Category Archives: Government Oppression

With the statue of Bristol slave trader Edward Colston quite rightly dumped into the harbour last weekend, Lambeth has ordered an audit of all landmarks in the borough for any links with slavery.

[Should the bronze bust of Sir Henry Tate in Windrush Square remain in situ?]

Already earmarked for removal is the statue of Sir Robert Clayton outside St Thomas Hospital. Clayton was responsible for shipping more African slaves to the Americas than any other institution in the history of the Atlantic slave trade.

Cllr Sonia Winifred, the boroughs Cabinet Member for Equalities and Culture, has issued a statement explaining how Lambeth Council is supporting the Black Lives Matter campaign, the need for public institutions to take sustained action to tackle inequality and the renewed importance of tackling the legacy of the slave trade in this country.

Cllr Winifred has also highlighted community lobbying efforts of the government to make Windrush Square the home of the national Windrush Memorial ahead of the boroughs Windrush Day 2020 celebrations on June 22.

She said:

In the last couple of weeks, we have responded to the enormous public outpouring of anger and concern about the killing of George Floyd and argued that this must lead public institutions to not just express solidarity with black people, but to take sustained action to address the inequalities we face. Black lives matter.

The removal of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston has rightly focused the debate on the appropriateness of local monuments and statues on public land and council property, and the failure of our society to properly address the appalling legacy of the slave trade in this country.

That is why Lambeth council is launching an audit of all landmarks, statues and works of art in public spaces in the borough for their links to slavery, colonialism and the oppression of black and minority ethnic communities.

That audit will then be brought to community consultation, so that we can work with local communities on the appropriateness of our shared public spaces and what we choose to commemorate as a community.

That is the approach that Lambeth has taken in recent years, including in renaming Windrush Square to commemorate the contributions of the Windrush generation to our borough.

The square is proudly home to the African and Caribbean War memorial, the United Kingdoms national memorial to African and Caribbean service personnel who fought in the First and Second World Wars, and we are lobbying the government to make Windrush Square the home of the national Windrush Memorial.

That the memorial was only announced after the appalling Windrush scandal, the product of the Hostile Environment policy when many people faced discrimination and deportation by the UK government after decades of living in this country is an example of how far we have to go as a country to truly ensure racial justice and equality.

It is welcomed that the Government have finally agreed to commemorate the Windrush Generation through a permanent memorial which will tell the story for future generations. However, the fact that it had to do so only after years of injustice and pain was exposed, is itself a scandal.

Like Loading...

Originally posted here:

Lambeth Council orders audit of all borough landmarks for links with slavery, colonialism and oppression of black communities - BrixtonBuzz

The Statue of Liberty.

China's growing crackdown on the liberties of Hong Kong citizens has stimulated calls for the US and other Western nations to allow Hongkongers fleeing Chinese oppression to immigrate. Matthew Yglesias of Vox and Eli Lake of Bloomberg News have both recently published articles making that case. As they explain, such a step is justified on moral grounds, and would also have important economic and geopolitical advantages. To its credit, the British government has announced that it will create a potential path to UK citizenship for almost 3 million Hong Kong residents who already have the right to temporary visa status in Britain. But more can be done to provide refuge for the people of Hong Kong who may soon be in dire need of it.

Yglesias effectively summarizes some of the advantages of welcoming Hongkongers who wish to come the United States:

An influx of skilled migrants from Hong Kong would benefit many American communities. The specter of tens of thousands of people fleeing Chinese rule for American shores would be a tremendous propaganda victory for the United States. And pulling it off would be a proof of concept for what should be a key tool in Sino-American competition that huge numbers of foreigners may welcome the opportunity to move to the US.

As Yglesias recognizes, both Hong Kong migrants and Chinese immigrants generally have been enormously productive in the US and other Western nations, thereby boosting the receiving nations' economies. It is also clear that the images of Chinese finding refuge from oppression by coming to the US would be a major boost to America's now-badly tarnished international reputation, and a blow to China's position in the international "war of ideas."

During the Cold War, American conservatives readily understood that welcoming refugees from Cuba, the Soviet Union, and other communist nations was a major boost to America's prestige and a blow to that of the communists. The better political system is the one people "vote with their feet" to live under, not the one many risked their lives to flee. I myself was one of the fortunate beneficiaries of this understanding.

Tragically, today many conservatives have lost sight of what their predecessors knew. Instead of welcoming Chinese, they foolishly want to make it harder for them to come, by, for example, barring Chinese students from studying STEM subjects at US universities (after which many seek to stay in the US and continue contributing to the economy and our technological development). It is almost as if these supposed China hawks would prefer for the brutal Chinese government to retain control over as many talented people as possible. Perhaps recent events in Hong Kong will lead to a reconsideration of this simultaneously cruel and counterproductive stance.

Migration rights for victims of Chinese government oppression should not be limited to residents of Hong Kong. We should not forget that many mainland Chinese are subject to far worse persecution and tyranny than anything that has so far happened in Hong Kong. For example, China has detained some 1 million members of the Uighur minority in concentration camps and inflicted severe repression even on those members of the group who remain "free." The wave of repression in recent years has also impacted even Han Chinese (the dominant ethnic group) who question government policy. To take just one example, last year the government shut down the Unirule Institute, a prominent liberal think tank that questioned the government's repressive economic and social policies (I gave a talk at Unirule's offices when I was a visiting professor in China in 2014). These and other victims of Chinese government repression deserve refuge no less than Hong Kongers do. And offering it to them will have many of the same advantages for the US and our allies.

We can, if we choose, once again be the nation that even the populations of our adversaries can aspire to join. That's a much better image than being the nation that closes its doors to almost all migrants and refugees seeking permanent residency, and brutally separates families at the border. Not only is the former nation more just than the latter. It also has a much better chance of effectively countering China in any geopolitical competition, and winning world opinion over to our side.

Some might worry that admitting Chinese refugees would risk spreading the coronavirus. At this point, Hong Kong and most parts of China actually have far lower incidence of Covid than most of the US does. But, in any event, there is a much better way to address any possible risk than barring migrants entirely. We can impose a 14-day quarantine on entrants from potentially dangerous areas, as in South Korea, which has done a far better job of constraining COVID-19 than the U.S. By that means, migrants can be isolated until it is clear they do not have the virus or are no longer contagious. A 14-day quarantine may be a deal-breaker for tourists or business travelers. But for migrants seeking a new home, it is a small price to pay for the opportunity to live in a society that offers greater freedom and opportunity.

Even if the refuge offered to Hong Kongers is broadened to include other victims of Chinese government oppression, it might still seem arbitrary to deny entry to others fleeing comparable or even worse repression by other regimes. In my view, the right to decide which nation you wish to live under should not be limited by arbitrary circumstances of birth, such as who your parents were, or where you were born. Admitting Chinese refugees, but not similarly situated people from other nations, perpetuates such distinctions.

But the best should not be the enemy of the good. Reducing migration restrictions barring victims of the Chinese government diminishes the number of potential migrants who are barred from seeking freedom and condemned to oppression by circumstance of birth, even if it does not eliminate the problem completely. I addressed this issue in greater detail in a 2017 post criticizing President Obama's decision to deny entry to most Cuban refugees:

The main rationale for the policy change is that it is unfair to treat Cuban refugees differently from those fleeing other oppressive governments. As President Obama put it, we should treat them "the same way we treat migrants from other countries." Ideally, we should welcome all who flee oppression, regardless of whether their oppressors are regimes of the left or the right, or radical Islamists.

But the right way to remedy this inequality is not to treat Cuban refugees worse, but to treat other refugees better. And if the latter is not politically feasible, we should at least refrain from exacerbating the evil by facilitating the oppression of Cubans. It is better to protect Cuban refugees from the risk of deportation than none at all.

If a police force disproportionately abuses blacks, it would be unjust to "fix" the inequality by inflicting similar abuse on whites or Asians. Inflicting abuse on other groups is both unjust in itself and unlikely to help blacks. Similarly, the injustice inflicted on refugees from other oppressive regimes cannot and should not be corrected by imposing similar injustices on Cubans.

Some might argue that Cubans, Chinese and other victims of oppression have a duty to stay home and "fix their own countries." I criticized that view here, and in greater detail in Chapter 5 of my new book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom.

In sum, welcoming Hongkongers and others fleeing Chinese government repression will help our economy, and give the US a leg up in geopolitical competition with our greatest current rival. Perhaps most important of all, it's be the right thing to do.

UPDATE: I have updated this post to reflect the UK government's recent announcement that will create a path to citizenship for almost 3 million Hongkongers, far more than the previously announced 300,000.

Read the rest here:

Let Hongkongers Immigrate to the WestAnd other Victims of Chinese Government Oppression, too - Reason

The union representing Minneapolis Police Officers has long felt that the democratically elected mayor, Jacob Frey, should not be the boss of them. Across the country, armed insurgent demonstrators have expressed similar feelings about their governors: In Michigan, a gang with assault weapons drove the state senators to abandon the capitol. Turns out, in uniform or out, white men with guns can pose a real problem for old-fashioned representative government. In attitudes and political loyalties, a scary number of the people professing to defend the government look more like the problem than the solution.

Just six months ago, Frey issued an order forbidding police officers from wearing their uniforms on the podium at political events. This angered Police Federation of Minneapolis union President Bob Kroll, a President Donald Trump supporter who was set to take the stage alongside Trump at a Minneapolis rally in November. More recently, Frey terminated the warrior-style police training program called "killology," a system linked to the earlier killing of black Minneapolis citizen Philando Castile. The mayor's directive about how his city's police should be trained was "illegal," Kroll announced; the union chief committed to continue teaching police how to apply lethal force to the population that employed them. The officers keep reelecting him. When he retires next year, his second-in-command is set to succeed him.

This sense of revolt among uniformed officers - a distrust of the very state they pledge to protect and serve - has been growing. Police officers are more invested in gun rights than the public is, 74% to 53%; two-thirds of the public support bans on assault weapons, while only one-third of police surveyed do, according to Pew. Cops prefer politicians who give them complete, unquestioned license: members of the NYPD routinely turn their backs on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, when he appears at occasions like slain officers' funerals. Kroll says his union supported Trump because, while President Barack Obama embraced "the handcuffing and oppression of police," Trump "let cops do their job." The Fraternal Order of Police, the largest and oldest police union, has often endorsed the more conservative candidate in each election since it backed George Wallace in 1968. (The FOP didn't endorse a presidential candidate in 2012.)

Why weren't the officers of the law deployed more effectively when armed opponents of stay-at-home orders chased elective officeholders out of town? Where were they when protesters gathered, from coast to coast, in blatant disregard of the quarantine orders? The answer may lie in the many ways that members of law enforcement hold attitudes that are more like contemporary Second Amendment activists than those of defenders of the state.

This may look like politics as usual in the era of the conservative revival. Since the controversy over the FBI's raid on the heavily armed Branch Davidian religious compound in Waco, Texas, in 1993 during the Clinton administration, the federal government has been skittish about deploying force in face of armed resistance. When rancher Ammon Bundy and his allies occupied government lands in Oregon to protest the imprisonment of ranchers for arson on public land, federal officials during the Obama administration did nothing to force them out; eventually, Trump pardoned Bundy. A conservative majority of Supreme Court Justices created an almost limitless Second Amendment doctrine in support of maximum gun distribution and reversed the half-century of federal voting rights enforcement. The armed resistance in Lansing followed Trump's tweet to "LIBERATE MICHIGAN."

It was not supposed to be like this. When people stopped believing that God had picked the ruler and were starting to think about why we have governments, they figured this out. In a state of nature, without collective institutions like government, people would be - as the defiant Michiganders are - scary. Greedy, proud and fearful, they would kill each other for their crops, or to prove they were just as good as the smarter kid, or because they were afraid the others would kill them first. Life would be, as philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously suggested, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Better to get together and contract to make a government to protect us all from each other. Follow-on thinkers soon added the requirement that government must not make matters worse, either. The English, and then others, began establishing governments that satisfied these tests.

The social contract state has two salient features, and both are jettisoned when armed resisters take over a capitol building and a police union defies a ban on "killology" training. The government is inherently equal, as each person is as threatening and as possessed of human rights, as any other in the imagined state of nature. However imperfect, elected representative government manifests that inherent equality. And the elected government must have a meaningful monopoly on the use of force. Otherwise it cannot protect us from each other.

When the gun-toting protesters openly walked into the Michigan statehouse and the Senate vacated the chamber in face of future threats, egalitarian representative government surrendered to the rule of the strong. Threatening death and brandishing death, both in the form of firearms and the often unmasked contagion, the demonstrators proved how potent was the threat of anarchy and how fragile the contract that had contained it for so long. When the police establish their own killology-driven order, the democratically elected government similarly loses its monopoly on force, and mayors sit by, wringing their hands while the unelected police take over the role of the state.

Cellphone cameras play a big role in revealing the deep lawlessness in some areas of law enforcement, but those revelations began 30 years ago with the filmed beating of Rodney King. The persistence of the uniformed revolt and the retreat before the coronavirus protesters are just the most recent in a long retreat from the experiment in self-government. With a critical election looming, the prospect is ominous.

Hirshman is author of "Reckoning: The Epic Battle Against Sexual Harassment and Abuse."

Excerpt from:

Minnesota and Michigan show that we are living in a Hobbesian state of nature - Bryan-College Station Eagle

The Left cant control its fringe elements anymore than the Right can, it appears.

At the Anchorage rally against police brutality and racism on Saturday, MRAK captured a screen shot from one of the flyers being circulated, which upon closer inspection states that it should be abundantly clear that the pigs are the enemy of the people.

The flyer, published by the Party for Socialism and Liberation, demands a world without police and a world without prisons. The group demand an end to capitalism and imperialism and political autonomy for the New Afrikan nation.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation describes itself as a communist party in the United States established in 2004 after a split in the Workers World Party. The PSL is running Gloria La Riva and Leonard Peltier in the 2020 election.

According to Wikipedia, the partys goal is to lead arevolutionpaving the way towardssocialism, under which a new government of working people would be formed.

The PSL proposes manyradicalchanges to be implemented by this government. In the political sphere, all elected representatives should be recallable, securingfreedom of speechfor the working class (except in the case ofxenophobiaorbigotryand to prevent re-establishment of thecapitalist system) and the elimination ofcorporate influencefrom politics.

The party sees socialism as the door to full-on communism as its ultimate goal.

The PSL would among other measures prohibit the exploitation of labor for private profit, implement aworking weekof 30 hours and eradicate poverty through the introduction of abasic income guarantee.

The PSL would grant the right ofself-determinationto what it considers oppressed nations of the United States, including African Americans,Native,Puerto Ricanand otherLatinonational minorities, theHawaiian nation,Asian,Pacific Islander,Arab, and other oppressed peoples who have experienced oppression as a whole people under capitalism. The group has an affinity for communist Cuba and opposes Israel.

Like Loading...

See the original post here:

Anchorage racism rally pamphlet says 'pigs are enemy of the people' - Must Read Alaska

I havent been around Agassiz and Harrison as much as Id like to be. Given a worldwide pandemic, I can scarcely be blamed.

When I am out and about in Chilliwack or in Agassiz and Harrison, I frequently wear a mask. I admit I still feel a healthy mix of silly and shady whenever I don it, but I still do it anyway.

Its true that I dont have the ideal N95 mask most commonly reserved for those on the front lines of the coronavirus fight. However, what I do have is a decent, additional shield in the event I carry COVID-19 and I sneeze, cough or, as Trudeau infamously put it, talk moistly. Ive been fortunate enough not to get sick during this time, but its better to be safe.

RELATED: EDITORIAL: What were we talking about again?

The effectiveness of wearing masks that fall short of the N95 standard has been the subject of debate and controversy since COVID-19 first emerged. Sometimes its recommended, sometimes it isnt. Some say its effective, others arent as sure. There are some who strictly view it as a symbol of government oppression, but I have neither the time nor patience to give the notion a further platform when the greater good is at stake.

In addition to curbing my ongoing nervous habit of touching my face (a vice only aggravated by the recent addition of a full beard), wearing a mask helps prevent respiratory droplets from slipping out of my various orifices and onto unsuspecting and unwilling bystanders.

Gross.

Its not perfect. We all know that. But wearing a mask is just another weapon in the arsenal in the fight against COVID-19. Until and even for some time after a vaccine is developed, we need all the help we can get.

Wearing a mask is more than just practical. To me, having a mask on sends a message says Hey, I dont know if Im carrying any illness, but I care enough about you that I dont want to risk making you sick. Stay strong, were getting there.

RELATED: EDITORIAL: Camera wars are still unproductive

Ive said it before, and I may end up saying it again soon I find social media shaming to be ineffective and counterproductive in a vast majority of cases, perpetuating an addiction to the illusion of power that is both toxic and false. Please refrain from shaming those who choose not to wear a mask on social media.

If someone is perhaps standing a bit close to you, I dont think its out of the question or impolite to gently remind them to continue distancing. Unlike elsewhere, here in the Fraser Valley, I find it possible to do that without fear of people getting offended, screaming their throats raw about personal freedom and retaliating by coughing on you.

I cant order you to wear a mask, nor do I intend to. Youre, I assume, a mature person. I would, however, recommend it. Its an additional step that could slow the spread of COVID-19 even further. Even if it only affects one other person, its worth it.

To those of you who have made masks to sell or give to others, carry on. Youre doing great work and your contributions absolutely matter. Be proud.

To all of you, kindly wear a mask. Keep washing your hands. Keep your distance. At the very least, its just the polite thing to do.

adam.louis@ahobserver.comLike us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter

Want to support local journalism during the pandemic? Make a donation here.

BC OpinionsCoronavirus

Read the original:

EDITORIAL: Why I wear a mask and you should, too Agassiz Harrison Observer - Agassiz-Harrison Observer

The United States is known to be a binary nation that is divided through discrepancies of color and race. Binary in politics with the two main houses being Democrat and Republican. Binary in whether you are pro-guns or against the idea of open carry. Binary with the simultaneous existence of black and white culture within the confines of the nation. With so much diversity, there seems to be inevitable conflict coming from an initial source thats been fomenting in the countrys history for generations and has only mutated like a virus rather than weakened through humanitarian progression. This source can be traced to one of the easiest explanations: people of color are treated as if their lives hold no innate value. Rather, they are viewed by the system as immediate threats, without consideration of their personal fulfillments and motives to live as part of societys solution, not the problem.

Its the origin of hate that makes this nations racially-involved tragedies so shameful and as relevant as ever. With the recent news of George Floyds death caused by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin and video evidence that explicitly shows the officer pressing his knee against Floyds neck against the street pavement for almost nine minutes, asphyxiation is evident. Anyone with a semblance of vision can see the cause of the 46-year-olds death. Everyone can see what was the real motive and who the blatant culprit was. Everyone except the people who are meant and trained to protect us from coming across such fates as this.

According to CNN, The Hennepin County Medical Examiners Office conducted an autopsy that found no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. After the results were released, the Medical Examiner received backlash from people accusing them for victim blaming and lying. The truth is that I and many others are not blind to the murder that we saw in Floyds video, and that autopsy is an example of the systemic racism that plagues this country.

In fact, ABC News reported that Floyds family announced that they will have Dr. Michael Baden conduct an independent autopsy. His name might sound familiar, thats because Baden conducted an independent autopsy on Eric Garner another black man who was killed six years ago by a police officer who still roams freely in this country. Like Floyd, Garner was suffocated and, like Floyd, his last words were, I cant breathe. Baden ultimately confirmed that compression of the neck that prevents breathing trumps everything else as cause of death, according to the Associated Press.

Let me rephrase that, Garner was not killed by the health issues he had, he was killed by a police officer who had him in a chokehold. Floyd was also not killed by his health issues, he was killed by a police officer who pressed his knee on his neck. A police officer who did nothing as Floyd said he couldnt breathe and desperately called for his mother.

This is not just another police brutality case; its another appalling instance in the ever-growing timeline of African American lives unashamedly taken by law enforcement. This has created an uproar and riots in Minnesota that have spread across the nation by the black community and its allies in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Now, the problem that people like President Donald Trump and his supporters see with this is what they call a lack of justification to resort to riot and looting. An attempt to make it seem as if this is the main issue with this whole ordeal. But where are the justifications that are still pending to explain the deaths of the many innocent black lives taken by police who get to walk away freely and are able to enjoy life? They took the right to live away from black people whose families now have to suffer from immense grief knowing that justice neglects to respond to their losses.

What happens when attempts at peaceful protests continue to be futile to the systematic oppression that is the foundation of our nation? What happens when the black community attempts to echo their grief and pleas for change, only to be silenced by our own political leaders who leave them in the dark during times of despair?

What happens?

Action happens. Its been evident in our history, and it will continue to be evident that taking action works.

This specific case has brought people and groups alike to understand what they are capable of together and how they can turn a movement into a revolution. And, ironically enough, during times of such differences, it has actually brought this nation more united than ever.

The almost comedic thing about it is that our government should be the one advocating for a change that brings that sense of unification. But rather, they are the ones tearing the nation into conflict by failing to change a system that is, unsurprisingly, doing its job. But its execution in doing so is far from righteous since it is protecting only those who are deemed acceptable by the system, and excludes the black community from that standard.

This country is long overdue for a just distribution of universal human rights, no matter their state and no matter the pigment of their skin. The law was designed to define people and their actions by color since the inception of this country. To criminalize black people by a mere glance and to utilize inexcusable judgement that leads to their unjust murders.

Thats what happens when this country embodies a type of hate thats almost as contagious as the current pandemic we are living in (and yes, this is all happening during a global health crisis that has been handled miserably by our government, to make matters worse).

But remember the binary system of the country we live in. As long as there are people who hate, there are people who love. People who love to see a new day not cut short by the unethical decisions of a police officer. People who love to stand for what is right. People who love to see black brothers and sisters prosper in a place that wants them to fail.

Its a battle thats been going on longer than it should, but its a battle thats worth fighting for. The system is weakening, the system is seeing the peoples immeasurable potential. But most notably, the system is scared.

Henry Curi is the 2019-2020 Sports Co-Editor. He can be reached at sports@newuniversity.org.

Related

Excerpt from:

An Unfathomable Oppression Meets An Astronomical Resistance: Police Vs. The People - New University

Look these damn people tearing up their communityburning shit what does all this rioting accomplish?

Im not sure but when people were kicking up dust in places like Hong Kong they were hailed as heroes. People swooned over them and showed signs of solidarity and encouraged them to keep fighting oppression. In fact, Time Magazine had a photo of protestors fighting a cop and they were deemed Persons of the Year. The protestors were called the Resistance.

In Venezuela, people turned up and folks were invited to the State of the Union Nobody said, gee guys, youre tearing up your community and preventing people from working. There was none of that stupid talk. People were hailed as freedom fighters who were doing whatever it took to end what they deemed as oppressive conditions.

Wanna know where folks were told not to kick up dust, but instead be calm? In South Africa when folks were fighting Apartheid. Yep, thats right.

Folks who are old enough recall that Nelson Mandela and his crew from the African National Congress were deemed Terrorists. President Reagan said violence was not cool and we should have what he called Constructive Engagement to end Apartheid.

Lets go back to 1976, when the Soweto Uprising took place. Check out the local newspaper coverage from an event where anywhere from 176 to 700 kids/students were killed by the Apartheid government. Words like plunder, death riot and mob were used to describe these kids fighting Apartheid. There was no redeeming value to their action at all.

Compare those headlines and news coverage to the coverage given to other unrests that took place in 1976.Thailand and in Poland are two newsworthy ones that come to mind. These two uprising took place within weeks and months of Soweto. In Thailand the news headlines referred to the students as folks who were massacred. They estimate 100 students were killed by the Thailand government, but we were sympathetic. They werent called a mob. We didnt see that with the students in Soweto.

Same thing in Poland, where there was several days of unrest, the news coverage talked about these valiant people as folks fighting to stop unfair price hikes in food.

Seems like every single uprising done by lack folks is widely condemned from South Africa to here. From the Black soldiers fighting racist cops in Houston during Jim Crow in the early 1900s after being terrorized up to last night in Minneapolis. From Harlem to Watts to Ferguson to Oakland Its the same song, same outrage and righteousness directed at Black folks for expressing rage.

In 1979 in Miami there was a police killing of motorcyclist Arthur McDuffie. The officers involved were acquitted in 1980, and Miami exploded. The same condemnation we are leveling on folks in Minneapolis today is what was levied on Blacks folks in Miami 40 years ago. They were deemed a mob, thugs, hooligans uncouth and hurting the cause.

Folks in Miami to this day are still being scolded by salty individuals over what took place in the aftermath of Arthur McDuffie. They were never, ever seen as folks who were betrayed by the system. Just thugs who set back Black progress.

So all this outrage about whats going on Minneapolis after folks witnessed a public lynching by smirking cops is troubling. Folks seem to forget that Minneapolis did everything by the book after Philando Castille was killed on FB live by a cop who was acquitted.

Folks peacefully protested, marched, sat in at police stations, boycotted businesses like the Great Mall of America, voted, kicked off a project to bring about changes in the police department and whats happened? Things have gotten worse and here we have folks getting all haughty and doing the most with Respectability Politics while cheering everyone else on.

I gotta be honest the worst looting Ive ever seen take place happened a few weeks ago when corporations collected over $500 billion dollars in stimulus money while everyone else was left with a $1,200 dollar check and having to decide if they pay for food or rent.

Keep in mind it was mean spirited leader of the senate Mitch McConnell who had to be dragged to even allow that much to be given. The same folks who gave corporations $500 billion fought to not extend unemployment benefits as folks are still sheltered in. Over 40 million people are out of work.

And again: Imagine if they had simply arrested and charged those four cops for murder. Think of where we would be at this time.

See the original post here:

People protested peacefully -- and things got worse | 48 hills - 48 Hills

In the rush to contain if not control the COVID-19 outbreak, governments worldwide are scrambling to employ every means at their disposal. This includes surveillance a word that in popular cultural has taken on sinister connotations. But, in fact, it also covers valuable data-gathering and sharing by organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO).

In an editorial recently published in the journal Surveillance & Society, associate professor of sociology and anthropology Martin French argues that the pandemic is a social problem as well as a health one. He and co-author Torin Monahan at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill believe the COVID-19 surveillance guidelines issued by the WHO and governments like Canadas ignore a far more complex social reality.

French points to the growth of what he calls lateral and participatory surveillance and its effects on our daily lives. Lateral surveillance, he says, is not coming top down from the government, but is laterally distributed in the social body neighbours informing on each other for failing to maintain physical distance, for instance.

This kind of surveillance often overlaps with epidemiological surveillance done by states and clinical surveillance carried out by medical professionals, and it can carry negative consequences.

There have been a number of cultural ramifications around suppositions of where this virus originated, he says. We have the President of the United States calling this the Wuhan virus and assaults are taking place against Asian-looking individuals. These racist flames, which were already burning before the pandemic, are now being fanned by problematic racial tropes that are mobilized through participatory surveillance.

These messages can be self-reinforcing thanks to a reliance on social media algorithms to deliver our information, particularly when consumers are being channeled into narrow filter bubbles, the authors write.

While China is being blamed by some for the spread of the coronavirus, others are praising the country for using the same surveillance techniques it employs to control and repress minority groups like Uighur Muslims. The authors further warn that the current global health crisis could be used to normalize oppressive surveillance measures and open the door to further state-sponsored oppression.

French and Monahan are also wary of the private sectors growing surveillance solution industry, with companies like Google developing tracking measures that are not fully understood or whose consequences have not been anticipated.

These solutions may take on an air of reasonableness in the context of a crisis. But we shouldnt lose sight of the conditions that that got us into a situation where we may acquiesce to proposals that many viewed as previously unreasonable, such as corporately controlled or supported contact tracing, French explains.

Nor should we lose sight of the difference between public solutions to infectious diseases, which have an obligation to serve the entire public, and private-sector solutions, which only have obligations to shareholders. What are we getting when we opt for these solutions? Who will be advantaged and who will be disadvantaged?

The authors conclude that while we are still in the thick of the pandemics grip, solutions to fighting it must be centred on human rights.

Read the paper: Dis-ease Surveillance: How Might Surveillance Studies Address COVID-19?

Concordia University

Patrick Lejtenyi

@ConcordiaUnews

AB

Read more here:

Surveillance takes on many different forms during a pandemic, according to Concordia researcher - The Suburban Newspaper

Surreal is, perhaps, the only way to describe marking of the first anniversary of the Modi 2.0 government. As the government data detailing the pre-coronavirus disease destruction of the economy and the consequent ruination of crores of lives during the last year was being released, Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi was writing to all of us describing the year as a golden chapter in the history of Indian democracy. This ruination has been aggravated by the coronavirus pandemic and the unplanned and abrupt unilateral lockdown announced by the PM. This lockdown has neither strengthened the efforts to combat the pandemic nor has it provided any relief to beleaguered citizens. The situation continues to worsen.

India appears to have entered a post-truth society. The Oxford Dictionary defines post-truth as relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. The propaganda and spin machine of the government projects a surreal world divorced from the truth.

The first year of this government has been traumatic. Apart from all other issues such as the economic downturn, increase in peoples miseries, assaults on democratic rights and civil liberties, this year has been traumatic for the single-minded focus with which this government began to systematically undermine Indias secular, democratic, republican order.

Among the attacks the delivery of a verdict and not justice in the Ram temple site dispute in Ayodhya, the triple talaq criminalisation of only Muslim men, not other for deserting their wives are two that spring to mind immediately.

Modi 2.0 began with an immediate assault on the Constitution with the abrogation of Article 370. In one stroke, the state of Jammu and Kashmir became a part of history and was bifurcated into Union territories. The promises made during the freedom movement and the Constitution have been betrayed. The manner in which this was done was an affront to the constitutional scheme of things. By dissolving the elected assembly and not holding the elections along with the 2019 general elections, this government deliberately bypassed the constitutional stipulation that the border of any state in India cannot be altered without the concurrence of the assembly. As the assembly was non-existent, the governor appointed by the Centre was presumed to be the substitute, whose consent was naturally obtained. The entire exercise was done surreptitiously.

Then came the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), a brazen violation of the Constitution in stipulating religion as a criterion for citizenship. The Constitution underlines the equality of every citizen, irrespective of caste, creed, gender or any other attribute. The corollary to CAA was the National Population Register on whose basis the National Register of Citizens would be prepared. This exercise was rightly seen by many as the intensification of communal polarisation that feeds into the larger construct of targeting the Muslim minority. These two, along with many other assaults, are part of the effort to transform a secular, democratic, republican India into an intolerant theocratic, exclusivist fascistic state, which is the project of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological mentor of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Citizenship is the fundamental requirement for every other right provided by the Constitution. Once people are stripped of their citizenship, they stand automatically stripped of all their rights and liberties in India.

These assaults on the Constitution were accompanied by the weakening of the constitutional institutions. Both these issues were challenged in the Supreme Court (SC) and continues to remain there without being heard, considered or adjudicated on. The SC has chosen to consider matters such as anticipatory bail to journalists charged with aiding campaigns of hate as being more important than the defence of the Constitution. From the deepest recesses of my memory come surging images of courts during South Africas apartheid regime where criminals were acquitted, and the victims prosecuted. Retired SC Justice Gopala Gowda recently commented that the draconian experience of the infamous ADM Jabalpur case in which anyone considered a political threat to authorities could be taken into custody without trial, during the Emergency, is now pass.

The four foundational pillars of the Constitution secular democracy; social justice; federalism; and economic self-reliance are taking a severe beating. Sharpening communal polarisation and the undermining of secularism are accompanied by attacks on any expression of dissent. Draconian laws such as the Sedition Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the National Security Act are used. The stigma of social oppression has worsened.

There is increasing centralisation of all authority by the central government bypassing elected state governments, negating federalism. A unitary State is required not only to centralise authority to facilitate the realisation of the RSS project but also to create a surveillance-based security State.

The grandiose announcement of ~20 lakh crore financial package in the name of self-reliance is nothing but a blueprint for Indias self-subservience. It provides profit maximisation for foreign and domestic corporates. The net result will be the further widening of economic inequalities which have already reached alarming levels.

Such are the dark clouds that have engulfed the Indian Republic during the last year. The silver lining must be enlarged by all of us together to overshadow and consume these dark clouds.

Sitaram Yechury is general secretary, CPI(M)

The views expressed are personal

See the rest here:

Modi 2.0: Dark clouds have engulfed the nation, writes Sitaram Yechury - Hindustan Times

Updated: June 1, 2020 at 12:14 a.m.

The Office for Diversity, Inclusion and Community Engagement and University partners will host events for the GW community in the wake of recent instances of police brutality.

The letter signed by diversity and inclusion officials and posted to the offices website Sunday condemns racism, anti-Blackness and recent acts of police violence and brutality. Officials said they hope the diversity and inclusion office will contribute to a moreequitable and just future and combat the racism and white supremacy that are part of the foundation of the United States, the letter states.

While many people continue to ask for a return to the normal, we know that for Black people and those from historically marginalized communities, that means a continuation of oppression, injustice, hate and violence, the letter states. We have to create something better. We have to raise higher.

The letter invites members of the GW community to share their thoughts, needs and concerns in light of police violence against the black community via a Google form.Officials directed students to resources like Counseling and Psychological Services and the Office of Advocacy and Support.

This reality is being felt by members of the Black community in massive loss of life and economic devastation, the letter states. We know that the Black community is laboring under this heavy, heavy burden directly and indirectly.

Thousands of demonstrators marched through Ward 2 Saturday to protest the police killings of black Americans George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery.

University President Thomas LeBlanc said in an email to the GW community Sunday that officials will continue to offer support and resources and pointed to the online community events that the diversity and inclusion office announced for students to participate in conversations related to the killings and protests.

I look forward to working together harnessing the power of the community that comprises this great institution to address racism and injustice on our campus and in our society, LeBlanc said in the email.

D.C.-area Black Student Unions including GWs published a letter Friday urging Mayor Muriel Bowser and Metropolitan Police Department Chief Peter Newsham to implement measures aimed at addressing police brutality. The letter calls on officials to take actions like investing in de-escalation training and reducing the number of youth arrests by 90 percent.

As a unified body of thousands of black students who actively engage and study within the District, our safety and the safety of D.C. residents is a top priority, the letter states. This cannot happen without the proper steps taken by both MPD and the D.C. government to prevent the homicides of unarmed black men and women by law enforcement.

This article appeared in the June 5, 2020 issue of the Hatchet.

Read more from the original source:

Diversity and inclusion officials address police brutality - GW Hatchet