Category Archives: Government Oppression

By DR. LARRY MOSES

No one asked me but This week I would like to expand upon a thought in which I finished my column with last week. Do not conflate this with a call for revolution and rebellion. I am not advocating any such thing. I am merely explaining how America came about as a nation and this seems like the right time to do so since we have just celebrated the creation of America as a nation.

You might recall that President Biden delivered what was cast as a get tough on crime speech. It was actually an attack on the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding American citizens. He vehemently stated that no American citizen has a right to own a military grade weapon. He based this on the fact that deer do not wear Kevlar vests. Most disturbing was his twice repeated threat that rebellious citizens would be met with a government force armed with F-115s and nuclear bombs. He indicated this superior fire power would make resistance impossible.

I would remind the President that in 1776, colonial patriots faced the greatest military of the day with squirrel guns and won independence for the American colonies. They faced 35,000 British soldiers, the largest military gathering America would see again until 1860. George Washington met them with 18,000 poorly equipped and ill-trained mostly militia troops.

Protests, nullification, armed resistance, and finally revolution were the steps in the reply to what colonist deemed British oppression. Revolution was the last step for these patriots, or traitors, depending where you stood on the issue of rebellion. Sound familiar?

While Black Life Matters and Antifa look to overthrow what they believe is an oppressive racist government the vast majority of Americans disagree with these radicals and their political views. One of the advantages of the revolutionary sentiment coming from the liberal left is that they agree with the President that there is no need for any American to have a military style weapon.

This, however, is not the policy of the radical right. For those who see no threat in these small minorities of discontents, from both of these extremes, should keep in mind the vast majority of colonists either opposed independence or were at best ambivalent to it.

James Otis in 1765 stated: Independence, which none but rebels, fools, or madmen will contend for.Ben Franklin stated in 1774: I have never heard in any conversation from any person drunk or sober the least expression of a wish for separation from England.

That there are any who pant after independence is the greatest slander on the province, said John Adams in 1775.

Until after the rejection of the second petition of Congress, I never heard an American of any class or description express a wish for Independence, stated John Jay.

It is well known that in July of 1775, a separation from Great Britain and the establishment of a Republican government had not yet entered into any persons mind, said Thomas Jefferson, in 1782.George Washington in 1774, echoed his fellow colonial leaders with this statement: I am well satisfied that no such thing is desired by any thinking man in North America.

As late as January, 1776, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey instructed their delegates to vote against independence.

Why this reluctance to declare independence from England? The declaration of rebellion would close the door to reconciliation. English rebels were executed, quartered, their heads were displayed as a warning to others.

Independence would upset the commercial class and their profitable connection with the motherland.English politics also complicated the question of American independence. The Whigs already approved of Americas resistance to the punitive acts of the King and Parliament. The Whig leader William Pitt stated, I rejoice that America has resisted! However, he further stated if Americans entertained the idea of independence, he would be the first to enforce British authority.

Besides there was no guarantee that the colonies would not be merely trading one dictator for another as a strong military leader might emerge.

The American revolution was the work of a committed minority who succeeded in neutralizing a large majority who had little interest or commitment to their cause. In New York and some southern states, the loyalists outnumbered the rebels. These factors all delayed the actual declaration of independence.On June 7, 1776, the Continental Congress considered a resolution stating, These United Colonies are and of right ought to be, free and independent states;

Three days later the Committee of Five asked Thomas Jefferson to draft a Declaration of Independence. After a few adjustments by John Adams and Ben Franklin, this document stated that the government exists by the consent of the governed for the purpose of securing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It went further to state that it was a sacred duty of man to revolt when governments seek to destroy and invade those rights.

The Declaration of Independence justified the intervention of Spain, France, and Holland as they came to the aid of the colonies. As an independent country, America could aid them in their continual battle with England.

Does the President not understand that F-115s and nuclear bombs would not be facing a people but they would be facing an ideology. In a battle over ideology, the inferior force does not have to win, it merely has to out-last the powerful. Military power may kill individuals, however it cannot destroy an ideology.

If this lesson was not learned from our battle for independence, we surely should have learned it from Vietnam. It is a lesson Russia learned in Afghanistan anda lesson which America, too, will accept on September 11, 2021, as we withdraw our troops from the same.

It all reminds me of the fights I had with my older brother. He would dominate me, but I would not submit, and he would eventually give up and go away which was a win for me.Does the President not understand that many nations would come to the aide of any group that would organize to overthrow the American government?

Mr. President, the Second Amendment has nothing with to do Kevlar jackets for deer or defense against ones neighbor. It is about the defense of the American people against an oppressive government whether it is imposed by an external or internal force.

Thought of the week This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it. Abraham Lincoln

Here is the original post:

No One Asked Me But (July 7, 2021) - mvprogress

During a visit to Duke University last August, I spoke to three freshmen who told me that the sororities were all about to close down. When I asked why, they said that it was because of their past association with systems of oppression.

Whether they knew it or not, they were all victims of critical race theory.

CRT is an academic discipline, but also a call to revolutionary action. It casts everything in terms of power dynamics between oppressors (who have created systems of oppression) and the oppressed (whose victimhood statuses are defined in terms of race, sex, and other immutable traits). For decades, it was dominant in the civil rights field in the academy.

Since the death of George Floyd, and the Black Lives Matter mayhem that followed it, CRT has jumped the Ivy-covered walls. Suddenly, it has taken over all of our lives to such a degree that Americansa people long recognized by social scientists and foreign visitors to be inordinately attached to libertyare now rising to saybasta, and are prepared to resist.

Threats to the Revolution

My visit to Duke came at the peak of what CRTs proponents thought would be an unimpeded march through the institutions. Yet resistance to CRT started not a month later, when President Trump, having been alerted to the threat by the activist/documentary filmmaker Chris Rufo, decided to ban the implementation of CRT through training programs in the federal workforce.

>>>How to Identify Critical Race Theory

Since then, grassroots movements against the use of CRT in schools or the workplace have risen from coast to coast. Following President Trumps defeat, the energy went to the states, where political leaders have taken anti-CRT action in almost 20 capitals.

Those who thought they would be able to impose this ideology without meeting resistance have taken note, and they are furiously scrambling to mount a rearguard action to defend their orthodoxy. So taken aback are they that their tactics are even contradictoryfor example, they pretend that what is happening is not really CRT, but at the same time accuse anyone who criticizes CRT of being racist.

There is no better example of this rage and bewilderment thana recent exchangebetween MSNBC host Joy Reid and Nikole Hannah-Jones, the architect of theNew York Times1619 Project. For almost seven minutes, they spread what the cockneys of East London call porkies, or big fat lies.

Among these are the claims that teachers do not use CRT in K-12 classrooms and have not even studied it, and that Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DEI) training programs (many quite racist in themselves) spreading throughout corporate America are not part of CRT.

Reid, for example, maintained that CRT has nothing to do with K-12 education. Hannah-Jones said at another point that Most, teachers have not heard nor studied critical race theory. Hannah-Jones also accused conservatives of saying, look at this bad diversity training. Thats critical race theory run amok, whereas, these two things are not related whatsoever.

Both women were in high dudgeon: We are actually in a very dangerous period right now, Hannah-Jones averred. I am really concerned about what these laws mean. . . . They are really designed to stoke white resentment . . . We really should be concerned.

As to why she is so discomfited, Hannah-Jones said something revelatory. She asked rhetorically at one point why Americans were suddenly resisting all this. Her answer to herself was that the transformation of American society since the death of Floyd had been deep; BLM and her 1619 Project had unsettled power. Many Americans had finally begun to look at their own country in a less benign fashion, and didnt like what they were seeing. Even conservatives were beginning to say to themselves, Oh my God, my country isnt what I thought it was, said Hannah-Jones.

Such rejection of America had always been the holy grail of a hard left, a necessary step in a root-and-branch makeover of our political and economic systems. But now the resistance to CRT threatens to derail the Great Transformation.

Such opposition is all about the struggle for power, Hannah-Jones tellingly said: That is what were seeing. It is really a need to hold on to and maintain that power.

It is important to remember that CRT proponentsand Hannah-Jones is one, whatever her empty protestationsseeeverythingin terms of power dynamics. This is why they are prepared to do anything it takes to ensure their victory (the slogan by any means necessary of revolutionary hero Frantz Fanon is often used for that reason).

In fact, the Reid-Hannah-Jones exchange served to shed light on the lefts likely strategy to neutralize the angry parents and employees who dont want CRT: they are laying a predicate for getting their tech-giant allies to ban criticism of CRT as hate speech, and scaring the owners of premises from renting out anti-CRT rallies.

CRT: A Brief History

Maybe its been a while since Reid and Hannah-Jones curled up on the couch with a long essay or book by CRT architects. So here is a little reminder.

CRT arose in law schools in the 1980s and 90s. Some law professors of color wanted the oppressor-subordinate paradigm to be expressed in terms of race at the conferences of Critical Legal Theory they attended. So they walked off and created their own thing.

The core belief of CRT is that racism is not a matter of individuals making a sinful decision (ignoring the obligation to love ones neighbor), but that it is written into the law, the societys substructures, and especially the language (even sororities, apparently), which must be dismantled. Racism, in other words, issystemic, and this system of oppression must be uprooted.

The Civil Rights Era accomplished many things, but it was aborted when it did not end the American system as it existed when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act on July 2, 1964. What was needed, and what CRT seeks, is regime change; American de-Baathification.

The very same whites who administered explicit policies of segregation and racial domination kept their jobs as decision makers, write Kimberl Crenshaw and others inCritical Race Theory, the Key Writings that Formed the Movement. Because of this, and because the civil rights movement embraced color-blindness, the deeply transformative potential of the civil rights movements interrogation of racial power was successfully aborted.

Raceeven though CRTs advocates insist it is socially constructedis the alpha and the omega of everythingeven if sexual oppression and other immutable traits do make a cameo through Crenshaws intersectionality ideas. Race-consciousness is suddenly pushed in sports, the police, and the militarysome of the most integrated areas of modern American life. In CRTs postmodern narratives, racism is an inescapable feature of western culture, and race is always already inscribed in the most innocent and neutral-seeming concepts,writes Angela Harris, a giant of CRT. CRTs perspective places racial oppression at the center of analysis and privileges the racial subject.

And it is from this principle that we get the identity politics of today. The subject who must carry out this structural transformation is not the individual, but the identity categories of the oppressed that CRT preaches must be created through myth-making. The first step is the self-conscious formation of identity groups that have been subject to racial oppression and now demand equalitya formation accomplished by collective myth-making, writes Harris.

Even when individuals or factions within the created collective category (Hispanics, for example, or the never-ending alphabet soup that is LGBTQIA+) disagree, the revolutionizing goal of category-making overrides these concerns. [T]he goals of a unified group may not reflect exactly those of certain factions within it, yet the larger group benefits from their participation because of the increased numbers they bring,writesRichard Delgado of the University of Alabama School of Law. You see, it takes a multitude of the oppressed to make their voices heard and felt.

This brings us to another important tenet: Truth is not what one experiences through the five senses, but something that has been created by the hegemons narrative. White, Christian Americans have created this superstructure to protect their white privilege, cleverly trying to pass it off as a neutral American culture. Our ideas about meritocracy, where everyone can make their dreams come true through hard work, are therefore also false. Members of the oppressed categories can only succeed individually if they join the oppressive white system and perpetuate the oppression.

From Theory to Praxis

Reid and Hannah-Jones pretend that theory is all there is, but in fact,Derrick Bell made clear from the startthat, like Critical Theory before it, and Critical Legal Theory later, CRT is a call to action. The aim of CRTand the reason it must be opposed if one thinks America, for all its imperfections, is worth preservingis the transformation of American society. As I see it, critical race theory recognizes that revolutionizing a culture begins with the radical assessment of it, wrote Bell.

And this will be done through criticism. By calling everything taken for granted into question, postmodernist critique potentially clears the way for alternative accounts of social reality, writes Harris.

All these elements are the warp and woof of DEI training programs, and it is silly for Reid and Hannah-Jones to deny it, just as it is ludicrous for them to pretend that K-12 teachers have not studied CRT.

The DEI trainings spreading through workplaces aim to accomplish the complete conceptual overhaul that CRT requires, relying on key CRT ideas such as racism not being individual, but systemic, and truth being a matter of perception.

Take Lockheeds cringe-worthy DEI trainings, which forced white men to take part, for three days, in training sessions that would deconstruct their white male culture and make them atone for their white male privilege. Or Disneys DEI program, which instructed its workers to reflect on Americas racist infrastructure and think carefully about whether or not your wealth, income, treatment by the criminal justice system, employment, access to housing, health care, political power, and education might be different if you were of a different race.Both of these examplescome courtesyof Chris Rufo. There are many, many others.

Ibram X. Kendi, perhaps the best-known DEI trainer out there, writes that racism itself is institutional, structural, and systemic. Robin DiAngelo, another famed DEI maven, writes in her bestsellingWhite Fragility, that to even deny the systemic nature of racism shows our defensiveness, or white fragility. Their books and articles are a mish-mash of the concepts discussed above.

Ditto for the curricula at K-12 schools, which are classic CRT with their heavy emphasis on systemic racism and unearned white privilege.

My colleague Lindsey Burke this year conducteda studyof colleges of education that concluded that scholarship on race, diversity, or equity constitutes a significant part of the research agendas of nearlyhalfof all faculty training teachers today. Further, about one out of five faculty make clear that these issues are their area of primary study.

>>>Seven Steps to Combatting Critical Theory in the Classroom

An earlierstudyby Jay Schalin at the James G. Martin Center found that the most influential thinkers in our education schools are political radicals intent on transforming the nation to a collectivist, utopian vision. One of the most read texts at schools of education isPedagogy of the Oppressedby Paulo Freire, the father of Critical Pedagogy.

The CRT-influenced agitations that we have seen for the past 12 months have not been limited to K-12 schools, workplaces, or even sororities. The idea that racism is systemic and that we must changeeverythinghas led to numerous transformations: Characters in TV shows and movies have been canceled. Sports has become woke. Places named after Founding Fathers we revere have changed their names. The priorities of businesses have shifted from production to social justice. Churches have changed discipleship programs and sermons. Schools have changed their curriculum. Government has changed its training for workers. And the military has changed its focus from defense to racial consciousness.

Hannah-Jones was right about one thing: the plan was working. Then along came Americans insisting, not so fast. They dont agree that racism lives in everything, everywhere; they think its crazy to portray America as an oppressive place where individual success perpetuates the oppression; they think that to teach this mush to little children is a form of child abuse, and to be trained into this at the office a form of workplace harassment.

Their willingness to stand up to the CRT scourge is encouraging. Denying that CRT is in play is a clear sign that the resistance is having success, as was amply shown in theembarrassing exchangeReid had with Rufo on June 23, in which Reid attempted to deny easily provable links between CRT and what is happening on the ground in America today. Whether the tech giants and their political leaders will let ordinary Americans continue their resistance and try to lead their lives without this pestilence remains to be seen.

See the rest here:

The Great Transformation in Jeopardy? - Heritage.org

Chinese soldiers march in front of the Id Kah Mosque on July 31, 2014, in Kashgar, China. (Getty Images)

Thank you for signing up forThe Nations weekly newsletter.

Opposing American empire should never justify supporting perpetrators of atrocities, and yet thats exactly what some anti-imperialists are doing with their analysis of events in Chinas Xinjiang region. These pundits claim that efforts to expose human rights abuses in Xinjiang are really aimed at generating consensus for a new Cold War against China. It is only the latest manifestation of American denialism, and instead of challenging US empire, it only helps to cover up US government complicity in the oppression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

Americans have a history of rejecting the facts of unjust violence abroad. The tactic is most associated with right-wing Holocaust denialism. The historian Deborah Lipstadt traces American Holocaust denialism back to interwar historians and their criticisms of Americas decision to enter World War I. Unlike denialists, these revisionists had truth on their side. Britain had falsified reports of Germans using babies as target practice, mutilating civilians, and committing other acts of brutality in order to lure America into the war.

PostWorld War II critics adopted similar strategies, often portraying the Germans as victims and the Allies as aggressors. But Germany had actually committed mass murder this time. And so revisionists became denialists. They claimed that the Holocaust had been fabricated to coax America into another European war. For these right-wing denialists, the point was never about what had happened to the victims. It was about making domestic political gains. And if that involved supporting abhorrent regimes and refusing to acknowledge their crimes against humanity, so be it.

Although these denialists mostly aimed to promote US isolationism, others have followed, pursuing different agendas using the same techniques. These have included anti-imperialists on the left who, in order to critique American empire, dismiss obvious truths and question whether well-documented massacres ever happened.

Most notorious among anti-imperialist deniers are Edward S. Herman and David Peterson. In their book The Politics of Genocide, they argue that most accusations of genocide are justifications of US imperialism in the name of humanitarian intervention. Looking for US interests behind every report of genocide, they even invert the role of victim and perpetrator in the Rwandan Tutsi genocide, portraying the post-genocide government as a tool of US empire. Noam Chomsky, despite his otherwise nuanced views on genocide, legitimized these arguments by providing a foreword to the book.

For many anti-imperialists, the need to denounce US empire is reason enough to support any of its opponents. And if those opponents commit atrocities, their abuses can be denied. Xinjiang is just the latest iteration in this pattern. The specific identities of the Xinjiang denialists dont really matter, and I have no intention of inflating their cause by naming them or linking to their work. What brings them together is a tireless effort to debunk every aspect of the mainstream narrative about Xinjiang, and to scream got his ass at anyone who refuses to debate their ludicrous ideas.

To understand the perversity of this denialism, you dont have to believe every think tank report and news item about Xinjiang; indeed, there are good reasons to approach all of these critically. Nor do you have to agree that whats happening to the Uyghurs constitutes genocide (though I do). This is because what these anti-imperialists deny is much broader than the application of a term in international law. They deny basic facts of history.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Like the United States itself, China is an imperial state. Its contemporary borders are the result of conquest, and its current population is a collection of peoples violently confined by the forces of the state. Whether you think China is socialist or capitalist doesnt change this.

The territory now known as Xinjiang (literally, new frontier) was invaded in the mid-18th century amid a global spree of imperial expansions. It was retained by the Peoples Republic of China because of a loophole in the decolonization process that enabled states to hold on to colonial possessions that were part of the same landmass. Because China didnt cross an ocean to colonize Xinjiang, the territory and its people were ineligible for decolonization within the UNs framework. Thus, praising Chinas policies in Xinjiang is praising contemporary imperialism. It also means praising mass incarceration and surveillance, the criminalization of minority identities, assaults on language and culture, and the violent repression of dissent.

And yet, applauding China is often a part of these anti-imperialists strategy. In addition to endless ad hominem attacks and insisting that everything they disagree with is a CIA psy-op, these denialists create YouTube deep-dives and interminable Twitter threads presenting the real Xinjiang. These inevitably present a flipped script, where everything in Xinjiang is good, actually. People are happy; the government is providing jobs; reeducation camps are super-helpful; and minority languages are flourishing exuberantly. Everyone can practice whatever religion they want in exactly the way they want, and the people are protected from extremist Muslims by friendly cops.Related Article

These assertions are backed up by an endless stream of facts. A photograph shows an elderly Uyghur man praying. A graph shows an increase in Xinjiangs population. A video shows Uyghur men and women dancing. Someone points out that the Chinese constitution states that minorities have the freedom to use and develop their languages.

And some of these things are true. But in presenting these facts as evidence of benign governance in Xinjiang, rather than the shallow tokenism of colonial rule, they exemplify a hallmark of what Richard Hofstadter once called the paranoid style in American politics. These denialists do not lack verifiable facts, just sensible judgment.

If these people want to criticize America, they can highlight US complicity in ongoing colonialism in Xinjiang. One doesnt need to invent conspiracies. For example, Chinas designation of all forms of Uyghur resistance as terrorism has been directly inspired and enabled by the US-led Global War on Terror. Within a year of the 9/11 attacks, the US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, had capitulated to pressure from China and identified the Uyghur resistance group East Turkestan Islamic Movement a terrorist group, which helped pave the way for the eventual mass incarceration of Uyghurs in the name of De-Radicalization. The US War on Terror made it easier for the Chinese Communist Party to redefine Uyghur resistance as terrorist extremism, rather than national liberation or anti-colonialism.

Until recently, this framing of the issue has allowed them to act with impunity in Xinjiang, partly because they have followed the American anti-extremist playbook. Then President Donald Trump even told Xi Jinping, in person, that building the so-called reeducation centers was exactly the right thing to do.

We know that the founder of US mercenary corporation Blackwater, Erik Prince (also brother of former US secretary of education Betsy DeVos) transferred his expertise from Iraq to China via the security service provider Frontier Services Group, which trained anti-terrorism personnel in Beijing and planned to open a training center in Xinjiang. And despite Blackwaters claim that it is pulling out of the region, a 2020 financial report sets aside nearly $2.7 million for setting up business in Xinjiang. We also know that US tech companies have helped create a surveillance state in Xinjiang. Companies like Thermo Fisher Scientific and Promega have sold equipment to help police in Xinjiang build a system of racial profiling, based on DNA samples obtained, in part, from a prominent US geneticist. And finally, we know that the supply chains of dozens of US companies run through Xinjiang. Companies like Nike and Apple even lobbied against legislation that would affect their capacity to do business in Xinjiang.

Whether you think these complicities support genocide, mere atrocities, or only colonialism doesnt change the fact that the US security state has inspired, aided, and profited from the domination over Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.

US involvement in Xinjiang means that its perfectly possible to oppose US empire without engaging in denialism, praising colonialism, and debasing the dignity of victims and survivors. But doing so would undermine the impact of the anti-imperialist argument on their target audience: Americans. As part of their laudable but misguided efforts at building popular opposition to US imperialism among Americans, these anti-imperialists want to portray the United States as a two-dimensional comic book villain engaged in a program of global deceit.

In the end, although not all these denialists are Americanthere are many in Canada, Pakistan, and Australiaall of them are engaging in a celebrated American tradition of denying other countries human right abuses in order to make arguments about America to Americans. This narcissistic parochialism is surely one of the most successful exports of American empire.

More:

Xinjiang Denialists Are Only Aiding Imperialism - The Nation

The government keeps insisting that its new Nationality and Borders Bill is fair. It even tries to argue that the Bill will be beneficial for refugees and provide new opportunities. But, as Boris Johnson and his colleagues know full well, the opposite is true.

Johnsons government has torn up long-standing commitments to help those fleeing torture and oppression. With this Bill, they are seeking to incorporate cruelty into law. It would perhaps be simpler if they were to put their cards on the table and call it what it is: an Anti-Refugee Bill, which deliberately sets out to deny protection for those we could help.

With its new Bill, the government threatens that, from now on, it will criminalise or jail those who flee torture and oppression and risk their lives to seek asylum in the UK, if their journey was not pre-approved. A small number are granted official resettlement, which is welcome though the numbers could and should be much higher. But the Refugee Convention could not be clearer: governments may not impose penalties on asylum seekers, however they arrive, providing that they show good cause. In other words, what matters is the why, not the how.

David, who fled torture and persecution in his native Cameroon in 2014, is now rebuilding his life as a refugee in the UK, and works on the Covid-19 testing that helps keep this country safe. If this new legislation were in place today, he would be jailed and deported. It is hardly surprising that David and countless others like him, part of the fabric of Britain and often working in the NHS finds the governments proposals to be deplorable, heartbreaking.

As if seeking to create a new dystopia, the government throws out ever-more random and cruel suggestions for how to address the issues: offshoring those fleeing oppression to distant countries or specks in the Atlantic; constructing camps which would make integration impossible to achieve; and paving the way for people like David to be sent back to the risk of torture or death.

The government talks about improving and streamlining the process of decision-making. That would be welcome, to reduce the current years of painful limbo that so many experience. But the problems rest above all with the government itself, as a string of reports by NGOs and government agencies in recent years has repeatedly made clear. Instead of trying to solve problems of its own making, the government seeks to scapegoat the very people it should be helping.

With bitter irony, the Bill has been published just weeks ahead of the 70th anniversary of the UN Refugee Convention, which Britain helped to shape in the aftermath of the Holocaust and which should be a moment of celebration for what Britain has done in the decades since the treaty was signed, and for what those refugees have given back to Britain since.

Johnson has form when it comes to misdescribing the legality of his governments own proposals. Earlier this year, he and his colleagues attempted to push through proposals for torture impunity, while denying that that was what they were doing. They gave way only at the eleventh hour when this became unsustainable.

With luck and determination, such a victory for basic humanity and justice is achievable again. Unsurprisingly but hearteningly, polls show that Britons want to protect those who are fleeing war and persecution. Hundreds of groups have come together at record speed as part of a new Together With Refugees coalition, to ensure that compassion, decency and truth win through. That battle has only just begun.

Steve Crawshaw is Policy & Advocacy Director at Freedom from Torture

Read more from the original source:

The post-Brexit asylum rules shake-up is a travesty it will scapegoat those we need to help - The Independent

Mythily Sivaraman, the Communist leader who died on May 30 in Chennai, was for decades the face of Left-led mass movements of toiling women and workers and an activist who pushed for the recognition of rights, fought for changes in state policy and opposed imperialism unrelentingly. Her actions, the manifestoes and demand charters she drafted, and the organisations she helped build from the 1970s, exposed and confronted the violence perpetrated by the ruling political classes and their policies that promoted a path of development which denied basic human rights to Dalits and workers. The diminutive yet daunting Mythily Sivaraman confronted the state and its representatives, invoking promises they had made to the people and demanding accountability and adherence to the law of the land. Her politics and dynamism transcended the boundaries set by bourgeois politics, and redefined the frontiers of womens activism in such a way as to actively confront the myriad forms of oppression that contemporary development strategies sought to impose in line with the needs of the new world order.

Hers was truly a life lived in struggle. In a conversation in April 2008, she spoke to Indu Agnihotri, womens studies scholar and fellow activist, about her long journey, her anger against imperialism, her commitment to socialism and the struggle to advance peoples rights.

I was born in 1939 and went to school in Presidency Girls High School in Egmore [Madras], which was down the road from my house. After graduating from the Presidency College of Madras in 1959, I did a Masters in Public Administration at the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), Delhi (1961) and a second M.A. from Syracuse University, United States (1963-65). Before going to the U.S. I briefly worked with the U.S. Consulate in Madras teaching Tamil language to students from overseas. I also undertook a research study of voluntary welfare agencies in Madras city between 1962 and 1963.

Between 1963 and 1968, when I was in the U.S., I found the exposure useful. I was going from place to place, seeing new places, meeting new people, and be happy to be doing that. During my stay there, I worked with the Special Committee on Decolonisation (C 21) established by the United Nations General Assembly and the Permanent Mission of India to the U.N. (1966-1968). In 1968, I undertook a clandestine trip to Cuba and Mexico.

The trip to Cuba, the racism I saw while in the U.S., and the campaign against the Vietnam War opened my eyes to the blatant attacks by imperialism on people across the world. For me this was important. I was able to link the experience of the people and their conditions with the history of colonial rule and imperialism. I came to see the issues of womens oppression and exploitation as integrally linked to capitalism. This became central to my perspective and defined my politics and understanding of rights. I have never seen the battle for womens rights outside this worldview.

On my return to Madras in 1968, I did not take up a job, though I was offered one in India by the Ford Foundation.

I was briefly involved with the Sarvodaya movement, but Vinobha Bhaves ashram did not sustain my political interest. Seeing the nature of attacks in the rural areas, I was drawn to Marxism and I soon joined the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which is where I stayed.

No, they were used to my being rebellious and independent from an early age. I dont remember anyone ever saying to me thou shalt not do this.

My mother, of course, tried to tell me what I should do. But I think for a long time they did not realise the implications of my joining the Communist Party.

Also read: Mythily Sivaraman, scholar, revolutionary feminist and trade union activist, passes away

I married Karunakaran in January 1972. He had just returned from the United Kingdom after three years of studying engineering when we met and was working with a steel tube and bicycles manufacturing unit. He came from a traditional Tamil non-Brahmin background and his family was averse to his involvement in politics. We had a simple wedding along the lines of the Self-Respect Movement with no rituals. The maximum planning went into checking out on a train which was leaving for Mangalore, at 1 o clock in the afternoon; on the same day we got married, to escape family pressure to host festivities on a larger scale. A spartan early lunch with a few guests was all that we agreed to.

Our marriage was initially not supported by either of the families. Though my family was soon resigned to it, his family was more conventional and had stronger reservations on account of caste as well as my firebrand political profile. Afterwards the issue was settled. After my daughter Kalpanas birth, we moved close to my parents. My mother was better with child care and for me that was a big relief.

Interestingly, Captain Lakshmi Sahgal and my mother were classmates in school. In later years, my home was often the workplace for many young activists, since the lone typewriter available was in my home.

In December 1968 there was a murderous assault on Dalit labourers, of whom 44, mostly women and children, were burnt alive in Keezhvenmani village [near Thanjavur], which had seen a struggle for higher wages by landless labourers under the red flag. Going there a week after the incident, I was shocked by what I witnessed and wrote an article in Mainstream.

Those years saw militant struggles by tenants and agricultural workers, across India and in Tamil Nadu. The gruesome incident laid bare the contradictions inherent in rural society, be it caste, class or gender, and the manner in which the state machinery stood by the upper castes. I was also very upset by the media reportage of that incident. From then on, issues of rural women and agricultural workers remained a special concern.

I was involved with a group which ran Radical Review (RR) from 1969 to 1973. The magazine came out as a quarterly and the joint editors for the first issue were N. Ram [former editor-in-chief of The Hindu], P. Chidambaram [former Finance Minister] and myself. The group had initially started off as a discussion forum called the Saturday Evening Club. However, after the first issue, Chidambaram conveyed that he did not wish to be associated with it due to political and ideological differences. Several issues of the magazine were subsequently published. Karunakaran was part of this group, and that is where we met, and were to be married later.

I wrote several pieces for Radical Review, some in my name and many others with no byline. The January-March 1971 issue carried a piece jointly written with N. Ram. The article, A Report on MRF: A Monopoly, its Workers and the State, analysed the events leading up to the MRF workers strike from April to July, 1971, discussed the struggle in the larger perspective of the Indian tyre industry, its nature and strength and the forces involved: the company management and the government backing them. (Radical Review April-June 1972, vol. 3 no. 2.)

Another was a long report written jointly with N. Ram, called Standard Motors: Behind the Closure, in May 1970, tracking the events leading to the closure by the management. Another piece I wrote in 1972 focused on the Anamalai Plantations workers strike in Coimbatore district. The workers were demanding higher wages and protesting against the sell-out agreement made by the unions as well as fighting the tremendous repression and violence unleashed on them. (Plantations: The Green Industry and its Wage Slaves, Radical Review, April 1973, vol. 4. no. 1).

My involvement with the CPI(M) gave me an opportunity to be part of the political struggle for democratic rights, in the background of the Emergency, though the early years of activism were mostly when I was with the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU). The forming of the union in Tablets India in 1970-71 was a high point. It was, perhaps the first union I was involved in. The company had mostly young girls as workers. They became conscious of their rights and unionised; until then, unions were mostly the domain of men. Then there were the unions in TVS, Ashok Leyland, Metal Box and many more.

The trade union experience helped me to understand the strength of mass-based struggles drawing on workers, women workers, consciousness. These clearly showed the linkages between class and gender-based exploitation. In December 1973, the Jananayaga Madhar Sangham (Democratic Womens Association) was founded. I worked together with Pappa Umanath, a former MLA and later member of the CPI(M)s Central Committee.

We organised discussions on womens rights from a socialist perspective after the report Towards Equality: Report of the Committee on Status of Women in India was published in 1974. Social Scientist published my paper, Towards Emancipation, reflecting on the links between the womens question and socialism in a special issue brought out to mark the International Year of Women in 1975.

In 1979, the CITUs national convention on working women was held in Madras, which led to the formation of coordination committees focused on organising working women. These discussions marked the beginning of a process of critical engagement with patriarchal practices in society and their reflection within organisational platforms, dissuading women from more active participation in trade unions and movements.

Organisation-based interventions on multiple aspects of womens oppression in different spheres began with these initiatives. In the political arena this involved engaging with the ideology of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the earlier social reform movement. I myself continued to be active with the trade unions for many more years, even after the founding of the All India Democratic Womens Associations (AIDWA) at a conference held in Madras in March 1981. This was a significant step forward.

We had the experience of working with Dalit landless labourers and working women, given that there was an increase in incidents of violence, including against women. This was happening in Tamil Nadu and also all over India. During the Emergency these atrocities came to be highlighted as part of the peoples struggle. We organised women employees in the public sector: bank employees, electricity board and insurance sector women, teaching staff, State and Central government employees and postal employees. There were middle-class women and factory/textile mill workers, transport workers living in the slums of south Madras and its suburbs. The focus on working women remained a special feature of our work. This was reflected in a militant leadership that emerged from amongst them.

Also read: Mythily Sivaraman: Quintessential Marxist

The Seeralan casehe was murdered in broad daylight by three police constables in January 11, 1977 at Athiyoor villagestands out amongst our early interventions. His mothers condition was miserable. We took up the case as a human rights issue to focus on the atrocities committed during the Emergency. Custodial violence was also a major issue then. The torture of Nagammal, a poor peasant woman, in police custody was another instance of the excesses of the Emergency period.

The 1980s saw the dowry issue come into prominence all across the State, especially with the killing of Nagammal in Coimbatore by her husband, Prof. Nagappan, who tried to pass it off as a suicide case. The case went to the Supreme Court and ended with a conviction.

Our interventions fed into the national-level campaign for criminal law amendments. The campaign against dowry/deaths drew in many young activists. After this, activists were called upon as representatives on advisory committees and to sensitize the police. The 1980s-1990s saw incidents of custodial rape by policemen. The Padmini case in Chidambaram was one such. After such incidents, all-women police stations were set up and the Supreme Court issued directives against women being detained in police stations after 6 p.m. The Vachathi case, where tribal women in Dharmapuri were raped by forest officials and the police under the pretext of combing operations to search for Veerappan, was another such intervention. The public exposure of the sexual exploitation of young women by the godman Premananda in Pudukkottai and Tiruchi, was important. This case was a landmark victory.

The intervention on behalf of women quarry workers in Pudukkottai was another significant effort. These incidents brought us face-to-face with the distortions in sociocultural life and patriarchal prejudices in our society, which are responsible for the high level of womens vulnerability to violence.

In 1983 Madras saw a massive State-level rally on water and rations. Women surrounded the Assembly for several hours. M.G. Ramachandran, the then Chief Minister, was compelled to meet the women and the discussion lasted 80 minutes. This resulted in a great improvement in the State-level implementation of the public distribution system (PDS). MGR promised that a ration shop would be set up for every 1,000 households. Although this did not materialise in full, still, Tamil Nadu has a ration shop per 1,500 population. Water began to be supplied in carts. Since then, the PDS and water have remained key issues in our campaigns, as well as for the political leaders, who can ill-afford to ignore these demands. This major intervention led by women from the Left has had a lasting impact on the politics of the State. Following this, women were put on ration monitoring committees at the district level. The government developed a kit to check pilferages, which was distributed to activists to facilitate monitoring, since the shop owners usually mixed sugar with rava (semolina).

This intervention set out different priorities in terms of the political agenda in the State. Today, our State is known for its policies on some of these counts, but it is not always recorded that they came in response to movement-led initiatives. The cradle scheme for baby girls outside primary health centres (PHCs) and other government-run centres also came in the wake of activists and scholars like Vasanthi Devi drawing attention to female infanticide in Madurai, Usilampatti and Salem. Of course, there were gaps in follow-up in all these areas.

After 1991, several organisations in Madras came together for setting up the Womens Action Forum for Communal Harmony. The focus on violence against women remained, while other interventions led to the setting up of family courts. Today all the districts have women police stations started in response to our campaigns. Hostels for nurses came after the murder of a trainee nurse in Salem in June 1993, along with a demand for women members on advisory committees to monitor the functioning of welfare institutions. These campaigns gave womens organisations like AIDWA unprecedented visibility, for we stood up for women in the remote areas in the State. G. Thilakavathi, the first woman Inspector General of Police in Tamil Nadu, understood their significance and responded favourably.

The problem of children working in hazardous industries such as Sivakasi was a major one. We tried to help take forward the education of girl children through the K.P. Janakiammal Trust, set up in memory of one of the founders of AIDWA. To counter the adverse media reporting and portrayal of women, we set up a Media Monitoring Group. Mangai, the well-known theatre activist, was associated with this group for many years. During these years I continued to write for Tamil publications such as Dinamani and Ananda Vikatan, along with The Hindu and the Indian Express. Such writing helped to set the tone for public discussions. In 1980, I became the editor of the popular Magalir Sindhanai, which has a circulation of 13,000.

We knew that apart from building mass campaigns, we needed to widen the influence as well as the support base of the womens movement. All through, our effort was to bring together different womens groups on a platform and develop a common understanding. These included the Penurimmai Iyyakam, the Young Womens Christian Association, National Federation of Indian Women, Womens Collective, Initiatives; Women in Development (IWID) and others. I was also keen to bring together a group of writers, intellectuals, and professional women, often holding different ideological positions, who acted as a support group. These included Vasanthi Devi, Bader Sayeed, Salma, Sharifa Khanam, V. Geetha and others, and some bureaucrats such as Anuradha, Sheela Rani Chunkath, and Qudsia Gandhi. Many of them became close friends.

I visited China in 1980 and wrote about the experience of socialist China. This was long before the CPI(M) established its relations with the CPC [Communist Party of China]. I went alone, having arranged it with the All-China Womens Federation, and spent more than three weeks visiting different parts of the country. N. Ram helped arrange the trip. But there were issues. I had gone without the CPI(M)s permission, and on my return, reading my account of what I had seen there, E.M.S. Namboodiripad [the then CPI(M) general secretary] called me and said: I hope you will not do this again. After this, I also visited the USSR [Union of Soviet Socialist Republics] and some East European countries.

The collapse of the USSR and the changes thereafter have weakened the forces against imperialism, giving it an opportunity to directly intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Iraq is calling the US bluff, the Latin Americans are still trying to assert and we need to learn from them. Just when there is a need to advance the politics of peace, the ruling party in India is reading all the signs wrong, getting cosy and closer to the imperialist power.

In the womens movement globally, especially the Beijing Plus Five Conference (2000), activists had taken note of the impact of globalisation on women worldwide. Women have been the worst sufferers of war, internationally; womens movements see war as a concern since it directly impacts gender justice. More interventions on behalf of women are needed from an internationalist, anti- imperialist perspective.

My involvement with the CPI(M) and Left politics gave me a mass orientation which formed the basis of my activism. We engaged with issues on a practical day- to-day basis, even as we reflected on the theoretical aspects, taking note of the historical experience of socialism. Understanding what socialism promises to women in their fight against patriarchy, oppression and exploitation remained a continuous challenge.

I worked with vastly different sectionslandless agricultural workers, mostly Dalits and women, those working in the docks, in corporate industries, quarries, transport and mills across the State, as well as the huge slum-dwelling population in this ever-growing city of Chennai. Our ideas were continuously evolving, as we planned our strategies and interventions. Our debates reflected the experiences gathered elsewhere.

The World March for the Eradication of Poverty and Violence against Women in New York in 2000 brought together women from all over the world. They spoke up against the growing onslaught of imperialism and neoliberal capitalism, which generates affluence for the few and deprivation for the rest. The message of the World March, in which I participated, was that growing poverty and inequality have to be opposed by confronting the consensus that is sought to be built around contemporary capitalism. That is the historical truth.

As we end this, I would add that in the early years, during our college days, my friends and I would discuss how unhappy we were with the teaching, it being so abstract and distant from the social reality. We were very shy then and would not confront our teachers, but we were unhappy with what we got from our formal education. It is for this reason that we always took a special interest in drawing students into our movement. Students today are more critical, more demanding, more aware of their rights. That still gives me hope for the future.

Continued here:

Womens oppression is integrally linked to capitalism: Mythily Sivaraman - Frontline

On the Fourth of July we celebrate our nations birthday, proclaimed by the Continental Congress in the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776 when we dissolved our submission and all ties to the British Crown. Personally, I make a point of referring to this national holiday by its official name, Independence Day, to emphasize its extraordinary significance rather than as just another day off from work, replete with BBQs and fireworks displays not that I dont enjoy that part of it, too.

On the evening of July 3, Barb (my best friend, soul mate, and love of my life) and I celebrated Independence Day at Coors Field for a Rockies game featuring the return of Nolan Arenado and a fireworks display. To be accurate, in these bitter, divisive and ungrateful times, we dont all celebrate our nations birth but the vast majority of us do, including the nearly 50,000 people at Coors Field that night.

Unfortunately, the fireworks started prematurely with the Cardinals scoring 6 in the top of the 10th to win the game. After that, the music leading up to the celebratory fireworks included rock numbers for the dancing pleasure of the crowd and then built to a crescendo of patriotic favorites (Id have liked a little more John Phillips Sousa) while the bombs were bursting in air. The crowds favorite was Lee Greenwoods God Bless the USA, with lyrics like this:

If tomorrow all the things were gone I worked for all my life and I had to start again with just my children and my wife, Id thank my lucky stars to be livin here today cause the flag still stands for freedom and they cant take that away. From the lakes of Minnesota to the hills of Tennessee, across the plains of Texas from sea to shining sea, from Detroit down to Houston and New York to L.A., well theres pride in every American heart and its time we stand up and say that Im proud to be an American where at least I know Im free. And I wont forget the men who died who gave that right to me. And Id gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today cause there aint no doubt I love this land. God Bless the USA.

Hearing that I was filled with a patriotic rush, reinforced by the reaction of the rest of the crowd. No one desecrated the moment by burning an American flag, chanting political slogans, looting the refreshment booths or attacking the police. Maybe that ilk was out demonstrating somewhere, which is what they do for sport and self-indulgence.

Patriotism is love and loyalty to ones country above all others. I can relate to that. And our country isnt solely defined by its government which is just a subset of our society and culture. In fact, from its inception as an independent nation, our founders were committed to limited government and individual liberty. Patriotism doesnt require blind approval of everything our government has ever done or agreement with of all of its elected officials or political parties. Thats why we have elections. But all things considered, compared to the rest of the worlds overall past and present, I prefer ours, which makes me a patriot.

Patriotic Canadians no doubt feel the same about their country, as do the French , the Brits, Canadians, Germans, Swiss, Swedes, Aussies, Kiwis, etc. Apparently, the hordes of Latinos from South America, Central America and Mexico flocking to our southern border, desperate to come to the United States legally or illegally are less satisfied with about theirs. When minority activists in this country claim their people are oppressed here, they ought to compare notes with the truly oppressed multitudes in totalitarian dictatorships like North Korea, Communist China and Cuba.

The most objective, worldwide market test of oppression and deprivation versus freedom and abundance is to simply observe which way the guns are pointed. In totalitarian nations like the former Soviet Union, theyre pointed inward, keeping their people from escaping (recall the Berlin Wall). In America, the guns (for the most part metaphorically) are pointed outward, attempting to keep foreigners from coming in illegally with limited success lately due to the malfeasance of the Joe Biden administration and its political goal of open borders.

I reject Critical Race Theory and other trendy ravings of leftist would-be revolutionaries as bunk that, sadly, has poisoned higher education and our society.

But their America-hating derangement hasnt weakened my love for our country, and I hope yours, one bit.

As Lee Greenwood would say, God Bless the USA.

Michael Rosen is an American radio personality and political commentator.

Read the rest here:

COLUMN: Patriotism and the 4th of July | Mike Rosen - Colorado Springs Gazette

After the death of Stan Swamy yesterday, we are republishing this piece that originally appeared in Newslaundry Hindi on June 17, 2019.

Lalit Manjhi, 44, was arrested for a murder he did not commit in 2001. The police claimed he was a Maoist and he spent 10 months in Tenughat jail in Jharkhand before he was released. He was arrested twice again on separate charges but was exonerated of the murder charge when a family member of the murder victim testified in court that he was innocent. Yet the police refused to leave him alone; they presumed he was a Maoist and haunted his footsteps.

Jiten Marandi, 38, was first arrested in Jharkhands Hazaribagh in 1999 because he shared a name with a Maoist. He was tortured during his two days in police custody and was then jailed for seven and a half months. He was arrested again in 2003, 2005 and 2008. His last arrest was in connection with murders in Chilkhari; however the actual person involved was a Maoist with the same name. It took the police five months to figure this out, during which time six more cases were slapped against Jiten. He was even sentenced to death but was finally released after protests. But there was no happy ending for Jiten; he was arrested yet again and, as of 2019, was in jail.

Bhuvneshwar Singh, 79, was falsely arrested in connection with a murder. He protested that he had nothing to do with it but was sent to jail. Later, the murder victims family told the police he was innocent and he was released.

In all three cases, one person fought for the rights of Lalit, Jiten and Bhuvneshwar. That man was Stanislaus Lourduswamy, better known as Father Stan Swamy. A voice for Adivasis in Jharkhand, Swamys name became famous when his home was raided by the police in 2018 in the Bhima Koregaon case. His house was raided yet again on June 12, 2019.

Several activists have been arrested and imprisoned under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The charges against them are flimsy and rooted in controversy. Since the publishing of this story two years ago, Swamy died in police custody, waiting for a court to grant him bail.

I write and fight for these issues

At 7.15 am on June 12, 2019, the Pune police arrived at Swamys home in the Bagaicha compound of Ranchis Namkum. They rummaged through his house for over three hours and confiscated his hard drive, internet modem, and stacks of documents. They took control of his Facebook and email accounts and changed the passwords. The police already had Swamys laptop; it was seized during the first raid in August 2018.

The raid by the Pune police on my house is completely illegal, Swamy told Newslaundry in 2019. I also informed their investigating officer Shivaji Panwar about their illegal conduct. Last year when they raided my house, they brought two witnesses from Pune with them. This time too, one of the witnesses was from Pune. This is against the law, which says both witnesses must be locals.

Investigating officer Panwar, however, said an officer equal to his rank is permitted to change this procedure.

Swamy said the police conducted the raids on purpose because they knew their accusations would be disproven in court and everyone would be cleared.

The police do not want people who were arrested to be released, he said, so they are adopting these tactics to slow down the legal process.

Swamy said his life is dedicated to the Adivasi people of central India.

Jharkhand is a mineral-rich state and all of it is being taken away from here, he said. Adivasis, who are the owners of this land, are not getting any share of the natural resources. Corporates and industrialists are getting rich by mining the minerals from here when the Adivasis are dying of hunger. Despite being the owners of a mineral-rich land, 20 people have died from hunger in Jharkhand in the past two years. Young Adivasis are kept in jail on false accusations of being Naxalites. I write and fight for these issues which is the reason behind the attempt to implicate me in the Bhima Koregaon case.

He has nothing to do with the violence

Swamy was originally from Tamil Nadu but lived and worked in Jharkhand for a long time. He sharpened the peoples voice against government oppression, said Aloka Kujur, a social worker from Jharkhand.

Father Stan researches and writes about peoples movements, Kujur told Newslaundry in 2019. He raises the matter of government oppression of people. He constantly works on matters concerning Adivasis, Dalits and women. He writes about the governments role in matters of water, jungle and land, and supports the movements related to these matters.

Kujur added that Swamy heard about the Bhima Koregaon violence for the first time through the media.

He doesnt go out of Ranchi and doesnt take part in any activity, she said. He reads and writes, and researchers and writers are the types of people who come to his centre in Bagaicha...But still, this is the second time the police have raided his house. Last year, the court instructed the police not to arrest him. Now, after a year, the police came and raided his house again. This is beyond comprehension.

She emphasised Swamys work for those imprisoned on false charges.

About 500 innocent Adivasi youth from Jharkhand were put in jail by the police who claimed they were Naxals, Kujur said. Stan filed a petition in the high court for such young people and has been fighting for them for a long time. He always raised his voice against oppression. The raid on his house by the Pune police is part of a political conspiracy.

Ranchi-based social worker BB Choudhary echoed Kujurs words.

He has been working in Jharkhand for over three decades, he said. He used to be in Chaibasa earlier, then he came to Ranchi...His work is centred around the rights of Adivasis. His name is deliberately being linked to the Bhima Koregaon violence. He has nothing to do with it; he doesnt even know the organisers. He only works for the rights of Adivasis in Jharkhand.

When Newslaundry asked Pune polices investigating officer Shivaji Panwar why Swamys house had been raided, he said, We have raided but I cannot tell you the reason.

This piece was translated from Hindi to English by Shardool Katyayan.

Read more:

My life is dedicated to the Adivasi people: Stan Swamy after the 2019 raids on his house - Newslaundry

Protests continue throughout Colombia against police brutality as the statue of notorious colonist, Christopher Columbus, was toppled by protesters in the coastal city of Barranquilla. Since April 28th, protestors have been active on the streets of Colombia, initially rejecting a proposed tax reform that would have eliminated tax exemptions for employees and increased business taxes. Escalation of the protests was caused by a violent government crackdown on demonstrations, claiming COVID-19 concerns as justification for the police response. Protests amplified further as a result of the violent measures, causing injuries to over 2,300 civilians, security forces and the death of over 60 individuals.

Protesters come primarily from historically discriminated and disadvantaged communities, such as the indigenous groups in Colombia. In their report on June 7th, 2021, Amnesty International depicted the disturbing number of people they fear are missing due to the National Strike; the Working Group on Forced Disappearances had recorded 775 people feared disappeared, the whereabouts of 327 of whom remain unknown. Gloria Gmez, coordinator for the Association of Families of the Detained and Disappeared, has stated that some people, when they are arrested, shout out their name and ID, highlighting the desperation and difficulty in recovering detained individuals.

Protesters are demanding the riot police to be disbanded and that each security force member who committed unjust acts of violence be held accountable by an independent body, rather than by the military courts that currently handle each case. In response, the right-wing administration of President Ivn Duque has announced harsher prison sentences for vandalism, roadblocks, and attacks on police. Critics point out that with the increased prison sentences, the government is effectively criminalizing protests. Human Rights Watch has condemned the government response, calling out the Colombian National Police members for committing egregious abuses.

Policing methods in Colombia treat each peaceful protest as a violent demonstration, which villainizes the peaceful protestors and groups them together with violent demonstrators. Frequently, policing is done strictly to dismantle uprisings from MarxistLeninist ideology or other left-wing political groups that are deemed to threaten the Colombian government, rather than to ensure the safety of Colombian citizens. Colombian police are effectively reacting to each protest as a threat to national security. By deeming citizens as threats to the nation, the government is turning people away from supporting its ideals and breaking support for the police force in Colombia. In September of 2020, following the death of local attorney Javier Ordez at the hands of police, the unfavourability rating for police rose to a historical rate of 64 percent.

Violent policing further engulfs a nation that has struggled immensely with COVID-19. The police create new problems for a population that suffered an extraordinary rise in poverty during the COVID-19 pandemic, as 3.6 million people have been pushed into the poverty zone. With a violent police reaction to protests, rather than one that employs de-escalation tactics, there is little room for peaceful coexistence when individuals are targeted for voicing their ideals. According to a BBC News article, the Colombian Defence Minister claimed that left-wing rebel groups have infiltrated the protests. This approach is likely an attempt to diminish and undermine the reputation of protestors and showcases to Colombians that President Ivn Duque is solely looking out for the ideals of his political party and not the citizens he supposedly represents. With this response, his party unintentionally gives fuel to his political opponents, showcasing that the President and his administration will take any protest as a supposed attack against his party and use violence as a response.

President Ivn Duques administration has failed to de-escalate police violence within Colombia during times of unrest. The administration has consistently used the police force to maintain the status quo rather than to facilitate peaceful transitions within Colombia. Police reform alone will not solve Colombias problems; however, it is a necessary step in creating avenues toward further change in the region. President Duque is clearly fearful of an uprising from the National Liberation Army and a takeover of MarxistLeninist ideology within the Colombian government. His administrations poor treatment of protesters, who are primarily indigenous individuals, further divides his government from the support of the public. Therefore, progressive change cannot occur with the continued oppression and silencing of voices. The concerns people have over government policies, policing, the COVID-19 response and corruption needs to be openly discussed to ensure the public of Colombia have fair representation. President Duques administration is currently employing an adversarial mentality, which increases division and resentment toward his party and further casts individuals into opposing categories.

When international politics is at play, there is no question that the United States has a significant influence on Colombia and its government. Without any international pressure on the Colombian regime, there is little chance of reform. Since the Cold War period, the United States has supported the government of Colombia while countries such as the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Libya and more recently, Venezuela, have funded the National Liberation Army. It is evident that the United States has historically objected Marxist ideology, creating an American incentive for a robust Colombian government. However, allowing police brutality to occur at protests and harming civilians that already face horrendous conditions such as displacement, limited reproductive rights, extreme poverty, and indigenous isolation will cause the public to view their government as an enemy of the people. It would be in both the Colombians and the United States interests to condemn the violent policing at protests, so that the country can move toward a government that represents their interests and safety.

Ideally, many things ought to change along with police reforms. However, open dialogue and an honest discussion will renew lost faith in the Colombian government, ensuring that the peoples wishes are being heard and the government actively attempts to improve conditions. Actual change cannot occur unless those suffering have improvements in their lives. Censoring individuals based on their personal beliefs will create further resentment towards the Colombian government and strengthen outside groups like the National Liberation Army. In situations such as illegal roadblocks, every effort must be made diplomatically to improve equality and economic opportunities, rather than engaging in lethal force in an attempt to maintain order. Police must protect the rights of Colombian citizens, not just the protection of the current regime.

Excerpt from:

An Examination Of Policing In Colombia The Organization for World Peace - The Organization for World Peace

AUGUSTA, Ga. (WJBF) The Means Report delves into some hot topics today in the world of politics with Augusta Universitys Dr. Craig Albert.

Brad Means: Craig, thanks for joining us today.

Dr. Craig Albert: Thanks for having me.

Brad Means: Listen, lets start with that voting lawsuit against the voting law in the state of Georgia filed by President Bidens Department of Justice, the attorney general leading the way there, does it stand a chance of overturning the law? Can you tell if Georgias law is unconstitutional? And I asked that, knowing that as we begin our taping here on the Thursday before our air date, the Supreme Court, it just came out, ruled in favor of an Arizona law dealing with voting, a controversial law dealing with voting in Arizona. The Supreme Court upholding that. And now we turn our attention to Georgia. Where do you think this lawsuit goes?

Dr. Craig Albert: I think it follow the same trajectory as Arizona. Of course the federal government has a right to sue a state if it thinks the state is being discriminatory or isnt being inclusive in its voting rights and regulations. So the DOJ has a right to do that. They would have to prove that the state of Georgia is willingly or intending to discriminate or to exclude certain groups or people from voting purposefully for their lawsuit to succeed, which would then force Georgia if it did succeed, it would force Georgia to then redo the law and remake the law to make it more inclusive and accepting to everybody. I dont think that the federal government case will prove that Georgia is intending to do anything legal or discriminatory. So I think itll follow the same path as Arizona and they might review it and tell Georgia to revise some aspects of it. But I dont think that would be the case.

Brad Means: And I think Governor Brian Kemp shares your belief that this wont go anywhere. The basic issues that were hearing about, the ones that are making the headlines are what some perceive as limits on access to absentee ballots. Reducing they say the number of days that you can apply for an absentee ballot. Weve all heard the part about whether or not you can give somebody something to drink while theyre waiting in line to vote. My question is, do you think, as it stands, this will keep people from voting. The governors big line on this is easier to vote, harder to cheat. Do you picture people next election cycle saying, boy, I wish I could vote, but this law makes it impossible?

Dr. Craig Albert: It depends, I mean, Georgia and the Deep South in general have a history of making laws where certain groups have limited access, or where the laws are constructed in such a way to make it more difficult for certain types of individuals to vote. So the idea here is Georgia doing that now. And we can look at both sides of it and say, well, according to the governor and to the state legislative branch, it appears that they are doing just that of trying to reduce cheating while still allowing increased access to vote for individuals regardless of the type of category a person identifies within that for voting. On the other side, if you have any restrictions, anything that might make it possible to be harder to vote, then it looks like its discriminatory on the face of it. So if you limit voting rights whatsoever, it can be looked at that youre purposely trying to discriminate against a certain class of people. And because Republicans lost in 2020 in the state of Georgia, it has the bad taste that it looks like theyre trying to do things to finesse the law to benefit Republicans and those people that vote for Republicans in the next election cycle. So you can look at both sides of it and both sides have valid arguments there. And so I cant predict anything here

Brad Means: Sure.

Dr. Craig Albert: But willing to come back and talk about the decision once they make a decision.

Brad Means: Yeah, and we definitely will hash it out once all the smoke is cleared, but when you talk about discrimination, am I accurate in picturing it as socioeconomic discrimination? That is to say, you have to have an ID to vote, or I cant afford a car, or I dont have a way to get to the place where they issue IDs. Does it come down to that kind of outlook and approach if youre trying to understand this?

Dr. Craig Albert: Thats part of it and then the other side is race oriented as well. So typically in the state of Georgia, particular races have been clustered in with lower social economic status. And so it looks as though you are picking on a particular race when you are limiting voter access. And so with everything going on right now that looks particularly bad for the state, that it seems to be limiting access to particular racial groups. And you cant do that, right? Like thats against the law. And so the Supreme Court will have to see is the state of Georgia limiting certain groups access, or is it doing it on the face of it to everybody to make sure that they can guarantee some type of security protocol while giving you full rights and access to free and fair elections. This is a tough balance. So we have to realize that not only does everybody have the right to vote in the state of Georgia, in the United States, when you turn 18 and typical rules apply and typical laws apply, but theres also now security concerns as well. Theres online security, theres mailing ballot security and in-person drop box location security concerns. And so the state of Georgia has to balance free and fair and equal access to all eligible voters with those security concerns. And so for the DOJ to demonstrate that the state of Georgia is discriminatory, it has to prove that its limiting those rights of voting to one particular group over another. Does that make sense? So it has to show that the laws intended to benefit one group at the expense of another group.

Brad Means: Yeah, it does, and that I would think be a challenge to prove. Im not saying the justice department cant and please to our viewers dont think that, Im just saying that is a heavy burden of proof. Lets talk about real quickly, and I know were staying on this, but I wanna make sure that I understand everything and our viewers do as well about the challenges to the voting law and the voting law itself. Just talk in general, Dr. Albert, about the part where you need to show an ID to vote. The argument for that is you have to show an ID for just about everything else you do in the world, whats wrong with flashing one when you vote? What do you think about that part of it?

Dr. Craig Albert: Yeah, the idea is what you mentioned earlier that not everybody has access or can afford a drivers license or a photo ID. So what some are arguing for, and I cant remember off the top of my head, if this became part of the Georgia law, is that the state should provide for you a voter ID free of charge, but then there are other ideas as well. Well, many people that are in the lower socioeconomic classes dont have vehicles. They cant go and get a picture ID. And so it makes it harder for them to vote by needing that picture ID.

Brad Means: Were gonna answer this.

Dr. Craig Albert: So thats how

Brad Means: How do those folks get any other services in their lives, or do they live a photo ID free life?

Dr. Craig Albert: For the lower classes of society and the people that are worried about this, they live disenfranchised lives, right? Like they dont have the same quality of life that you or I have. And thats the idea is that they should be giving the right to vote even though that they lack so many of the basic necessities in life. And so its hard for majority of people to understand what people go without that dont have access to the basic necessities of life. And we do have those population classes here in Georgia, where theyre on the lower 1% of the poverty scale. And so for me its like will just get in the car and going, get your free photo ID

Brad Means: Sure.

Dr. Craig Albert: For somebody else that might be working 70, 80 hours a week, five, six, seven kids, could be a single parent, right? We dont know what kind of daily trauma that they have to go through. And so adding another layer which should be in their minds or in some peoples minds, unrestricted access to voting seems as though youre putting too much of a burden on those individuals.

Brad Means: Thats

Dr. Craig Albert: The other side, of course, is that you have to have something to demonstrate that youre voting legally, that youre who you say you are. And thats what the courts supposed to do is balance liberty and security, right? It has to put those two issues to rest and balance them, with liberty comes security guarantees, and you have to make sure that theyre properly aligned.

Brad Means: Well, thats extremely helpful. And I appreciate you staying with me on the voting rights issue for the time that we did spend on it. Well take a look at the bigger picture in the United States right now, and something that is in the news a lot lately, thats this bi-partisan infrastructure plan. The first question is the word bi-partisan makes me so skeptical. Can both parties work together to get something this big done this early in the Biden administration?

Dr. Craig Albert: Well, it really depends on really one or two Democrats to see if they can budge a little bit on their side. And then pretty much a few Republicans will have to come out of their small spending idea mindset. And thats where they are right now. The Republicans dont wanna spend a trillion dollars on something that they dont see that the United States has a way of getting that money and not going into more deficit. So youre talking about a country thats, this changes almost monthly, right? I think were at $23 trillion in the hole.

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: So if youre adding another trillion to that over 10 to 15 years, Republicans wanna make sure that youre gonna be able to pay that back off. And president Biden and assures that within 15 years it will be paid back off, but were $23 trillion in the hole already. So is it really possible to fail? Can you demonstrate that you can balance the budget in a proper way to not add to that $23 trillion? And what that means for the viewers $23 trillion, its such a big number that it doesnt mean anything, right? Like, so how can we be that far in the hole and eventually what are we going to do to get out of that? Because you cant keep going forever down the hole. And thats why some Republicans wanna pass a balanced budget amendment for instance, but they really try to stick to their guns when it comes to limited spending, because were so far in the hole already.

Brad Means: Craig, if it was just an infrastructure bill, it might be easier to garner support from us constituents out there. I was driving home from the upstate of South Carolina a few minutes before this broadcast and some of the roads were very bumpy and very bad. And I thought, wow, I hope that infrastructure package passes, so this will be a smoother commute. But its more than better roads and bridges. You have umpteen, you talk about a number that you cant grasp anymore, trillions. Its got trillions of other programs built into it, right? Its not really an infrastructure bill or package.

Dr. Craig Albert: Thats just the nature of the beast of legislation though.

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: Like every giant budget bill that the United States tries to pass is gonna have pork. Pork is just what you call extra stuff thats not related period to the bill in question, but in order to get all the senators to vote for that, you have to give some money their way for different pet projects, for instance, that benefits the state of Georgia, so they can sign on and say, this is what I brought to the state of Georgia, for instance, for this bill. So vote for me next time cause I always have your interest in mind, right? All bills now work like that. Youre never gonna get something passed that doesnt have these types of earmarks or pork in it. And thats just unfortunately the way the bureaucracy has happened, how its evolved in todays day and age. Thats why were at $23 trillion in debt because this is the natural order of the budget process.

Brad Means: Youre right, those pork projects are everywhere. When we come back, were gonna continue our conversation with Dr. Craig Albert talking about more goings on in our nations Capitol and here at home. Well have to move to our lightning round, I suspect, because we have a lot of topics left with Greg, youll walk away better informed. Stay with us.

Part 2

Brad Means: Welcome back to The Means Report. We appreciate you staying with us as we cover some hot political issues in our country and here at home with Augusta University political science expert, Dr. Craig Albert. Dr. Albert, recently in the headlines, we saw the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, move to get a committee going to investigate the incidents of this past January 6th at our nations Capitol. Republican leadership, pushing back on Republican participation in such an investigation, such a committee. If we do end up forming a committee, will it get anywhere or tell us anything we dont already know from that day?

Dr. Craig Albert: Oh, I think so, an ad hoc select committee, which is exactly the type of committee that the United States had for the Maghazi attacks in 2011, I think 2013, one of those two years. Im so sorry, I missed up the date on that. But the ad hoc select committee goes after and looks for the evidence to intelligence and tries to process, tries to put together a fact-based report and analysis on what exactly happened, who participated, how did they participate. And more importantly in my opinion is how to prevent something like that from happening in the future. So you need a select committee report in order to reorganize government apparatus to make sure that something like that cant happen again. We had a formalized the one after 9/11, a more ad hoc after Maghazi And this just makes sense for at least political scientists purposes or security purposes to investigate as full and give all your energy and resources as you can. And you cant really do that without having a select committee. Thats what allows the full resources of the United States government to look into that. I think both sides, the Republicans and Democrats are obviously politicizing this, but I do think it behooves the Republican Party to stand behind this because without standing behind creating this committee, it looks as though theyre trying to hide something. Im not saying that they are doing that, Im saying it looks like that. And of course the Democrats can message that even more in the next election cycle that look, the Republicans are trying to hide something thats why they dont wanna participate in the select committee on January 6. And so I dont think its very smart for Republicans to not call for open select committee investigation into this.

Brad Means: A few days ago, we saw the US House voting to remove a statue of former Georgia governor, Alexander Hamilton Stephens from Statuary Hall up in DC as well as a move to get rid of other stone monuments to those who fought for the Confederacy. My question is, is there a point or a number of monuments that we must reach for people to say, okay, thats enough. We have gotten rid of enough monuments, everything is where it should be now. Do you see an end to this? And what do you think about the necessity of it?

Dr. Craig Albert: Brad, this might be the toughest question youve asked me

Brad Means: Well, I know

Dr. Craig Albert: Few years of doing this.

Brad Means: And we should say this isnt your opinion as a human being, its your opinion as a political scientist. Its just like me asking the question. I see the removal of monuments in my high school in Jacksonville, Florida, Robert E. Lee Senior High School, where I went, where my dad went, my uncle. Its not called Robert Lee Senior High School anymore. Thats fine, they changed the name. And then we see this removal of another monument from DC. I understand the reasons behind name changes and monument removals. The question is just, can you put a number on it? Is there a finite number of monument removals that we can expect?

Im just not sure how to answer that

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: Its you have to balance one group of peoples heritage and pride in that, right? Against another groups where they see oppression and hate for that. And so its the question, slavery is still the dominant legacy of the United States, or at least let me rephrase that, its the dominant scar on the United States, right? And so you still have to deal with millions of people who when they see a Confederate statue or Confederate named building in public, that reminds them of the heritage of slavery, which their family and ancestors experienced. And I cant even relate to what that must feel like and to still see a symbol or a statue and be reminded of what your heritage has gone through. So thats a harrowing, horrorful feeling I would imagine for those individuals. And so theres a

Brad Means: Its interesting, I was gonna say, I had this conversation with my children recently and the tone of it was very similar to the tone that youre taking with your answer right now. And so its just interesting to hear that how I just tried to not let them have their own opinions, but to kind of present the argument or the conversation much as you are. Let me just say as a political scientist and someone who knows a bit about the history of politics in this nation to say the least, have we ever seen something like this? Have we ever seen a phase in the history of the United States where people say, okay, thats enough emblems that evoke memories of hatred and oppression, lets change that to make all feel welcome and at ease, has it ever happened before?

Dr. Craig Albert: Not to this extent, this is the largest to the extent that weve seen as a country, but at the same time were in like this great awakening if I can call it that of the racial question, the injustice of slavery is really being for, for so often in the United States, so many people have just not want to look at it and deal with it, they just wanna say that was back then

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: Without realizing that theres still some effects that that has on people in todays society. And so now the question is so large because theres a racial awakening and time to do justice in this regard. What I will say, one of my areas of expertise is identity and memory and warfare. And you dont wanna erase the atrocities of what happened. Before the viewers freak out on what Im saying is you wanna take those statues, those names and stuff, and you wanna put them in museums, you wanna preserve them, and you still need to teach these things, just like we teach everything horrific that happened in World War II, right? Like, youd have to teach these things. You have to demonstrate what happened and illustrate it. And I think statues and emblems and symbols do great justice for teaching history. The idea is it should those things be in the public domain where everybodys reminded of it all the time, or should they be relegated to a museum, or a civil war museum or something like that, where youre not exposing descendants of slaves to see these symbols of slavery without them wanting to, right? So when something, youre talking about it, Im sorry, its hard for me to compose my thoughts here, cause its such a sensitive topic, Brad, but I dont know what it feels like to be in that situation where youre reminded of slavery, but the idea is like, wow, if you can throw yourself in that situation as best you can and try to be empathetic to it, it shouldnt be in the public square, right?

Brad Means: Right.

Dr. Craig Albert: Maybe it should be in the museum. And therefore you satisfy one thing. See, we satisfy both sides where the heritage, the history, what happened is still preserved, youre not taking that out of textbooks. Youre teaching it. Youre still showing what happened and how it happened and how the United States is rebounding from that. But at the same time, its not in Capitol Hill, where people go every day to see that the nations greatness and they dont wanna feel oppressed by looking at a statue of a Confederate leader

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: Or somebody in that heritage.

Brad Means: Now I think you

Dr. Craig Albert: So this is a tough issue, but we cant push it aside. We have to deal with it, no matter how hard it is to deal with. And I think its good that the United States is finally trying to deal with this in a very respectable and hopefully discoursed manner where were talking about these issues like we are here. And I know Im being sensitive enough to all the issues there and I apologize if Im not.

Brad Means: No, you are, and I think that the answer to the original question, was there a number of monuments, is there X number we have to get to for all people to be at peace and comfortable and happy? No, theres not a number, but I think

Dr. Craig Albert: Theres not.

Brad Means: Maybe.

Dr. Craig Albert: Sorry was such a long .

Brad Means: No, no, it was a thoughtful and helpful answer, but I suspect, at least its my hope that when we reach that number, whatever it is, well all know it, well all feel it. And maybe itll be, as you said, textbook learning or museum learning, but not walk through the public domain learning. And so well have to see what becomes of that issue, but I certainly appreciate you spending so much time on it. And I have like 15 seconds, are you excited about normal college in a few weeks?

Dr. Craig Albert: Oh, Im so excited. I just confirmed my participation in regular classes in the fall. So my students will be in-person for better or worse.

Brad Means: Wow.

Dr. Craig Albert: Whether they like it or not, we will be in-person, at least for my classes. Some professors still have the right depending on their susceptibility to things from COVID to teach online.

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: But I cant wait to see my students. One of the areas I teach is political philosophy, and thats so hard to get students even care about it in the first place and doing it purely online is a challenge for the students as well as myself. So being able to engage in-person

Brad Means: Its gonna be

Dr. Craig Albert: I talk about Plato and Aristotle and Tocqueville and the Founding Fathers

Brad Means: Yeah.

Dr. Craig Albert: Its gonna be awesome. I cant wait for the first week of classes.

Brad Means: It is gonna be awesome. Well race out of this segment. Well see you very soon on The Means Report, Craig Albert, thank you for everything.

See the original post:

Behind the political headlines - WJBF-TV

Multiple Perspectives on the ERA and its Impact on Womens RightsIn Name Only: The Inequality of the Equal Rights Amendment

By Cathi Herrod

The Equal Rights Amendment made more sense in 1923. Women had just won the right to vote three years prior, and the first woman to serve in Congress was elected just three years before that. Amending the Constitution to affirm those achievements would have radically changed womens standing in society.

But even without the ERA, women had made great strides by the time the effort resurfaced in 1972. Women had held a presidential cabinet position, sat on a federal court bench, headed a political party, and more.When the ERA hit the second deadline without reaching the 38 state ratification requirement in 1982, it had lost much of its urgency. Sandra Day OConnor had become the first female U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Just two years later, Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman on a major party presidential ticket. It has only progressed from there.

To clamor for the ERA, breathlessly painting women as victims who need their own Constitutional Amendment, while Vice President Kamala Harris stands one breath away from becoming President of the United States, is laughable. Heres why:

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled for decades that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects women from unequal treatment under the law.In 1971 one year before the first resurgence of the ERA Reed v. Reed set precedent when the Court applied the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to unanimously strike down a law that discriminated against women.

Twenty-five years later, in the United States v. Virginia, the Court affirmed Reed, writing, Since Reed, the Court has repeatedly recognized that neither federal nor state government acts compatibly with equal protection when a law or official policy denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature-equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities.

The American Civil Liberties Union boasted a 40-year precedent of equality for women. The ACLUs Womens Rights Project Director, Lenora Lapidus, was adamant back in 2011, saying, Since the 1971 case,Reed v. Reed, it has been clearly understood that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on sex. In decision after decision, many authored by conservative Supreme Court justices, this principle has been reaffirmed.

Neither does the wage gap claim stand up to scrutiny. Women usually do not do the same job, working the same hours, with the same background as men. Women typically work fewer hours than men; they choose different education and training; they choose different career paths; and they take time out of the workforce or choose to work from home over higher wages.When the work is comparable and women are denied equal pay, the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act, and other laws ensure equal pay under the threat of penalty. For example, the University of Arizona recently paid $100,000 to settle a gender disparity lawsuit.

So, why in 2021 do we see such an effort to convince women they are not equal under the law, and will not be until a nearly one-hundred-year-old idea is carved into our Constitution?Because a well-funded, politically active industry stands to benefit in a major way. Dont take my word for it, listen to what those in the abortion lobby acknowledge.

The same ACLU that cited Reed in its understanding of womens rights ten years ago now ignores the landmark case and 40 years of precedent, demanding the ERAs passage. The ACLU argues that the ERA would pave the way to reproductive freedom meaning near-unrestricted abortion. The National Organization for Women writes, [the] ERA properly interpreted could negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion care and contraception. NARAL Pro-Choice America fundraised on the link between the ERA and abortion, claiming it would enshrine abortion in the U.S. Constitution, writing, The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to an abortion by clarifying that the sexes have equal rights, which would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws because they violate the constitutional right to privacy and sexual equality.

Pro-abortion activists have used state ERAs to roll back commonsense abortion restrictions and force taxpayers to fund abortions. They have done it in New Mexico and Connecticut, and are trying it in other states.

Legal counsel for the National Womens Law Center, Emily Martin, confirmed the pro-abortion agenda, with the Associated Press reporting, Martin affirmed that abortion access is a key issue for many ERA supporters; she said adding the amendment to the constitution would enable courts to rule that restrictions on abortion perpetuate gender inequality.

Another recent article quoted the then-acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood on the subject, stating, There are no equal rights for women without access to abortion, plain and simple.

The equal rights amendments modern purpose extends beyond expanding abortion, as well. Although the phrase discrimination on the basis of sex referred to women in 1923 and 1972, that is no longer the case. Courts have recently interpreted the word sex more broadly to include sexual identity, which means the ERA would protect biological men identifying as women. This redefinition not only negates the intent of the original ERA but also necessitates the violation of womens rights.

Under the 2021 ERA, women are expected to forfeit to biological men their privacy and safety in locker rooms, showers, domestic violence shelters, even elementary school restrooms. They must also surrender their Title IX protections, relinquishing their athletic dreams and the scholarships and other benefits that come with excelling in sports. Women and girls must acquiesce to the new male dominant female sports.

The LGBTQ website Advocate recognizes this opportunity, writing, This burgeoning case law suggests trans+ people are protected under the current interpretation of discrimination on the basis of sex it stands to reason that trans+ people may also fall under the umbrella of the ERAs protections.

With these new opportunities for special interest groups to swiftly and permanently obtain their goals under the guise of womens rights, one can begin to see why the Equal Rights Amendment is a top priority in 2021 and why they disregard obvious obstacles.

For example, a federal judge recently ruled the post-deadline ratification votes of three states came too late. Also, three other states rescinded their ratification votes, casting additional doubt on the optimistic viewpoint that the ERA is a Senate vote away from reality. The U.S. House voted in March to simply and retroactively dissolve the congressionally imposed and long passed deadline.They even ignore womens rights champion, the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who cautioned against ignoring the deadline by suggesting proponents start over.

Yes, start over if you must. Mount a campaign for a new Equal Rights Amendment if you think it necessary. But, do not leave out the word women and claim women are the beneficiaries when in reality, they will pay the highest price.

By Kim Forde-Mazrui

Dear ERA supporter,

I strongly support the goals of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Womens equality is a legal and moral imperative that has not been achieved. Unfortunately, the current ERA would likely endanger womens equality. It would fail to advance womens equality over current law and, worse, it would likely prohibit efforts to advance womens equality.

Let me put my perspective and beliefs up front. Women should be equal to men in all respects, including legally, politically, economically, and socially. In addition, neither sex should be expected to serve particular social roles. Womens health and reproductive rights, including access to abortion, should be protected by law. The substantial inequality that persists today does not result from inherent differences between the sexes but rather from past and present discrimination, by law and custom, against women and girls that has limited and continues to limit their opportunities. Some laws have also aided womens equality over the past fifty years but much more needs to be done.

The ERAs main provision reads, Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex. The ERA thus purports to ban laws and other government actions that discriminate on the basis of sex.

The equal rights amendment would make unconstitutional virtually any state or federal policies that intentionally discriminate against women. Examples include discrimination by government agencies and employers, public schools and colleges, the criminal justice system, and the military, and it would prohibit gender-motivated harassment and violence against women by government officials.

The ERAs good is largely redundant, however, because the Supreme Courts (Court) interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause (EPC) already prohibits virtually all sex discrimination by the government against women. The ERA would thus make unconstitutional what is already unconstitutional.

The ERA fails to address principal sources of womens inequality that rightly concern ERA supporters. The ERA would only prohibit sex discrimination by the government. Most occupations in which women receive unequal pay and suffer harassment are private, and most violence against women is committed by men as private individuals. The ERA would also likely apply only to intentional discrimination, not to laws or policies that have a discriminatory impact on women not proven to be intentional. Nor would the ERA likely protect reproductive rights as the Court (counterintuitively) does not view such rights as sex-based, but rather as privacy-based; nothing in the ERA specifies that pregnancy or abortion should be viewed as sex-based.

My strongest concern with the equal rights amendment is that the Court would likely interpret the ERA to prohibit affirmative efforts through law and government policy to advance womens equality. The Court would likely apply the ERA to sex discrimination similar to how the Court applies the EPC to race discrimination. As scholars of racial equality know, the Court applies the EPC in an increasingly color-blind manner, prohibiting virtually all race-conscious government actions, including laws and policies designed to enhance opportunities for Black people and other historically disadvantaged racial groups. By expressly banning discrimination on account of sex, the ERA would likely cause the Court to require the government to be sex blind.

For example, public schools of higher education would no longer be able to recruit for fields such as STEM, business, and medicine which have an underrepresentation of women, because the Court would likely hold that such policies discriminate against men. Similarly, federal, state, and local governments could no longer preferentially award even a small percentage of government contracts to women-owned businesses because such practices take account of sex. Similarly, legislatures and government institutions would no longer be able to seek to increase the representation of women in mid- and high-level management and corporate boards. For example, Californias recent law requiring at least one woman on corporate boards would be invalidated. Government employers that provide maternity leave, or laws that require such leave in the private sector, would be legally vulnerable. The foregoing policies all take account of sex by seeking to support women.

The ERAs prohibitive effect would, moreover, likely extend to policies that rely on sex-neutral criteria if motivated at all by a desire to help women. As my scholarship on race equality explains, the Court views laws and policies that have a race-based purpose as discriminatory even if they use race-neutral means. Under the ERA, the Court would likely view laws and government policies that have a sex-based purpose as discriminatory even if they use sex-neutral means.

For example, laws designed to support women workers by requiring or merely encouraging paid parental or family leave (not just maternal leave) could be challenged under the ERA as discrimination against men. Or laws designed to promote equal pay for women by prohibiting employers from basing salary on an applicants prior salary could be invalidated under the ERA, because such laws would be motivated by a concern for women: i.e., on account of sex.

My prescription is twofold. First, we should let the current equal rights amendment go. It is worse than the status quo for womens equality. Second, we should promote an alternative ERA. For example, feminist legal scholars Catharine MacKinnon and Kimberl Crenshaw have proposed an Equality Amendment that would require affirmative efforts to advance sex equality, including for LGBTQ people. Also, several European countries have sex equality provisions in their constitutions, something ERA supporters point out. What such supporters seem not to recognize, however, is that, unlike the ERA, such constitutions expressly authorize policies to benefit women, and some even require a minimum representation of women leaders in corporations and legislatures. We can learn from the foregoing alternatives to draft and promote a more promising ERA.

I conclude with what I have observed elsewhere:

The failure of the ERA to address the sex inequalities of today is not the fault of those who proposed the ERA or of those who have fought for its ratification over the ensuing decades. When proposed in 1923, few, if any, Americans imagined that constitutional provisions that guarantee race and sex equality would be interpreted by courts to invalidate efforts to achieve race and sex equality. Intentional discrimination against Blacks and women, by government and private actors, was pervasive. Race and sex equality advocates sought to enlist the courts in prohibiting discrimination against Black people and women. But no one thought that constitutionalizing race or sex equality would prohibit the very political institutions that were oppressing Blacks and women from trying to rectify that oppression. Nonetheless, that is the state of the current Supreme Court jurisprudence on race, one that requires color-blindness even at the expense of racial equality and one that will likely be reinforced by the recent rightward shift of the Court. Similarly, the ERA would likely mandate sex blindness at the expense of womens equality.

This article is part of Divided We Falls Constitutional Questions series, covering a range of political topics fundamental to the U.S. Constitution and democratic institutions. Through this series, we ask constitutional scholars, journalists, elected officials, and activists to discuss how these ideals are and are not implemented today. If you want to read more pieces like this, clickhere.

Cathi Herrod

Cathi Herrod is serving her sixteenth year as president of the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). A champion of the pro-family movement, and an award-winning public policy leader, Arizona newspapers have recognized her as one of the ten most influential leaders of the 2000-2009 decade. She is the recipient of the Family Champion Award from Focus on the Family and the William Wilberforce award from Students for Life of America. One-hundred-seventy-four (174) CAP-supported bills have been passed into law since CAP made its first appearance at the state Capitol in 1995.

Kim Forde-Mazrui

Kim Forde-Mazrui teaches Constitutional Law, Employment Discrimination, Criminal Law, and Race and Law at the University of Virginia. His scholarship focuses on equal protection, especially involving race and sexual orientation. His articles have been published in several prestigious law journals, including the University of Chicago Law Review, the California Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, Vanderbilt Law Review, and the Georgetown Law Journal. At Virginia, Forde-Mazrui has also served as the Barron F. Black Research Professor and the Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Research Professor of Law. In 2003, he was appointed the inaugural director of the Center for the Study of Race and Law. Forde-Mazrui holds a B.A. in philosophy from the University of Michigan and a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School.

More:

Do We Need the Equal Rights Amendment Today? Divided We Fall - Divided We Fall