Category Archives: Government Oppression

The scene was familiar to Nat Williams.

The 88-year-old Korean War combat veteran marched through Newark Saturday with dozens of others, demanding justice and equality in remembrance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who would have turned 92 Friday and whose birthday is celebrated as a national holiday Monday.

Williams, a Harlem native, followed Dr. Martin Luther King throughout the 1960s, marching alongside the civil rights leader as Black Americans fought for racial and economic justice. He was there for the March on Washington in 1963 and heard King utter the words: I have a dream.

King was assassinated in 1968 and never saw the end result of his push for justice.

People like Williams never stopped marching.

Even when he was downtrodden and couldnt eat in certain restaurants because he was Black, despite his decorated military service, Williams kept marching, inspired by King.

With a walker and a sign that read, Racism is evil, Williams marched from Market Street up to Broad Street in the Brick City Saturday with more than 50 others.

We just gotta keep pushing, Williams said. We can never give up. This is all about freedom, justice and equality.

The march was organized by Lawrence Hamm, chairman of the Peoples Organization for Progress (POP) civil rights group, to mark Kings birthday. Hamm, along with faith leaders and community activists, spoke to Kings crusade for equality and racial and economic justice, while highlighting that those very issues still exist today in New Jersey and across the country, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The theme of the march was The People are Suffering, Hamm said, as he called for more coronavirus relief for New Jersey residents.

The dozens that gathered held signs with messages like, Martin Luther King. His Struggle Continues, End Poverty, and Protect Voting Rights. Drivers continually honked throughout the event at signs that read, Honk against white supremacy.

We are here to stand once again to recommit ourselves to the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King, Hamm said.

Larry Hamm, right, founder ofThe Peoples Organization For Progress (POP)speaks Saturday during the organization'sannual march to observe the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.in downtown Newark. Helping hold the banner at left is POP member Sharon Hand.Michael Mancuso | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

Newark, a majority Black city, has long been a place where King has been embraced.

The civil rights icon visited the city less than a year after the deadly 1967 riots. As he made various stops across the city South Side High School, a nursery school, a home of a family on public assistance and multiple churches King delivered a message advocating for economic equality and against the Vietnam War.

The city has honored King over the years. A statue of him stands outside the Essex County Hall of Records. A county office that is under construction will bear his name and be highlighted by a 15-foot statue of King. The federal courthouse is also named for him.

But the issues King was fighting for are still felt by many.

Darell Richardson, a Newark native, said he has been organizing and protesting alongside Hamm since they both attended Princeton University in the 1970s.

This struggle has been going on forever, he said.

The march and the celebration of Kings birthday comes on the heels of a violent mob attacking the U.S. Capitol earlier this month in opposition to the election results that certified Joe Biden as the next president. Inside the Capitol, known white supremacists caused mayhem. One man carried the Confederate flag through the Capitol halls.

Speakers at the march talked about how the images of the mob causing terror inside the government building showed that people are against the equality that King and others fought for and are continuing to fight for.

The things (King) was fighting for have not changed, said Sharon Hand, of Paterson. We are demanding that people pay attention.

Hamm said the people trying to overturn the election are trying to force upon us their vision of what America should be.

We are here today to say that we stand against racism, white supremacy, racist violence, racial inequality, racial discrimination and racial oppression, he said.

The theme this year for the POP's annual march for King's birthday is The People Are Suffering with a renewed call for economic justice in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.Michael Mancuso | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

The speakers spoke about how the country needs to continue to work towards the reforms King pushed for, like economic justice for marginalized communities and to expand voting rights, two issues still affecting people across the country.

Black lives need to matter right now, said Rev. Lukata A. Mjumbe, the pastor at Witherspoon Street Presbyterian Church in Princeton. We need economic justice right now.

A police escort led the march down Market Street. Hamm regularly organizes protests in the city, and carries a microphone and speaker to make sure his message is heard.

As he walked with Williams, Hamm led the group in a chant.

What do we want? he asked.

Justice! the group responded.

When do we want it? Hamm asked

Now! they said in unison.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Joe Atmonavage may be reached at jatmonavage@njadvancemedia.com.

Have a tip? Tell us: nj.com/tips.

Read more here:

We can never give up. Dozens march for MLKs birthday and his push for justice. - NJ.com

After years of controversy over President Trumps use of social media to share misleading content and inflame his millions of followers, social media giants Facebook and Twitter finally took a clear stand last week, banning Trump from their platforms Facebook indefinitely, and Twitter permanently. Could this indicate a turning point in how social media companies handle potentially harmful content shared on their platforms? And could it herald a new era of social media reforms, through both government policies and self-regulation?

For many, Facebook and Twitters bans were long-awaited. But its not so cut and dry, as many others have decried these decisions as infringements on free speech. To be clear, the First Amendment only protects individuals speech from U.S. governmental oppression there is nothing illegal about a private firm censoring people on its platform. But still, even if its not a legal issue with respect to the First Amendment, the question of when and how its appropriate for private companies to de-platform people especially notable public figures like Trump is not so obvious. Many Americans have suggested that freedom of speech aside, these actions clearly illustrate the inherent bias they feel mainstream media holds against conservative voices. Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel has validated these concerns, with her spokesman noting that the right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance, and that as such, it is problematic that the presidents accounts have been permanently suspended.

At the same time, even those who feel the bans were appropriate acknowledge that simply banning a single account is hardly an adequate solution to address the deep-rooted issues that led to the events of January 6. No doubt, Trumps violence-inciting posts were a significant factor, but social media platforms broader tendency to promote and amplify conspiracy theories, fringe groups, and other problematic content must also be addressed.

One of the key reasons that these issues are so difficult to untangle is that social media is fundamentally different from traditional media (that is, newspapers, radio, and broadcast networks) and so traditional approaches to regulation have largely fallen short. There are a few key dimensions worth considering: First, traditional cable news (and to a lesser extent, other traditional news media) are defined by limited bandwidth. There are a limited number of news media networks, and a limited number of primetime windows and headline slots with which to influence as large an audience as possible. In contrast, social media platforms offer essentially infinite bandwidth, with millions of accounts that can each target much narrower audiences.

Second, traditional news content is produced with editorial oversight: A set of producers with executives above them determine the personalities and viewpoints to be broadcasted across their networks or given coveted publication space. This means that its easier for companies to supervise the content that is shared on their platforms, and its also easier for third parties to hold companies accountable. This is in contrast to social media, in which platforms are merely conduits for user-generated content thats subject to much less moderation.

Finally, in general, viewers and readers of traditional news media must proactively choose the content they consume whether thats a show they choose to watch or a column they choose to subscribe to. Social media users, on the other hand, have almost no control over the content they see. Instead, platforms use complex algorithms to serve content they think will keep users scrolling, often exposing them to more radical posts that they may never have sought out on their own.

Importantly, social media platforms and many traditional media companies are profit-driven that is only natural, and it isnt inherently problematic. But their strategies for maximizing profits are fundamentally different, and so applying the same regulatory frameworks across both just doesnt work. Specifically, while the traditional media business model can lead to significant polarization, the limited bandwidth and editorial oversight generally incentivizes these companies to attempt to reach broad(er) markets, keeping them from publishing extremely fringe content. The social media business model, however, relies on leveraging individual users data to push highly-personalized content in order to maximize scroll time, incentivizing more customized, and thus potentially more extremist, content. Politically polarized media isnt a new issue, but the kind of hyper-individualized polarization made possible (and indeed, made inevitable) by current social media models poses a uniquely dangerous threat. And the violence at the Capitol last week graphically illustrated that danger.

A possible silver lining of those horrifying events, however, is that they highlighted the ongoing problem so clearly that they could serve as a real turning point in efforts to work towards a solution. Indeed, Facebook and Twitters unprecedented bans of President Trump suggest that a new era of social media regulation (enforced both externally and internally) may be close at hand. There are a few key areas where we can expect to see effective, systemic reform in the coming weeks and months:

First, the voluntary actions taken by Facebook and Twitter highlight the important role of self-regulation from within the industry. In addition to their Trump bans, Twitter has institute a number of additional changes, including banning over 70,000 accounts associated with the QAnon conspiracy theory group, while Facebook has begun banning posts with the phrase stop the steal. Other platforms that have implemented various content takedowns and internal reforms since last week include YouTube, which has taken down what it describes as violence-inciting videos on Trumps account and instituted a one-week ban on new uploads to his account; Snapchat, which locked Trumps account; and Stripe, which stopped processing payments for Trumps campaign website.

That said, the fact that mainstream social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter took so long to censor Trump has raised serious questions over whether the violence the world witnessed last Wednesday could have been avoided entirely if companies had done more to protect against algorithmic political polarization in the first place. In fact, some have suggested that these companies recent actions are little more than self-preservation, an attempt at winning over the support of the incoming Democratic administration (which is likely to be tougher on social media regulation) rather than a true acknowledgement of the harm their platforms can cause. To elicit real change, it will be essential that business and government leaders not simply use this as partisan opportunity to take down a single actor or further a single political cause, but rather, that reforms are enacted to address the root causes at play. To that end, self-regulation will be an important component of effective reforms, but government support will almost certainly be needed as well in order to achieve real change.

More notably, the U.S. government is currently in the process of determining what exactly should happen to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (the federal law that gives internet companies protection from liability for user-generated content disseminated on their platforms). Recent events as well as ongoing antitrust concerns suggest that early in the Biden-Harris administration, we can expect a robust examination of how the regulation could be adapted to better protect the public from harmful content. Congress might, for instance, push for social media platforms to be required to meet certain standards concerning transparency and data protection in order to qualify for Section 230 protection in fact, bipartisan legislative reforms along these lines have already been introduced for consideration. Alternatively, Congress could propose carveouts from Section 230 liability protection, so that social media companies could be held liable for user-generated disinformation or hateful content. Such measures would be similar to the carveout approach already applied in the recent FOSTA-SESTA legislative package, which reduced protections for online platforms that enable trafficking.

In addition, now that Democrats have won the presidency and both Congressional chambers, were likely to see robust reforms in a slate of technology regulation areas including privacy, market competition, and algorithmic transparency. While the Obama administrations baseline privacy proposal effectively stalled out in a gridlocked Congress, the Biden administration will have the support of a Democratic-majority House and Senate, likely enabling them to advance comprehensive privacy regulations. For example, a potential low-hanging fruit is the Honest Ads Act, the digital political ad transparency bill spearheaded by Senator Mark Warner but stymied by a Republican Congress. If the bill is re-introduced, the now-Democratic Congress will most likely support it, offering a potential quick win for privacy advocates.

With democracy at stake, how companies and regulators act today will determine the future of public discourse. Social media firms and tech companies more broadly must all now make a critical decision: Do they continue to engage all customers without limitation and risk stringent regulatory intervention (not to mention the moral hazard of enabling the proliferation of harmful content), or will they preemptively curb extremism through more aggressive self-moderation (such as the actions many took in the last week)? There are no easy answers but recent events have shown that one way or another, the status quo cannot persist.

Go here to read the rest:

Are We Entering a New Era of Social Media Regulation? - Harvard Business Review

The US government today issued a sweeping ban on imports containing any cotton or tomato products originating in Chinas Xinjiang region, where at least 1 million members of the countrys Uyghur ethnic minority are estimated to be held in camps and widely pressed into forced labor.

The order is the most recent effort by the US to pressure China to end a campaign of oppression against the predominately Muslim Uyghurs increasingly likened to genocide and to guard American shoppers from unwittingly purchasing products made with forced labor. Xinjiang is the center of Chinas large cotton industry, responsible for as much as 85% of the countrys cotton, and a major producer of tomatoes. Researchers and authorities have compiled ample evidence of Uyghurs being compelled to work the fields and in the factories powering these industries.

The US had already instructed Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to detain cotton and cotton products tied to Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a large paramilitary group linked to the camps, in December. It has resulted in the seizure of 43 shipments valued at more than $2 million in total so far, said Brenda Smith, executive assistant commissioner of the Office of Trade at CBP, during a media briefing today.

The new order is based on information CBP says reasonably indicates forced labor was involved in producing the targeted goods. These include items using cotton or tomato products from Xinjiang but that are assembled or finished elsewhere before theyre shipped to the US. The ban is likely to affect a range of products, from textiles to canned tomatoes and tomato sauce.

For fashion companies, the stakes are perhaps especially high. Xinjiang supplies an estimated 20% of the worlds cotton. The labor-rights watchdog Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) estimates US brands and retailers import more than 1.5 billion garments containing materials from Xinjiang annually, representing more than $20 billion in retail sales. Every one of these garments is now barred from entry, it said in a statement applauding the new CBP order.

Blanket bans of this sort havent received support from all corners, however. Trade associations and companies have lobbied against a proposed bill that would block many products from Xinjiang. One group, the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), which has some 300 members representing about 1,000 brands, has argued such bans can be so broad theyre effectively impossible to enforce.

Cotton grown in Xinjiang, for instance, may cross national borders multiple times as it is sent to factories where its separately spun into yarn, woven into fabric, and cut and sewn into clothing or other items that are finally shipped to the US. Smith said during the briefing that before CBP can detain a shipment at a US port of entry, it needs evidence the goods are made of or contain cotton or tomato products from Xinjiang. Once CBP blocks entry, its up to the company importing the good to prove there was no forced labor involved in its making or raw materials.

The AAFA has said the standard requires companies to prove a negative, which can be difficult. While it acknowledges that companies must have zero tolerance for forced labor, it says many have measures in place to monitor their supply chains, and that the most effective way to end Uyghur forced labor is a multinational coalition.Recently Britain introduced new policies to push companies to cut ties with Xinjiang, though the European Union is moving toward strengthening its economic ties with Beijing despite any human-rights concerns.

In a statement, the AAFA and several other trade groups in fashion and retail asked CBP to share with industry the evidence gathered, and the evidentiary thresholds used, that led to todays announcement and said it will work with CBP on enforcement.

Organizations such as the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) argue forced labor in Xinjiang is so pervasive theres no way for companies to source from the region and have any reasonable assurance their products arent tainted. Of the CBPs new order, Omer Kanat, executive director of UHRP, said in a statement, This is the right decision, and more steps are needed.

Go here to read the rest:

The US has issued a sweeping ban on cotton from Chinas Xinjiang - Quartz

On the night of his historic election in Georgia, the Rev. Raphael Warnock talked about his mother, saying her 80-year-old hands that used to pick somebody elses cotton went to the polls and picked her youngest son to be a United States Senator. He was referencing a slogan used by the civil rights organizers in the 1960s and 70s to mobilize a newly enfranchised Southern Black electorate to exercise their right to vote. Their slogan was hands that pick cotton now can pick our public officials.

Forty years ago, we made a film about the first post-civil rights attempts of Black people to win political office in the deep South. One of the places I visited looking for stories was the rural majority-Black counties in southwest Georgia.

I remember driving to tiny Fort Gaines on the Chattahoochee River on the Alabama border, where a Tuskegee Institute professor, an old friend, had grown up. I called him from the one pay phone on the towns main street, watching a dog sleeping in the middle of the road, not moving throughout the call because there wasnt any traffic.

There also was not much political activity back then. Nothing really to film. What a difference the decades have made. Black turnout in those rural counties in Georgia was significantly higher than in white conservative counties, fueling the Democratic sweep of the runoffs.

Its hard to explain what it was like for Black people to run for office in the rural deep South back then. Looking back at our film Hands That Picked Cotton, about the early grassroots electoral organizing, is like looking at an alternative political universe.

We followed Bob Clark, the first Black person elected to a state Legislature from the rural South since Reconstruction, running for Congress. His challenge was getting out the Black vote in a Black-majority Mississippi Delta district.

Generations of poor Black people fearful, intimidated by past violence and legally sanctioned oppression, and with no experience of participating were reluctant to register, let alone vote. One day, Ed Brown, the younger brother of 1960s firebrand H. Rap Brown and Clarks campaign manager, drove with us around the district.

On camera, Brown pointed at a courthouse up on a hill where the countys single polling site was, telling us that getting people to register and vote was one giant step, like walking from one century to the next century. That November, the turnout was low and Clark lost. But the organizing continued, and a few years later, a Black challenger took the seat.

We also followed candidates for a county commission in Black-majority Humphreys County, Mississippi, the self-proclaimed catfish capital of the world. The stakes were control of the county government. In the Delta, those first electoral pioneers, candidates and volunteers mostly public school teachers and small farmers who risked losing their credit at local banks were on their own. We were the only camera crew anywhere near the local elections throughout the hot summer in 1983. Filming those people was an inspiration, a testament to their bravery and their belief in the power of democracy.

And that election night, far from any nightly news coverage, they won.

Today, there are thousands of elected officials in the South who are from minority communities. Where most Blacks were once barred from voting by poll taxes, literacy tests, unchecked violence and the refusal of officials to register them, it is a different country and a different South. Tim Scott of South Carolina, a Black conservative Republican, was elected to a Senate seat once held by the rabid racist Benjamin Tillman, known as Pitchfork Ben. Warnock will hold the seat once held by another staunch segregationist, Herman Talmadge. And those same voters who elected Warnock also elected Jon Ossoff, a 33-year-old liberal Jew, to Georgias other Senate seat. Ossoff is the youngest person elected to the Senate since a 29-year-old in 1972, Joe Biden.

The occupation of our Capitol in Washington, D.C., by a mob is a dark mark for our country. But we should not forget the election of the previous day. In this Georgia runoff, those Black hands truly made a historic difference.

Paul Stekler is documentary filmmaker and a professor of public affairs and radio-television-film at The University of Texas at Austin.

A version of this op-ed appeared in USA Today.

See the original post:

The Hands That Picked Senators in Georgia Have Been a Long Time Coming - UT News | The University of Texas at Austin

Religious oppression can come in various forms, according to a new report from Open Doors, an organization that monitors persecution of Christians around the world.

The 2021 edition of the World Watch List, which Open Doors has been publishing annually for a number of years, describes the situation for Christians in 50 countries. The list begins with North Korea, where Open Doors finds oppression of Christians to be the most severe.

But religious oppression does not always have the same cause. In some places, it is because of clan oppression, which Open Doors defines as internal persecution among a common people group. An example of this would be in Afghanistan, where Open Doors says that living openly as a Christian is impossible.

Christian converts face dire consequences if their new faith is discovered, says the report. Essentially, converts have two options: flee the country or risk being killed. If their family discovers their conversion, the family, clan or tribe must save its honor by disowning the believer, or even killing them. Christians from a Muslim background can also be sent to a psychiatric hospital, because leaving Islam is considered a sign of insanity.

Other sources of persecution include Islamic oppression (Libya, Pakistan and Iran, among others) and communist and post-communist oppression (North Korea, China).

In Eritrea and Ethiopia, the source of oppression is denominational protectionism. That means that the dominant Christian group oppresses a minority Christian community.

Christians from non-traditional denominations face the harshest persecution in Eritrea, both from the government and from the Eritrean Orthodox Church (EOCthe only Christian denomination recognized by the government), says the report. Government forces monitor phone calls and conduct countless raids that target Christians and can lead to arrest and imprisonment without trial. Many Christians are held in the countrys intricate tunnel system of inhumane prisons. Their loved ones may not know where they are or even if theyre still alive.

In India, religious nationalism is the cause cited for oppression. Hindu extremists believe that all Indians should be Hindus, and that the country should be rid of Christianity and Islam, says the report:

Egypts Christians, says Open Doors, suffer because of dictatorial paranoia, whichdrives a political leader and the inner clique to dominate every aspect of society. The dictator is seized by fear that someone, somewhere, is plotting an overthrow, Open Doors explains. No one is allowed to organize outside state control.

Persecution against Christians in Egypt happens mostly at the community level and most frequently in Upper Egypt, Open Doors explains. Incidents may vary from Christian women being harassed on the street, to Christian communities being driven out of their homes by extremist mobs. Although Egypts government speaks positively about the countrys Christian community, the lack of serious law enforcement and the unwillingness of local authorities to protect Christians leave believers vulnerable to attack.

Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II recently characterized the situation somewhat differently.

When I meet the leaders of the world, they always ask me questions about the persecution that is affecting us in Egypt, and I answer that there is no persecution, clearly rejecting this expression to qualify our condition in our country, said Pope Tawadros, according to a report in Fides. Although Copts face difficulties and problems linked to sectarian violence and discrimination, those problems do not constitute systematic religious persecution.

In general, Open Doors found that the coronavirus and the measures taken to contain it have worsened the situation of Christian minorities in many parts of the world. Restrictions have allowed Islamic militants to act more freely to increase violence against Christians in sub-Saharan Africa and authoritarian states like China to expand their surveillance and control over Christians.

Excerpt from:

These are the countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian - Aleteia EN

No one is safe under Xi Jinpings regime in China: that is the conclusion of a major new report released this week by the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and endorsed by two former foreign secretaries, two former Conservative Party leaders, the Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, the last governor of Hong Kong and other distinguished politicians.

Titled The Darkness Deepens: The Crackdown on Human Rights in China 2016-2020, the report ends with a description of the regimes behaviour, which it describes as the images that reveal the truth about the mendacity, brutality, inhumanity, insecurity and criminality of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime.

The suffering of the Uyghurs features prominently, not only in a specific chapter which describes the evidence as indicative of genocide but also in chapters on modern day slavery, the surveillance state and religious persecution.

The Commission notes the leading role the Jewish community has played in drawing the worlds attention to this unfolding tragedy.

Indeed the chapter on the Uyghurs begins with a quote from the late former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, who said last year that as a Jew, knowing our history, the sight of people being shaven headed, lined up, boarded onto trains and sent to concentration camps is particularly harrowing.

It cites the letter from the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews to the Chinese Ambassador in London, in which she describes similarities between what is alleged to be happening in the Peoples Republic of China today and what happened in Nazi Germany 75 years ago.

And it argues that when the Jewish community is drawing rare comparisons with the Holocaust, it is time for the international community to wake up and take the reports of atrocity crimes extremely seriously and with the utmost urgency.

But while the crimes inflicted on the Uyghurs are especially egregious, the pattern of repression is across the board in China. According to evidence the Commission received in its inquiry, Christians are facing the worst persecution since the Cultural Revolution, with churches destroyed, crosses torn down, pictures of Xi Jinping and Communist propaganda replacing religious images and priests and pastors jailed.

In Tibet, the decades-long repression is intensifying. Space that a decade or so ago existed, however constrained, for human rights defenders, lawyers, civil society activists, bloggers, citizen journalists, whistleblowers and dissidents has almost completely disappeared. And Hong Kong has been transformed within months from one of Asias freest cities to a closed and repressed one as the regime tears up its promises and dismantles freedom, in flagrant breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty registered at the United Nations.

Torture is widespread, slavery endemic and an Orwellian surveillance state has been rolled out at alarming speed with the direct complicity of Chinas major technology companies such as Huawei and Hikvision. Forced organ harvesting continues, forced televised confessions broadcast on state television are now common, and new laws allow for arbitrary arrests, imprisonment and disappearances.

In light of this evidence, the Commission urges the British government to conduct a wholesale review of UK-China policy and strategy, and work to build an international coalition of democracies to coordinate a global response to this human rights crisis. It calls for targeted sanctions, diversification of supply chains, action to end forced labour within supply chains, the establishment of accountability mechanisms and leadership at the United Nations to establish a specific human rights mechanism for China, as called for last year by 50 current UN special rapporteurs.

The report was launched the day after the Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab announced new measures to address what he described as barbarism on an industrial scale. These include new export controls to prevent British firms from using products sourced from Uyghur slave labour. His strong words and new measures are very welcome, and represent a marked shift from the policy of appeasement we have seen until recently. But they do not go far enough. The very next day the United States banned all cotton products and tomatoes from Xinjiang we should follow suit. The time for tip-toeing and tinkering has gone: we need robust action in the scale of such egregious crimes.

Next Tuesday the House of Commons will vote on a genocide amendment to the Trade Bill. Passed by the House of Lords last month with an extraordinary majority of 287 to 181, this historic amendment would allow our courts to make a determination in cases of alleged genocide and, if proven, require the government not to sign trade deals with states convicted of this crime of crimes. It has the support of some of Britains most eminent figures, including the former Lord Chief Justice, the former heads of the RAF and MI5, former Cabinet Ministers, bishops and all the Opposition parties, and is being led in the House of Commons by the former Conservative Party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith. Members of Parliament on all sides should back it, and their constituents should contact them before Tuesday to urge them to do so.

An independent tribunal into forced organ harvesting in China, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, who prosecuted Slobodan Milosevic, reminds us that those interacting with the regime in Beijing should do so in the knowledge that they are interacting with a criminal state.

It is time to stand up to that criminal state and hold it to account. Failure to do so will result in the darkness that continues to deepen in China engulfing us too.

Benedict Rogers is co-founder and deputy chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission

See the rest here:

Plight of the Uyghurs reflects pattern of oppression in China - Jewish News

At 10.2%, New Jerseys November 2020 unemployment rate was the highest of any state in America.

The states COVID-19 restrictions have caused an economic crisis. It is wrong to blame President Donald Trump for this. Many other states had much lower unemployment rates in November, the most recent month available for state data.

But, most government workers still have their jobs, so this coronavirus thing is not going to end for a very long time. Some people have gained more money and power from this. Some of them want to erect a socialist, authoritarian state, boss us around, and limit our freedoms of speech and assembly. Theyre loving this, but theyll never admit it.

These authoritarians have harmed the existence of a lot of people. Current COVID-19 restrictions are oppression. And the wicked oppressors would like to censor any opposition to them. Gov. Phil Murphy and the state government will continue their destructive work throughout 2021.

Many people are dependent on government money and have isolated themselves from their normal social environment. When socialism is victorious, it is for materialistic reasons, not idealistic ones.

High unemployment will make people wards of the state. I expect that the crime rate is going up right now. With so many idle, and the prisons emptying, theres bound to be trouble.

Lee Lucas,Gibbstown

Trumps enablers can now witness the result

The Trump Cult has invaded the Capitol.

For five years, supporters of Donald Trump have had numerous opportunities to condemn the many despicable, inexcusable, and indefensible words and actions of the president, and each time they failed to do so. Some even rationalized his behavior.

The president was correct to a degree, when he said as a candidate that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes.

With the Capitol on lockdown, someone shot, and lawmakers hiding under their desks for fear of being killed, I hope the result of five years of endless Stockholm syndrome and undying loyalty to a man whose only interest is himself is now obvious to my Trump-supporting friends.

Every single time Trump didnt get his way, he and his die-hard supporters would delegitimize the media, the Democrats, the Republicans who stood up against him, and our free elections.

Weve been told that Trump supporters were the silent majority, but many are anything but silent, and they are certainly not the majority.

Congratulations to to all the politicians who aided Trump in his lawlessness. You have turned America into Venezuela.

Evan F. Grollman, Glassboro

Our journalism needs your support. Pleasesubscribe todaytoNJ.com.

Send a letter to the editor of South Jersey Times at sjletters@njadvancemedia.com

BookmarkNJ.com/Opinion.Followon Twitter@NJ_Opinionand find NJ.comOpinion on Facebook.

The rest is here:

Strict COVID-19 rules give N.J. the lead in unemployment | Letters - nj.com

Displaced people around Syria are coming to grips with reports about their properties being auctioned off by the government, with many feeling powerless and unable to confront the land theft from cramped tents, far away from home.

Our lands, which we have spent our lives cultivating and repairing, are now being stolen, but we cannot do anything, said Abu Rayyan al-Hamwe, a displaced civilian from al-Tamanah town in rural Hama.

'Our lands, which we have spent our lives cultivating and repairing, are now being stolen, but we cannot do anything'- Abu Rayyan al-Hamwe, displaced Syrian

Four months ago, we received information that regime forces had seized our land, and leased it to people loyal to them in the region. One dunam (1,000 square metres)of our land was rented for 80,000 Syrian pounds as part of an auction by the city council.

Local authorities in areas recaptured by the government in northwest Syria have confiscated agricultural lands using the pretext that they have the right to auction off private lands whose owners don't reside in government-controlled areas".

Hamwe, a father of four, and his brothers now live in the Atma camp near the Syrian-Turkish border, after fleeing a government military campaign in 2017. They leftbehind their land and their homes.

I have 22 dunamsof agricultural land in which I grew all types of vegetables, while another part of the land was planted with olive and pomegranate trees, Hamwe told Middle East Eye.

I was able to secure all my living necessities. Now I work as a labourer in whatever is available to me to secure my daily sustenance.

In the summer of 2019, government forces, with the support of Russia and Iran-backed militias, invaded opposition-held areas in the northern countryside of Hama and the southeastern countryside of Idlib, gaining complete control of the region.

A few months later, an agreement signed between Russia and Turkey in the Russian town of Sochi largely stopped the fighting in northwestern Syria. At that point, government forces had already taken control of the entire northern countryside of Hama, most of the villages in the southern countryside of Idlib, and the entire eastern countryside.

The Syrian Legalists Committee saidthe Syrian government has divided the region into sectors and has assigned the management of each to different intelligence branches, such as the Military Intelligence Division, the Air Force Intelligence Administration, the General Intelligence Department, and the Political Security Division, in addition to Shabiha, the gangs of government-backed armed enforcers, whooperate under the leadership of the security committee in both Hama and Idlib provinces.

Abdul-Nasser Hoshan, a lawyer and member of Syrian Legalists Committee, said that the areas seized by government forces in the northern, eastern and western Hama countryside are estimated to amount to 60,000 dunams.

'No way back': The law that stops displaced Syrians from ever going home

Meanwhile, he said, the land grab has beennearly three times bigger in the southern and eastern Idlib countryside, and the southern and western Aleppo countryside.

Among the lands seized by government forces are some of Syrias major fish farms in al-Ghab Plain; lands cultivating pistachios in Morek, Kafr Zita, and al-Lataminah in Hamas north; the towns of Khan Sheikhoun and al-Tamana in Idlibs south, and lands of wheat and barley in Maaret al-Numan and Saraqib, southwest of Idlib.

The government also seized agricultural lands cultivating various vegetables and thousands of acres of olive trees, whose seasons can fetch billions of dollars in profit.

After disagreements between intelligence officers about the distribution of the crops, Simon al-Wakeel, commander of the National Defence in Mahrada city, and Nebal al-Abdullah, commander of National Defence in Suqaylabiyah city, both stationed on the road connecting the cities, were ordered to burn the harvest of wheat adjacent to their Kafrhud checkpoint.

The fire spread to the east and devoured the harvest of lands in al-Jibeen, Hasara, Zakat, al-Arbaeen, Kfar Zita, al-Lataminah, Latmine, and Morek, in the northern countryside of Hama.

The order came from the sector commander of the Air Force Intelligence.

The area that was burned covered 17,000 dunams, 7,000of which were planted with pistachios and olive trees, while the rest were planted with grains, Hoshan said.

At the beginning of September 2019, government security committees made adecision to take over the pistachio and olive seasons in newly-captured areas, where they organised auctions to sell the harvest. Meanwhile, they formed executive committees in every city and every village to count and enforce conditions of participating in the auctions, for the benefit of merchants who have dealings with intelligence branches.

'Returning to my land means that I will get rid of the hell that I live in with my children in this tent'- Abdul-Rahman al-Ahmad, displaced Syrian

Hoshan said that, until now, the government has held more than 70 public auctions in Idlib, Hama and Aleppo, the majority of which were held in the Hama countryside because its northern regions fell months before the others.

This step comes within the framework of the Assad regimes plan to strip Syrians of their movable and immovable property, whether from banks or in real estate, Hoshan said.

The government first started implementing its anti-terrorism law and then Law No. 10 in 2018, which deprived Syrians from their rights to rent, cultivate, harvest, while its forces plundered crops, offering them to militia as a reward for their crimes against the Syrian people.

Law 10 is a controversial law allowing local authorities to take possession of properties in the areas worst affected by the war.

Abdul-Rahman al-Ahmad is another displaced Syrian who lost his land in Kfar Zita, a town in rural Hama. His land holds 20 dunams of pistachio trees, and 4 dunams of olive trees.

Relatives sent Ahmad notice that his land was offered in public auction in the town of Maherd located in northern Hama and is controlled by the National Defence militia led by Wakeel.

In pictures: Pomegranate festival returns to Syrias Idlib

Ahmad was informed that the land was leased to a person residing in government-controlled areas for the sum of 200,000 Syrian Pounds per dunum for a season

My mother died a few months ago because of the oppression in our lands and our houses, which were seized by the Assad forces, he said.

Some of Ahmads extended familys houses were destroyed, while others were pillaged.

Ahmad said he hopes to return home with his family, to the land he was deprived from working on, and to recapture all these areas from the government.

Returning to my land means that I will get rid of the hell that I live in with my children in this tent, he said.

See the rest here:

'We cannot do anything': Displaced Syrians watch as government auctions their land - Middle East Eye

LONDON British companies will face fines unless they meet new government requirements showing their supply chains are free from forced labor, the U.K.s foreign secretary said Tuesday as he announced measures aimed at tackling human rights abuses against the Uighur minority in Chinas Xinjiang region.

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said officials have issued guidance to British firms with links to Xinjiang on how to carry out due diligence checks. The government intends to exclude suppliers when there is evidence of rights violations in their supply chains and also to review export controls to prevent the shipping of any goods that could contribute to such violations in Xinjiang.

Our aim, put simply, is that no company that profits from forced labor in Xinjiang can do business in the U.K., and that no U.K. business is involved in their supply chains, Raab told lawmakers.

However, Raab didnt provide details, and he stopped short of announcing specific sanctions against Chinese officials, saying that the U.K. government continues to sanctions over human rights violations under review.

Beijing has been accused of widespread rights abuses in its far western Xinjiang region, mainly targeting the Muslim Uighur population. Raab said mounting evidence, including first-hand testimony and non-profit reports, supports claims of unlawful mass detention in internment camps, widespread forced labor and forced sterilization of women on an industrial scale.

The evidence paints a harrowing picture and showed the practice of barbarism we had hoped lost to another era, Raab said.

Britains Foreign Office minister of state, James Cleverly, followed up at a U.N. Security Council meeting on combatting terrorism, pointing to Chinas severe and disproportionate measures against the Uighurs as an example of counter-terrorism measures being used to justify egregious human rights violations and oppression.

He said Beijings detention of up to 1.8 million people in Xinjiang without trial and other well-documented measures run counter to Chinas obligations under international human rights law and counter to the Security Councils requirement that counter-terrorism measures comply with those obligations.

Chinas U.N. ambassador, Zhang Jun, rejected what he termed Cleverlys groundless attacks, saying that the various narratives on Xinjiang are purely politically motivated and have no basis in the facts.

As a victim of terrorism, China has taken resolute measures to firmly fight terrorism and extremism, he said. Our action is reasonable, is based on law, and conforms to the prevailing practice of countries of the region. At the same time, he said, China has safeguarded the rights of ethnic minorities.

Chinese officials have denied the accusations and said some of the claims were fake news or lies perpetrated by Western media. They also say measures were needed to deradicalize the population after a series of attacks in the Xinjiang region several years ago.

The U.S. customs agency blocked imports of clothing and other goods from Xinjiang last year over the forced labor issue.

The foreign affairs spokesperson, for Britains opposition Labour Party, Lisa Nandy, said the strength of Raabs words did not match his actions.

Im sorry to say that that will be noticed loud and clear in Beijing, she said.

More here:

UK to use fines to target forced labor in China's Xinjiang - The Republic

It is ten years since the people of Tunisia took to the streets and started what became known as the Jasmine Revolution which led to the ouster of dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in January 2011. The revolution triggered a range of similar uprisings across the Arab world, with some regimes changing as a result, as well as further oppression, mass displacement and external interference.

The Tunisians may have ended the dictatorship under which they had lived for decades, but they are still struggling to reap the benefits of their achievement. A stable, secure and prosperous Tunisia is still tantalisingly out of reach. While some long for a return to a dictatorial system, others feel that they are not yet ready to live in a democracy.

Nevertheless, they have participated in several elections, and five presidents and 13 different governments have tried to run the country in the past decade. None of these governments has stayed in office more than 18 months, and none of the political parties have been able to deliver the promised reforms due to the extreme polarisation within Tunisia. Citizens seem to have lost trust in most of the political parties, which is perhaps why they endorsed an independent academic, Kais Saied, as president in October 2019.

Tunisia's political system post-revolution is semi-presidential. The elected president nominates a prime minister, who needs the approval of parliament for his government. Power is divided between the president and parliament. The system is flawed, in that the Constitution does not allow any party to get an absolute majority, which means that the prime minister is usually an opponent of the president who nominates him.

READ: Can the Arab Spring really be an Israeli conspiracy?

When President Saied proposed Hichem Mechichi to form the government, Mechichi was closer to the president more than the parliament, but was obliged to switch his allegiance to the main political parties which form the majority in parliament in order to avoid the fate of his predecessors whose governments failed to get parliamentary approval and support. Saied found himself obliged to ignore the demands of the revolution and throw himself into the hands of the remnants of the ousted regime.

Mechichi got closer mainly to Ennahda and the Heart of Tunisia and some other parties in order to protect his government. This put the prime minister at odds with the president, who imposed certain members onto Mechichi for his cabinet. Going over the prime minister's head, Saied ordered Interior Minister Taoufik Charfeddine to make a reshuffle in his ministry, but Mechichi did not allow it to happen. He fired Charfeddine and annulled his changes.

Tunisia's former Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi in Tunis on September 3, 2020 [FETHI BELAID/AFP via Getty Images]

Observers now expect a government reshuffle. People close to the parliament and government told me that Mechichi is working to purge the government of all officials loyal to Saied. Meanwhile, tension between Saied and the parliament has risen over the division of power. According to MPs, the president has refused three times to meet with Parliamentary Speaker Rached Ghannouchi in an attempt to calm the situation. Sources claim that he also refused to meet with Prime Minister Mechichi.

Instead, Saied has apparently started to form a new alliance to stand against the prime minister and speaker, involving remnants or supporters of the ousted regime of Ben Ali. While refusing to sit with the speaker of parliament, Saied hosted Samia Abbou MP from the Democratic Bloc just four hours after declaring a hunger strike in protest against "chaos" in the legislature. While he refuses to meet with his prime minister, he has met with the former interior minister to discuss security issues in the country.

Moreover, with Saied refusing a proposal from Ghannouchi to reduce political tension in Tunisia, he has met with Noureddine Taboubi, the Secretary-General of the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT). According to the leader of the parliamentarian Al-Karam Coalition, Seif Eddine Makhlouf, the union has been operating against the interests of the Tunisian people. Despite this, Saied accepted Taboubi's proposal unconditionally.

READ: Tunisia's road to democracy

In the middle of this, the leader of the Heart of Tunisia party, Nabil Karoui, was arrested over a case that dates back to 2016, reported Al Jazeera. The president hailed the detention of his political opponent. Ghannouchi not only expressed his sadness over what happened to an ally, but also reiterated his confidence in the Tunisian judiciary which, he said, would release Karoui due to the lack of evidence.

In a series of articles published by Al Jazeera Arabic website, former President Moncef Al-Marzouki described the Constitutional Article which does not allow any party to achieve a majority as "dirty", and said that it targeted Ennahda, the only organised and popular party which emerged in strength after the revolution. He said that the Article in question also aimed to turn parliament into a political battleground in which no parties can make any significant decisions or approve any essential proposals.

Ten years down the line from the revolution, the Tunisian people must be disappointed with President Kais Saied, who is ruling the country despite not having any political background. The man has failed to fulfil any of the Tunisians' aspirations which they had sought through their revolution. Instead, he has polarised their country even more.

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

See the article here:

Ten years after the revolution, Tunisia's president is polarising the country - Middle East Monitor