies approach is interested in what causes the people with decision-making power to make different decisions about the things in which we are mutually implicated. A key shift in the spectrum of allies is to stop addressing oneself to people who directly or ideologically oppose one, with the idea that they will reverse their position solely through moral suasion. Taking a spectrum approach, one aims to move people from where they are one or two positions over to move people who are passive allies to become active allies, or people who are passive opponents to be oblivious neutrals.

Crucially, the spectrum of allies approach assumes that we are all connected, that no one is essentially or fundamentally pure or evil, and that anyone can change their minds through changing their activities. Grounded in nonviolent communication, it also emphasises listening to others both those who are passive allies and those opposing us on an issue. Listening to people different than us, and especially listening to people we consider complicit in evil, is perhaps unpopular in our moment. But it is an ethically and politically interesting proposition. The kind of listening were interested in here remains political, however, in the sense that it is committed to certain worlds and not others.

Because we are complicit, we can act in solidarity and stand with some people and not others. As Katrina Shields puts it:

Although listening to the oppositions point of view is important it is equally important to put your position and be heard both by the opposition and by the public. This can be quite an anxiety-provoking experience when you are not used to doing it. Something I have found useful is imagining those I represent standing behind me whether they be environments, creatures, or humans, including those of the future. They require me not to betray them by giving up my power in these situations. This has been a source of strength enabling me to speak up and not compromise.

This approach is a kind of brave relation, building the capacity to stand in relation even to situations and evils with which we would like to cut off relation. We should cultivate such brave relations. Even when we are complicit or ashamed, and maybe because we are complicit and ashamed, we can still act to change things.

Alexis Shotwell is Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Carleton University, where she is cross-appointed with the Pauline Jewett Institute of Womens and Gender Studies and the Department of Philosophy. She is author of Knowing Otherwise: Race, Gender, and Implicit Understanding and Against Purity: Living Ethically in Compromised Times.

View original post here:

After complicity and shame: Effective political action for non-Indigenous people - ABC News

As U.S. troops draw down in Afghanistan, Chinese officials have stepped up contacts with the Taliban as it surges across the country and builds strategic footholds against Afghan government forces.

On paper, Beijing and the Taliban are strange bedfellows.

China is an atheistic, communist state that is running an internment camp system in its western Xinjiang Province that is believed to have detained more than 1 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities. The Taliban, meanwhile, is a fundamentalist militant group that previously governed Afghanistan as an Islamic caliphate.

So whats driving the two sides together?

While there is little shared ideology, both sides are managing to forge a transactional relationship based on mutual self-interest.

China -- which is positioning itself to play a defining role in the region -- sees the group as an undeniable part of Afghanistans political future, while the Taliban views Beijing as crucial for its international legitimacy and a much-needed potential investor in the country.

In recent weeks, Taliban representatives have said China is a welcome friend in Afghanistan and gone out of their way to signal that they will not interfere in Beijing's domestic affairs, while promising that territory under the Islamist groups control would not be used against other countries.

This outreach may seem abrupt but is actually the product of a complicated, decades-old relationship that experts say is defined by pragmatism and an underlying distrust of the other. As the political reality in Afghanistan continues to shift quickly, both Beijing and the Taliban are looking to explore how closely they can cooperate.

Theres a lot of skepticism of one another in this dynamic, Raffaello Pantucci, a senior associate fellow at London's Royal United Services Institute, told RFE/RL. The foundation of it is that each side views the other as a means to an end.

Stability, specifically its own, is the top concern for China.

Central to Chinese worries in Afghanistan is the country once again becoming a haven for extremist groups with international ambitions like Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Beijing is particularly focused on Uyghur militants that have their sights set on China and could cross the country's 76-kilometer border with Afghanistan.

Ensuring that fighting or chaos from a potential power vacuum wont spill over is paramount to Chinese policymakers.

The existence of Uyghur extremist groups -- based in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- have been part of Beijings justification for its sweeping dragnet against Muslim minorities in neighboring Xinjiang.

The Talibans recent gains indicate it could well be part of Afghanistans political equation or perhaps topple the government in Kabul. With this in mind, Beijing has moved to engage the Taliban to ensure that its security interests will be protected.

The Chinese can see that the Taliban are likely to cement power and Beijing also doesnt want to get sucked in and overextended in Afghanistan, so that means they need to have a working relationship with the Taliban, Pantucci said.

The militant group has taken Chinese concerns to heart and tried to show goodwill, calling for talks on reconstruction and drawing in Chinese investment to begin as soon as possible.

The Taliban has also signaled that it has little current interest in getting involved with events in Xinjiang.

We care about the oppression of Muslims, be it in Palestine, in Myanmar, or in China, and we care about the oppression of non-Muslims anywhere in the world, a senior Taliban representative told The Wall Street Journal. But what we are not going to do is interfere in Chinas internal affairs.

This isnt the first time the two sides have been pushed together by events on the ground in Afghanistan.

In the late 1990s, China decided that the best way to manage a potential extremist threat from the country was to engage with the Taliban.

In 1999, a group of Chinese officials flew to Kabul and opened diplomatic and economic relations, with Chinas ambassador to Pakistan seeking a meeting with Taliban commander Mullah Omar.

That meeting took place in 2000, at which Beijing pressed Omar to stop harboring ethnic Uyghur militants allegedly operating in Afghanistan with a group called the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). In exchange, the Taliban hoped China would provide diplomatic support at the United Nations and help roll back sanctions placed on the group.

While analysts say Mullah Omar did restrain ETIM in the country, he did not expel the group. No deal with Beijing on the matter was ever formalized, and the Taliban was pushed out of Kabul following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the invasion of Afghanistan.

Theres always been a level of mistrust that the Chinese have toward the Taliban, Andrew Small, a fellow with the German Marshall Fund, told RFE/RL. Regardless of what deals they strike and whether they are kept, [Beijing] is also concerned that the groups success could provide inspiration to other groups.

Following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, the Talibans top leadership relocated to Pakistan. According to Small, Islamabad -- the groups chief patron and a close Beijing ally -- helped facilitate Chinese-Taliban ties over the following years.

Those talks picked up steam in more recent years and once again centered on the Taliban denying Uyghur militants safe haven and curbing the activities of ETIM.

Starting in 2014, Taliban delegations began to publicly and regularly visit China, culminating in secret talks that China facilitated between Kabul and the Taliban in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang.

The Taliban have been dealing with the Chinese for decades now and [the militants understand] their concerns, said Small. Its an unusual relationship, but it's been one of the Talibans most consistent since it's been in exile in Pakistan.

Central to Beijings engagement with the Taliban are concerns over Uyghur militants -- specifically ETIM -- gaining a home base in Afghanistan.

But the group has a complex and disputed history. While Uyghur militants do operate in Afghanistan, their size and sophistication has been a source of disagreement among analysts and governments.

As George Washington Universitys Sean R. Roberts writes in his book, The War On The Uyghurs, no group ever used the name ETIM, but it became associated with a small band of Uyghur militants who relocated to Afghanistan in the late 1990s with the goal of launching attacks against Beijings rule in Xinjiang.

Beijing would go on to accuse the group of helping to orchestrate attacks inside China and, in 2002, as the U.S.-led war on terror was ramping up, the group was officially recognized by Washington as a terrorist organization.

Little was heard from the group throughout the 2000s, especially after its leader was killed in 2003, until a group calling itself the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP) issued an online video in 2008 in which it threatened to attack China during that year's Summer Olympics. TIP said it was a successor to ETIM, although Beijing still refers to it by the older name.

TIP has since developed into a larger militant group based in Syria, but as Roberts wrote for The Guardian in 2020, there is no evidence that this group has ever orchestrated violence inside China itself.

This has led critics to accuse Beijing of exaggerating the connections between militant groups and developments in China in order to justify its repressive policies against Uyghurs and the ongoing crackdown on Muslims in Xinjiang.

As Beijing currently engages in talks with the Taliban with a focus on Uyghur militants, several hundred fighters are believed to be in Afghanistan, according to a 2020 United Nations Security Council report.

But the administration of President Donald Trump removed ETIM from its terrorist organization list in 2020, saying it believed there was no credible evidence the group still existed.

Despite its growing ties with the Taliban, Beijing still recognizes President Ashraf Ghanis government and has also engaged with Kabul in monitoring Uyghur militants in Afghanistan.

Beyond security, Beijing also has some longer-term economic hopes for the country, with Chinese firms involved in the massive Aynak copper mine and exploration in the Amu Darya oil field.

For the time being, however, China is looking to strengthen its relations with both sides and use that leverage to push for a political solution between Kabul and the Taliban. Beijing is also dangling future investment and deeper efforts to integrate Afghanistan into its Belt and Road Initiative as a way to bring both sides to the negotiating table.

Its one of the few levers that China has to push for a stable political settlement in the country, Small said.

Those strengthened ties give Beijing a special role to play in any future peace process, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, on July 13 during a tour of Central Asia.

China has also stepped up its security engagement and cooperation with Afghanistans neighbors in Central Asia, as well as with Pakistan, as part of what Pantucci calls a hedging strategy to prepare for any possible outcome from the current situation in the country.

The Chinese are negotiating with the Taliban, and the Taliban are being receptive so far, he said. "But the Chinese have actually built themselves an insurance policy by building a strong regional security presence [to cover]" for any outcome.

More here:

Explainer: Why Is China Talking To The Taliban? - Gandhara

Former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has argued reforms to the Official Secrets Act would mean a future Edward Snowden-style whistleblower would be forced to avoid mainstream UK publications to spill secrets.

Instead they would avoid fears of stricter sentences for publication in the public interest by sharing information with a foreign title or website or putting it online themselves, he said in his submission to Government.

His stance puts him in rare agreement with the likes of the The Sun as the industry unites against the proposed reforms in fear they could deter whistleblowers from coming forward and have a chilling effect on investigative journalism in the public interest.

[Read more:UK journalists could be jailed like spies under proposed Official Secrets Act changes]

Press Gazette drew attention on Tuesday to Home Office proposals to increase maximum jail sentences for journalists, potentially in line with foreign spies, for publishing leaked information.

The Government also dismissed pleas for a public interest defence and said it could remove the need for an unauthorised disclosure to have caused damage before any prosecution instead a journalist would only need to have realised publication could have been damaging.

The News Media Association, which represents the UKs news industry, said this could open the regime up to widespread abuse by those seeking to hide embarrassing truths from public view.

It urged the Government to reconsider all the factors that put press freedom at risk, including the replacement of fines with jail sentences as this could inadvertently worsen the already weak position of journalists and whistle-blowers through harsher sentencing.

It added that a public interest defence was absolutely essential.

The proposals are out for consultation until 11.45pm on Thursday (22 July).

The NMA said it understood the need to adjust the law around state threats as technology and behaviours evolve, but said this must not come at the expense of press freedom. The UK is signed up to the Global Media Freedom Coalition and hosted the first Global Media Freedom Conference in July 2019.

NMA legal policy and regulatory affairs director Sayra Tekin said: As part of any thriving democracy, the public and a responsible press must be free to shed light on the states injustices.

The proposed measures will deter whistleblowers from coming forward with vital information which the public have a right to know and place a chill on investigative journalism which holds power to account.

We strongly urge the Government to reconsider these measures and instead work with the industry to place appropriate protections for journalism at the heart of the Official Secrets Act so that freedom of speech is enhanced by the new regime rather than weakened further.

In his submission to the Government, Guardian editor of 20 years Rusbridger said the changes could have far-reaching consequences for public debate, open government, whistleblowing and journalism.

I agree that the present collection of laws is haphazard and out of date, but I would place a different emphasis on the protection of disclosure in the public interest.

Rusbridger said the prospect of serving a longer jail sentence over the Snowden material would not in the least have deterred him.

He went ahead with publication after taking advice and having read a large proportion of the information despite knowing then he could have faced prosecution.

Rusbridger said he was certain the material still would have been published if the British government had beforehand launched a prosecution against himself and the Guardian, and pointed out others around the world also had the information.

[Read more: Guardian agreed to symbolic destruction of Snowden hard drives after pressure from government]

But he warned that the proposed reforms would effectively give the state power to decide what is in the public interest, if no such defence is enshrined in law.

He said: The intelligences agencies would have had virtually no power (through conversations or contacts or the DA Notice system) to make representations about possible harm in publication.

And the next time a whistleblower emerged he/she would certainly avoid any mainstream British publication and either share the material with a foreign publication or website or else publish it themselves. Is this really the outcome the government or the Law Commission desires?

In its leader on Wednesday, The Sun warned such legislation could have prevented it from revealing the CCTV that showed Matt Hancocks office affair with an aide, leading to his resignation as Health Secretary.

It said the chilling proposals were a licence for a cover-up of disastrous failures, criminal negligence or career-ending hypocrisies like The Suns Matt Hancock revelations.

[Read more: Media law of Matt Hancock snog scoop which was sleazy, sensational and in the public interest]

It is sinister enough that the Information Commissioners Office carried out raids trying to uncover our source for that exclusive. This law change could outlaw such reporting entirely.

Some sensitive data must of course remain secret. But if journalists and whistleblowers are jailed over leaks unassailably in the public interest, we are in the grip of oppression.

Scoops that have changed the way the UK operates for the better, such as the expenses scandal exposed by The Telegraph, which highlighted some of the extraordinary claims made on the taxpayers purse by MPs, could have seen reporters jailed under the proposed changes.

Times chief reporter Sean ONeill warned that the changes would severely restrict the ability of journalists to report on misconduct and wrongdoing in the police, the military, the NHS, the intelligence services and Whitehall departments.

Other stories he warned would have been under threat as damaging, dangerous and criminal under these laws includedsubstandard military equipment for frontline troops and the recent Times scoop on alleged bullying in the royal household.

This is a precarious moment for press freedom in Britain, ONeill wrote. If Johnson really believes the media is the lifeblood of our democracy and must be able to report the facts without fear or favour then he has to rein in his home secretarys authoritarian instincts.

Mail columnist Mick Hume said the proposals, if implemented, mean Britain risks joining the unsavoury club of authoritarian regimes that treat journalists as if they are enemies of the state.

The idea of giving the whistleblower and journalists years in jail for the Suns Hancock scoop was an affront to democracy, he said.

BBC journalist John Simpson warned he probably would have been prosecuted if the reformed law was in place at the beginning of his career.

The Centre for Investigative Journalism said the plans show an overarching public interest defence for investigative reporting in law is long overdue.

New York Times UK investigative correspondent Jane Bradley described the proposal as an incredibly worrying authoritarian move from the UK government this isnt only about journalism, its about what they dont want the public to know, even when they have a right to.

Comparisons were made with Hong Kong, where the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily was forced to close last month and eight senior staff members have been arrested in a month.

At the time Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab described the closure as a chilling blow to freedom of expression and national security laws were being used as a tool to curtail freedoms and punish dissent rather than keep public order.

In response to the Home Office proposals, City University journalism lecturer and Hongkonger Yuen Chan said: Let the plight of the press in Hong Kong today be a cautionary tale for the free press everywhere.

TheCampaign for Freedom of Information, which said it would submit a joint response with free expression group Article 19, said: These plans are disproportionate and oppressive. A whistleblower revealing information, or a journalist or blogger publishing it, would commit an offence even if there was only the remotest possibility of harm.

The worry spread across journalism specialisms. Harpers Bazaar royal editor Omid Scobie, who wrote the book Finding Freedom about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle last year, warned: This is how democracies die, as he encouraged others to respond to the consultation.

A Home Office spokesperson said:Freedom of press is an integral part of the UKs democratic processes and the government is committed to protecting the rights and values that we hold so dear.

It is wrong to claim the proposals will put journalists at risk of being treated like spies and they will, rightly, remain free to hold the government to account.

We will introduce new legislation so security services and law enforcement agencies can tackle evolving state threats and protect sensitive data. However, this will be balanced to protect press freedom and the ability for whistleblowers to hold organisations to account when there are serious allegations of wrongdoing.

Press Gazette's must-read weekly newsletter featuring interviews, data, insight and investigations.

Follow this link:

Sun: Hancock 'snog' would be covered up under Official Secrets Act reform - Press Gazette

Life is unpredictable. Physical and mental health can change like the weather. We go through periods of splendid health and then have an accident or an illness or even a debilitating disease. No matter how healthy or lucky an individual is, everyone has phases of emotional and physical highs and lows. No one remains on an even keel for their entire life. We all have to roll with the punches until we can regain our equilibrium to make necessary adjustments in our lives.Every time we drive, we are putting ourselves in potential danger of an accident. Most adults do drive although there is a small segment of the people who are too afraid to get behind the wheel. There are some who do not leave their homes due to fear of germs. Life is full of potential dangers that cause people to do strange things to create a false sense of security.

Some of us sacrifice freedom for security while others fight to preserve freedom over illusionary security. The Corona-virus epidemic has convinced many to follow the science instead of retaining their individual freedom. But rather than science we received contradictory official edicts. Fear of the epidemic became the guiding force of decision making for too many people. These people discard their freedoms for commands given by arrogant elites. Dont wear masks, wear masks, stay 6 feet apart, dont stay apart and a host of other demands. These confusing directives created more fear in some people.

This decision of who to follow, the authorities or ones own mind has been a dilemma throughout the ages. Historically leaders usually dictate to their underlings what they should do, often leaving little personal choice. The Constitution of the United States was the first to devise a system that would ensure individual freedom. The founders believed that individuals collective decisions were a better means of making political and economic decisions. These wise men rejected the historical top-down approach.

During the period of the Enlightenment Period, Adam Smiths book, The Wealth of Nations, greatly influenced the leaders of the US revolution. These wisemen learned that the freedom of choice of moral individuals leads to justice and lawfulness. These freedoms encouraged all colonists to do things they never thought they could do, even becoming self-made men. They concluded that a free-market economy would encourage competition that would usher in prosperity. They were right.

Whenever citizens allow their freedom to be diminished by corrupt political leaders, inevitably they are entering the world of oppression. At this particular juncture, anyone who goes against the government will be punished by losing freedoms or even their life for expressing any contrary ideas. Ultimately, if this government policy continues, individuals liberty will be squashed and replaced by more government edicts concerning all aspects of life.

During the recent epidemic and many other crises like war and natural disasters, personal freedoms are sometimes exploited by evil, powerful authorities. As elite politicians say, never let a crisis go to waste. Almost any national incident is being blown out of proportion to create a crisis, which increases fear and the loss of freedom.

The freest nation in the world, the USA, is on a crossroad. We either want the right to make our own choices through our representatives or we will have all of our choices decided by power hungry dictatorial politicians as seen during the Covid shutdown. The answer is in the hands of the US citizens. Our voices have to be united behind our freedoms, not our fears.

These narratives of pending disaster are not speculative, it is happening with greater frequency. In the US we are currently hearing about many government plans to control the temperature in our homes, the speed we can drive and the type of vehicle, food we can eat, the moral values and history we must believe, as well as the ownership of weapons. Our Bill of Rights and our Constitutional Republic are being dismantled in front of us. Even the choice of which pharmaceutical drugs or other methods you must use to heal your body is being mandated by the government.

This July 4th, 2021, our sacred United States freedoms have existed for 245 years. Every one of the freedoms in our Constitutional Republic is under attack. Either we stand up against this tyranny at this critical moment or we will become just another has been oppressed nation.

The difference between big government deception that creates false security or constitutional protection of individual freedom is being tested and determined. Silence will not be a vote for security, it will be a vote for losing everything we cherish.Either US citizens speak out with a united voice preserving our hard-fought liberties or we will be existing in a dehumanized Orwellian world.Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers and blogs, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. Dr. Maglio is an author of weekly newspaper articles, INVASION WITHIN and a recent book entitled, IN CHARGE PARENTING In a PC World. You can see many of Dr. Maglios articles at http://www.drmaglioblogspot.com.

Original post:

Security over freedom is a formula for oppression - Hernando Sun

LAFAYETTE, La. (KLFY) Protests continue across the globe and right here in Acadiana as Cubans rally to fight decades of oppression under a communist government.

In Lafayette Wednesday afternoon, many gathered at Cafe Habana City to support protesters who are taking a stand against the Cuban government.

Rafael Garcia, owner of Cafe Habana, has been in the United States since 1983.

He has family still in Cuba and says he has no communication with them and has not heard from them in days.

He says the dictatorship and communist government control everything, people are dying and being killed and it must end.

For 63 years our people have been afraid to come out and protest in the streets. Sunday, everybody went out because theyre feeling awful and theyre hungry. They dont like the system anymore. Theyre protesting against the communist regime that is a dictator in Cuba.

Wednesday, national media reported Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel for the first time acknowledged government shortcomings after previously blaming the unrest on social media agitation from the U.S.

Garcia says thats a start, but it will take much more to end the 60 plus years of oppression.

We want the whole world to stand together and save us Cubans are uniting asking the world to help save them. We dont want no more politicians to make points with Cuban life. We dont want no one else in the world to say that the system in Cuba is a good system. Communism is not good. Communists kill people.

There are reports of at least one person dead and more than 100 arrested in the protests in Cuba.

Continue reading here:

Acadianas Cuban Americans rally in support of anti-government protest in Cuba - KLFY

Thousands of protesters took to the streets all over Cuba in recent days to lash out against rapidly deteriorating conditions under their communist-socialist system of government.

Watching this from the U.S., I couldn't help but wonder if Democrats in this country were confused by the large presence of American flags at a rally against government oppression.

After all, this is the party of "oppression mongers," like Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., who celebrated the 4th of July by tweeting,"When they say that the4th of Julyis about American freedom, remember this: the freedom theyre referring to is for white people.This land is stolen land and Black people still arent free."

Lightthe sparklers!

CUBAN ANTI-GOVERNMENT PROTESTERS WAVE AMERICAN FLAGS DURING MARCH

The good news is we've finally found a place where people still respect what the American flag stands for. The bad news is tyrannical communism.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., also gave America a birthday beat down on "The Twitter," accusing our great nation of not living up to its promise that all men are created equal.

These criticisms seem lost on protesters in Cuba, who, unlike Reps. Bush and Waters, are keenly aware of just how lucky Americans are to live in a free and capitalist country. You'll have to forgive thetwo congresswomen perhaps they spent too much time with socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who hates our capitalist systemso much, he's bashed it from all three houses he bought with the millions he's made selling books.

REPUBLICANS SPOTLIGHT CUBA AS SOCIALISM FAILURE AS PROTESTS ERUPT AMID HISTORIC ECONOMIC CRISIS

Back when I was a New York City taxi driver an attorney prepared me for a traffic hearing by sharing an old saying from the legal profession:"When you have the facts, you pound the facts. When you have NOTHING, you pound the table."

Democrats have been pounding the table on oppression in the U.S. for years,but when you contrast the quality of life between our country and a place like Cuba, you quickly realizeAmerica doesn't have an "oppression" problem, it has a "stupid" problem.

AOC SILENT AS DSA APPEARS TO BACK CUBA'S COMMUNIST REGIME OVER PROTESTERS

It may sound harsh but we have millions of people living in this country who are too dumb to appreciate just how fortunate they are to have actual FREEDOM. For all the identity politics messages we get besieged with on a daily basis, everyone living here has a unique American privilege that puts them in the world's "one percent" in terms of opportunity and the right to pursue whatever type of happiness suits us.

Far too many people take our freedoms for granted as well as our good fortune in that unlike Cuba, we are not struggling with major food shortages. We live in a country that puts itspets on diets. Im not sure you could explain that to Cubans, nor could you tell a people facing societal bankruptcy that your government isso oppressiveit's paying citizens more money to stay home than it is to return to work thanks to enhanced unemployment benefits.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

So many Americans seem to have lost their perspective in this country. After all, but we do we have a freedom of speech guarantee that allows an obscure Olympic hammer thrower like Gwen Berry to gain fame by disrespecting our national anthem and being cheered for her bravery by fellow American haters. This,despite the fact that history has shown bashing this "oppressive country" can be the quickest way to a lucrative sneaker deal, ala Colin Kapernick.Again, if an athlete bashed the Cuban government on an Olympic podium, you wouldn't get a sneaker deal, youd be lucky to get a plea deal so you didn't spend the rest of your life in prison.

My point is, bashing America may be considered courageous in some circles in an era where it seems like just about every government and corporate institution is encouraging you to do so.

But think again.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

No, real courage is what they're doing in Cuba right now by taking to the streets at the risk of being jailed or even killed by an authoritarian government that, in the words of Cuban American Sen. Ted Cruz,R-Texas,"has brutalized and denied freedom to generations of Cubans, forcing many including my family to flee or be murdered, and over the coming days will widen its violence to try to suppress the brave protesters in the streets."

The America of 2021 is not an oppressive country in any way, shape or form. If you believe it is, I've got a bridge I wanna sell you in Cuba. Be sure to packplenty of food if you visit.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JIMMY FAILLA

Link:

Jimmy Failla: Cuba protests and the American flag why are Dems so clueless about what it represents? - Fox News

The gap between the Biden administration and the Trudeau government this week on Cubawas wider than the straits that separate Havana from Key West.

U.S. President Joe Biden said the United States"stands firmly with the people of Cuba as they assert their universal rights. And we call on the government of Cuba to refrain from violence in their attempt to silence the voices of the people of Cuba."

The protests which sawthousands of Cubans marchthrough cities across the island are a "clarion call for freedom," said Biden.

When CBC News asked for one,Global Affairs Canada issued a statement through spokesperson Ciara Trudeau on the protests in Cuba. The departmenthasnot posted it with other statements on its website.

The statement declares support for "the right to freedom of expression and assembly" but doesn't point fingers at the regime in Havana. Instead, it callson"all parties to uphold this fundamental right."

"Global Affairs Canada urges all sides to exercise restraint and encourages all parties involved in the crisis to engage in peaceful and inclusive dialogue," says the statement.

The "all sides" language was jarring to Cuban exile Michael Lima Cuadra, who came to Canada as a political refugee in the 1990s and is a member of the newly-formed Council for a Democratic Transition in Cuba.

"The language is very neutral," he said. "And there is a saying by Desmond Tutu that if, in times of oppression, you choose to be neutral, you are taking the side of the oppressor."

Global Affairs'statement went on to discuss shortages of food and medicine in Cuba strongly implying that hungry bellies and a lack of vaccines drove the protests, rather than any desire for political change.

In that sense, it aligns closely with the spin the Cuban Communist Party has put on events, saidCuban-Canadian Fannia Brito of Gatineau, Quebec.

"The Cuban people are not asking for medicine, or for COVID treatments," she said. "The Cuban people have taken to the streets, with tremendous valour, to demand the end of the dictatorship, the end of the oppression. That is what the Cuban people are demanding."

Video of the protests clearly shows the crowds shouting slogans such as "Freedom!" and "Down with Communism!".

The GAC statement departs fromthelanguage Canada typicallyuses when talking aboutother authoritarian regimes in theregionin that it contains no call for a return to democracy no suggestion that it's time to endCuba's 62-year-old one-party state.

When asked about Cuba this week,Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that "we have always called for greater freedoms and more defence of human rights in Cuba, and we'll continue to be there to support Cubans in their desire for greater peace, greater stability and greater voice in how things are going."

That's not nearly good enough, saidLima Cuadra.

"We urge the government of Canada to listen to the demands of people, to support them in their peaceful struggle for democracy, and to condemn openly condemn the repression, the wave of arbitrary arrests, the intimidation, in the same manner they have done with the regimes in Venezuela and Belarus," he said.

"It's very important that when people are struggling for democracy, democratic governments take a public stand. That's what gives those movements support and legitimacy. Without the voices of democratic governments, those movements cannot subsist. They need Canada."

The Trudeau government consistently hastreated Cuba in a markedly different fashion than it hasother authoritarian regimes, such as those of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Belarus. It was at the forefront of calls for the removal of the Nicolas Maduro government in Venezuelaand was the second government in the world to recognize opposition leader Juan Guaido as the country's president.

The Trudeau government has sanctioned Venezuela repeatedly, as it did the Ortega-Murillo regime in Nicaraguaand the Lukashenko regime in Belarus.It has cited flawed elections, therepression of protestsand thesuppression of politicaloppositionto justify those sanctions.

Canada's position is that the Maduro regime lost democratic legitimacy on January 10, 2019, after he and his mentor Hugo Chavez had held power consecutively for 20 years. Long before Canada declared Maduro's legal mandate over, it routinely condemned his government's democratic transgressions.

Such language is absent from current Canadian government statements on Cuba,where there are no real elections, no vestiges of independent courts, noopposition legislators, mayors or governors all of which are still hanging on in Venezuela.

For Cuba, there are no Canadian sanctions, but rather professions of loyalty,friendship and commercial interest.

"Canada and Cuba have a well-established, significant and growing commercial and investment relationship," says theGlobal Affairs website. "Cuba is Canada's top market in the Caribbean/Central American sub-region."

The public highlight of Justin Trudeau's visit to Cuba in November 2016 was a Q&A session with a group of students at the elite University of Havana.

Trudeau sat flanked by the outgoing leader, Raul Castro, and his protege Miguel Diaz-Canel, the man who leads Cuba today. (Raul Castro, 90, is retired.)

Canada would be "a steadfast and unflinching friend to Cuba," Trudeau told the Communist Party leaders. "We disagree with the approach the United States has taken with Cuba. We think that our approach is much better of partnership, of collaboration, of engagement," he said, describing Cuba at one point as an "ally" of Canada.

Trudeau's hopes of meeting the dying Fidel, stoked to the last minute by the Cuban Embassy in Ottawa,were foiled when he was told the maximum leader was too ill.

In lieu of an audience with Fidel himself, three of his sons delivered Trudeau a photo album showing the Castro and Trudeau families together.

Then-U.S.president Barack Obama, who had visited earlier in the year, had set out conditions for his visit to Cuba.

Two months before he travelled, Obama said that if he were to visit Cuba,"then part of the deal is that I get to talk to everybody" including dissidents.

Trudeau laid out no public conditions for his visit and the civil society group he met with did not include the kind of dissidents Obama met some of whom had spent decades in prison or hadundergone hunger strikesopposing one-party rule.

Instead, thecivil society representatives who met withTrudeauwere selected for their opposition to sexism, homophobia and racismideologically comfortable terrain for the CubanCommunist Party.

That same day,across town, Trudeau's wife Sophie was praising Cuban leaders' "very open-minded and open-hearted" commitment to gender equality.

Absent from the Trudeaus' comments on Cuban soil were suchwordsas "democracy," "rule of law" and "elections."

When Fidel Castrofinally died ten days later,Trudeau paid tribute "on behalf of all Canadians" to the "larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century."

"A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and health care of his island nation," the prime minister said.

"While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro's supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for 'el Comandante'".

Those remarks kicked off a short-lived string of parodies.

Trudeau also praised Fidel Castro as "Cuba's longest-serving president" not a difficult achievement, since Cuba's last free election was in 1948.

The statement was condemned in the Cuban diaspora and raised eyebrows around the world.

Canadian tourists are critical to Cuba's economy.More than twice as many Canadians enter Cuba every year than the citizens of any other nation including Cuba itself.Canadian tourist dollars and Canadian investments are important for the survival of Communist Party control.

Some Cuban-Canadians worry that, just as change appears possible, Prime MinisterTrudeau's personal and family history will influence the actionsof a country that weighs heavily in Cuba's future.

In 1960, duringthe earliest days of the Castro regime, Pierre Trudeau was rescued in the Straits of Florida while trying to paddle to Cuba. He was later derided by John Diefenbaker in the House of Commons for conducting his "love affair" with the Cuban Revolution "by canoe."

In 1964, the elder Trudeaucame back to tour the island. He returnedwith his familyin 1976. That famous visit which featuredTrudeau shouting "Viva el primer ministro Fidel Castro!" on television was a propaganda coup for the regime. PierreTrudeau was the first leader of a NATO nation to visit the island since the communist takeover.

Justin Trudeau, who has spoken of making private visits to the island during his younger years, was visibly moved by Castro's presence at his father's funeral in Montreal. Fidel was given the role of honorary pallbearer.

Fannia Brito said Trudeau's obvious emotional attachment toCastro's legacy makes Cuban-Canadians suspect his motives. She saidcalls,emails and requests for meetings by her community are being ignored by Liberal Party politicians.

"It's incredible that the government has not pronounced itself either for or against, but has almost complete silence," she said. "It demonstrates the complicity of this government with the dictatorship.

"We want an answer, we want a public response. And we're not going to stop until we get it."

Read more here:

As Cuba erupts, Cuban-Canadians accuse the Trudeau government of turning its back - CBC.ca

WASHINGTON, D.C. Today, Senator Rick Scott spoke on the Senate floor in support of the Cuban people peacefully protesting against the oppressive, communist government of Cuba and calling for the freedom, liberty and basic human rights they deserve.

See more in the video HERE or below.

Earlier today, Senator Scott released the following statement supporting the Cuban peoples fight for democracy, and demanding that the Biden administration aggressively hold the communist Cuban regime accountable and support the cause of freedom across Cuba:

Senator Rick Scott said, Today in Havana, the Communist Cuban regime is shaking with fear as the people rise up to denounce the oppressive communist rule that has brought ruin to their nation for more than 60 years. I stand proudly with the heroic freedom fighters across Cuba that have taken to the streets determined to regain their freedom and put an end to the Castro dictatorship. The message from the Cuban people to Daz-Canel and Raul Castro has never been more clear: your time is up.

Now, the Biden administration must lead the freedom-loving nations of the world in loud and unequivocal denouncement of the brutal communist Castro regime, and in support of the liberty, democracy and human rights the Cuban people call for and rightfully deserve. We must be clear, for decades Cuba has been the root of instability in Latin America and represented a terrible threat to the national security of the United States. Today, the American people must join freedom-loving Cubans in saying the oppression ends now. We cannot return to Obama-Biden appeasement policies. We cannot lift sanctions or restore diplomatic relations with the Cuban dictatorship. I urge the Biden administration to impose further sanctions on the tyrannical Cuban regime. We cannot let up. There must be consequences for this heinous oppression and attacks on peaceful protesters.

To the people of Cuba: You are not alone, I stand with you in this fight. Florida stands with you in this fight. The United States of America stands with you in this fight. The freedom of Cuba is closer than ever and we are not going to stop until we see a new day of freedom, democracy and Patria y Vida in Cuba.

###

See original here:

VIDEO RELEASE: Sen. Rick Scott on the Senate Floor: We Stand with Those Demanding Freedom in Cuba | SENATOR RICK SCOTT - Senator Rick Scott

The WDET Book Club is reading the U.S. Constitution this summer to understand how it still shapes our lives today, more than two centuries after its inception. Professors Kim Forde-Mazuri and Michele Gilman discuss the idea of equality in the Constitutionfrom a modern-day perspective, and how there is still a long way to go until all Americans aretrulyequal.

Its an ongoing fight and struggle the founders didnt have an inclusive view of equality, but we can. Michele Gilman, University of Baltimore School ofLaw

Kim Forde-Mazrui is a professorat the University of Virginia Law School. He says the Constitution is not wholly responsible for shaping Americaslandscape of equality.We tend to focus on Supreme Court decisions because those decisions tend to place certain limits on what the other branches of government can do. The Supreme Court has evolved over time both in the text of the Constitution and their interpretation. Mazrui says equality purely based onConstitutional amendments is unlikely to take shape.I dont think well ever have perfect [constitutional equality] we are all subject to the culture of our time and we still believe as a society there are certain people who are harmful or immoral or a threat we are continuing to always struggle to draw that line between who gets included and who doesnot.

Mazrui says Constitutionaldistinction based on race or gender is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it doesnt justify discrimination. A key change the court made is a move toward prohibiting the government from making distinctions based on race and in large part thats a good thing I think unfortunately the court has gone too far in mandating color blindness. He says in the law, its necessary to take into account the historic inequities faced by people of color, rather than this idea of court color blindness.Once youve had centuries of systematic oppression and then simply stopping discrimination doesnt correct for the economic realities that have happened because of thatoppression.

Once youve had centuries of systematic oppression and then simply stopping discrimination doesnt correct for the economic realities that have happened because of that oppression. Kim Forde-Mazrui, University of Virginia LawSchool

Michele Gilman is a professorat the University of Baltimore School of Law. She says the Constitution was designedto overcome its flaws.One thing the framers did well was to have the foresight to know that things change over time and they did provide for ways our constitution could be amended. Gilman says though the Constitutioncan be revised, that alone wont lead to equality in America.Were about to celebrate the 101-year anniversary of the 19th Amendment we still have a long way to go. A constitutional amendment on its own doesnt do all the heavy lifting and so today when we think about what it means to have full gender equality, we are not thereyet.

Gilman says other facets of American government, and the private sector,must influence gender equality. The Constitution is a living document and a lot of the meaning we ascribe to it is the meaning Supreme Court justices have given to it we cannot expect the Constitution to solve all these problems. It protects us against government overreach but it doesnt get to private action. Gilman says formal equality as stated in the Constitution doesnt do the work we need to have a more substantive definition as a society.Its an ongoing fight and struggle the founders didnt have an inclusive view of equality, but wecan.

WDET strives to make our journalism accessible to everyone. As a public media institution, we maintain our journalistic integrity through independent support from readers like you. If you value WDET as your source of news, music and conversation, please make a gift today.

Donate today

The rest is here:

How the Constitution Shapes Equality and Inequality in America in 2021 - WDET