Category Archives: Government Oppression

Montreal kindergarten teacher Haniyfa Scott gives a lesson in Montreal in April 2019. Two months later, the Quebec government would pass a law banning Muslim women from wearing the hijab at work. (Graham Hughes / The Canadian Press via AP)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

This year, Quebec became the only jurisdiction in North America to ban the wearing of religious symbols in some public-sector jobs. The law, known as Bill 21, was ostensibly passed to enshrine official secularism, but its a reflection of Quebec societys entrenched fixation with limiting displays of Islamic faith, especially the hijaban obsession of right-wing pundits in the provinces French-language media. The ban affects some state employees in positions of authority, such as police, judges, crown prosecutors, and public school teachers, and its popularity with Quebecers made it a third rail for national politicians during Canadas recent federal election. However, in the months since Bill 21 was rammed through in June, it has had an immediate negative effect on the livelihoods of Muslim women.Ad Policy

This is largely because most of the employees affected by the ban are public school teachers75 percent of whom, in Quebec, are women. (The law does not cover workers such as day care employees, college or university professors, or custodial or secretarial staff.) Some people have agreed to remove their hijabs at work. Some religious families have decided to leave the province. Although the law also prohibits the wearing of turbans and kippahs, the burden of the ban has been overwhelmingly borne by Muslim women; there have been no debates about whether a male teacher can wear a religious beard. The phrasing around what constitutes a symbol is deliberately vague; all the government has said for sure is that a tattoo of, say, a cross wouldnt violate the law.

Last month, a Quebec teachers union announced it would sue the provincial government over Bill 21; in late November, a motion to suspend the law made it to Quebecs Court of Appeal. But the fight against the banand against the sentiments that bolster itis not one that can depend on the decisions of the courts. To defeat both the bill and the worldview it espouses would require uprooting the racism that has kept this kind of legislation within reach.

Quebecs governing party and the originator of the bill, Coalition Avenir Qubec, came into power last year, after running on a platform that included promises to reduce immigration by 20 percent and ban public officials from wearing religious symbols. One year later, the CAQ is preoccupied with blocking immigration and policing identity, and has implemented policies that hurt minority communities the mostsuch as deregulating the taxi industrywhile its grander promises, such as electoral reform, remain unfulfilled. Earlier this year, the government implemented new immigration laws that resulted in the cancellation of more than 18,000 visa applicationsblocking as many as 50,000 immigrants in the processand it has moved closer to imposing a so-called values test on those who seek to immigrate to Quebec. Quebec is the only province that has control over its own immigration system. The official language, French, has also been used as a bludgeon: Ministers have mused about denying public services in English to anyone who isnt a part of what they call Quebecs historic Anglophone populationmeaning anyone whose parents didnt attend an English-language school in the province.Related Article

Prior to 1950, the Catholic Church controlled Quebec: social services, education, and health care were all run by the church and limited by its worldview. White women were not allowed to vote in Quebec until 1940trailing the other provinces by nearly 20 years. Quebecers broke out from under the churchs control in the 1960s during a period called the Quiet Revolution, which also saw working-class Quebecers organize against Anglophone business owners for better working conditions. But the memory of oppression by religious institutions remainsespecially for anyone who was subject to abuse in the provinces Catholic schools.

This history has uniquely sensitized Francophone Quebecersmore than other Canadiansto the display of religious symbols, although they continue to live in a province that has the highest number of towns per capita named after saints in the country, and where Catholic symbols are still prominently, and publicly, displayed. As right-wing and neo-Nazi groups have gained more attention in Quebec, backlash against the Catholic Church has been transposed onto Islam. A potent mix of racism, negative associations with religion, and a society turned inward to protect itself from Anglo-American hegemony has made Quebec a perfect location for far-right sentiment to turn into far-right policy.

This debate has also been deeply influenced by a similar conversation in France, where an obsession with state secularism, or lacit, has led to similar debates over religious symbols. Religious symbols have been banned in French schools since 2004 for both teachers and studentsand, most recently, Frances Senate approved a motion that denies women the right to pick up their kids from school while wearing a hijab.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

In 2008, a commission created by the Quebec government to study religious accommodation in the province found that Quebec media outlets were guilty of whipping up Islamophobic sentimentbut it also concluded that a secular state should ban religious symbols from being worn by police, judges, and crown prosecutors. The commissioners, Grard Bouchard and Charles Taylor, saw the ban as a reasonable compromise between Quebecers who wanted a total ban on religious symbols and those who opposed bans of any kind. In the 10 years that followed, Islamophobic violence increased, including a 2017 shooting at a Quebec City mosque; after that massacre, Taylor renounced his former position, arguing that they had made an error in recommending the ban. (Bouchard didnt go as far, but he did condemn the CAQ for extending the ban to teachers this year.)

The application of Bill 21 to public school teachers reveals that the Quebec government is playing the long game: It wants to prevent the hijab and other markers of non-Christian faiths from becoming normalized. Prohibiting students from coming into contact with women who wear hijabs or men who wear turbans reduces the likelihood that the next generation will oppose measures to marginalize those communities.

Many critics warn that Bill 21 is a slippery slopethat its a gateway to banning religious symbols in other parts of society. Already, some school boards have tried to apply it to student teachers as well, threatening to block those who wore religious garb from completing their internships. Student activists threatened to stage massive demonstrations in responsesomething which Quebec students are particularly good at. The education minister, Jean-Franois Roberge, stepped in to remind school boards that interns were not included in the bill.

But the bans popularitycombined with the geographic concentration of Quebecs religious minority communitiesmake it difficult to imagine that protests alone will change the CAQs mind. Muslims account for just 3 percent of Quebecs population, and the vast majority live in urban centers, especially Montreal. Meanwhile, the CAQ is most popular among people living outside Montreal, in parts of the province that are overwhelmingly white. The CAQ has made it clear that they see themselves as responsible only to les Qubcois de souche, or old stock (white, Francophone) Quebecers. Its easy to see why court cases have become the favored tool of opponents, as they work to strike down legislation on a human rights basis.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

As new stories emerge about acts of xenophobic violence, and families leave the province to escape its political climate, a mirror is being held up to Quebecers: Is this really who we are? Quebec is known for its relatively robust social welfare programs and otherwise progressive idealsyet the governments attacks on minority populations have made this place much less safe for many.

There have been pockets of resistance to the law across Quebec from the start. Dozens of rallies have been held in Gatineau, Sherbrooke, Montreal, and Quebec City (where I participate in a coalition to defeat Bill 21). Buttons with a 21 crossed out have been distributed through various community organizations. There have been forums and events on the impact of the law and rising Islamophobia in Quebec. And, in mid-November, the CAQs identitarian ethic was dealt its first defeat: The government was forced to withdraw immigration reforms that would have canceled the possibility of obtaining permanent residency for thousands of international students already studying in Quebec.

The success of that fight suggests a way forward for opponents of Bill 21. After the immigration reforms were announced, opposition parties, town councils, colleges, universities, and students staged press conferences and rallies, where they explained to Quebecers that these studentswho had been promised a track to citizenshipwere about to have their dreams dashed. It didnt hurt that the CAQs reform had been sloppily constructed, or that it made international news when a French citizen was denied residency because her thesis had one chapter in English. Pressure from the media and lobbying by opposition parties forced the CAQ to reverse the changes within a week.

Another key to taking down those reforms was the fact that the opposition parties had united to oppose it. Two of the three opposition parties are also opposed to Bill 21, but no similar effort has been made to repeal it. Maybe thats because the official opposition, the Quebec Liberal Party, tried to pass a different discriminatory law in 2017 that would have denied people the right to access public services if they were wearing a niqab, which covers most of the face. (That law was struck down by a tribunal, but the CAQ did put a face-covering ban in Bill 21 as well.) The other party that opposes Bill 21, Qubec Solidaire, only announced that it was against the banning of religious symbols this past Marchand it has still not figured out how to compellingly demand that the law be repealed.

This will be a long-term struggle. We are already into the second decade of the religious accommodations debate in Quebec; forcing the government to repeal this legislation, and diminishing its popularity, are not going to happen overnight. But theres an important shift underway in Quebec too. According to a Leger poll, support for the law is at 48 percenta significant drop from 66 percent in April, when the law was first announced. Surely, the stories of women who have been forced to decide between practicing their religion or continuing their careers have helped sway some Quebecers.

Those who are directly targeted by this law need Quebecs opposition parties to actually fight itand to support the legal challenges against it, including one by the English Montreal School Board, which alleges that Bill 21s disproportionate impact on women is discriminatory. Politicians, pundits, and citizen groups must educate the public. Quebecers should have no excuse for thinking that Bill 21 has anything to do with secularism.

Go here to see the original:

Quebec's Religious-Symbols Ban Hurts Womenand Everyone Who Depends on Them - The Nation

With the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) winning easy passage in the Lok Sabha, it will now face a test in the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House, which owes its existence to the need of a parliamentary democracy to subject all Lower House legislation to higher-level scrutiny. On paper, the elders" of this august house are expected to act as a restraint on impetuosity getting the better of sound judgement. In reality, party politics as usual tends to dominate proceedings. Given how controversial the bill has become, it may be time for the Rajya Sabha to exercise its responsibility and weigh its merits in the broad context of what is good for India, rather than simply let the weight of numbers determine its fate. After the storm stirred up by the bill in one House of Parliament, how it is dealt with by the other is likely to have a nationwide audience.

Broadly speaking, the CABs stated purpose is to offer some non-citizens who would rather be Indian a clear path to citizenship, and this goes well with the civilizational values that we have long upheldof welcoming people from elsewhere. India has a long history as a refuge for the oppressed, and, for all our resource constraints, we should indeed open our doors officially to those who find life unbearable in other parts of the world, especially South Asia. Most of the objections raised have been to the specifics of the bill. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who escaped persecution in their home countries and arrived here before 2015 would be eligible for Indian citizenship. Missing from that list are Muslims, who, the government argues, are not minorities in those places, and thus not vulnerable to oppression. This claim has been contested by many, with secular individuals and members of minority Islamic sects cited for their vulnerability. However, the basic issue that the Rajya Sabha must examine is whether anyones exclusion on the basis of faith is compliant with the secular principles of our Constitution, which insists on the equality of all, regardless of identity descriptors. Prima facie, on this yardstick, the CABs validity looks iffy.

Beyond that, there is a larger issue to ponder. This concerns the impact that the CAB may have on the country at large once the process to identify Indians for the National Register of Citizens (NRC) gets underway across India. The NRCs goal of spotting illegal immigrants is laudable. However, if Assams example is anything to go by, it is likely to place the burden of citizenship proof on people. Further, if the documentary requirements are kept too stringent in an effort to catch those who have sneaked in, then it is all the more likely that a large fraction of genuine citizens would fail to make the grade in the bargain. Millions might find themselves in a very tight spot. Since the CAB offers non-Muslims a pathway out of it, and those whose names are not on the NRC list face either deportation or detention, an anxiety over how the NRC-CAB combo will pan out could arise among adherents of Islam. Unless credible assurances are made that are legal, and not merely verbal, India may be at risk of a rupture in relations between its majority population and its single largest minority group. Any threat to Indian unity is against the national interest. Our legislators should tread with caution.

Read the original:

Opinion | The Rajya Sabha must play its envisaged role - Livemint

India has a vast history of religious diversity and tolerance. However, the black spot of the British Empire has left a few stains which still prove thorny as much as the religious resistance in neighbouring countries.

The neighbouring countries, where a majority of the population practise Islam, have time and again produced anti-social elements in the form of Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Jaish-e-Mohammed and several others that have been provided continued back-door support from their respective governments to suppress and commit unspeakable crimes against people belonging to minority religions, including Hinduism, Christianity, Jainism and Sikhism.

This has resulted into a tsunami of influx of migrants from these countries, namely Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

However, India being a tolerant and secular country, cannot turn a blind eye to such atrocities committed in its neighbourhood and needs to provide shelter to such survivors and this is being done by bringing in certain key amendments to the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016

The most controversial amendment proposed in the Act The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 (CAB), has created ripples through petty politics.

There are two major amendments which have drawn attention of global media. First, persons belonging to minority communities, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, shall not be treated as illegal migrants, and secondly, for these persons, the aggregate period of residence or service of a Government in India as required shall be minimum six years instead of the earlier clause of minimum 11 years.

This means that such illegal migrants belonging to either of these three religions shall be eligible for Indian citizenship if they have lived in India for a minimum of six years of the 14 years preceding the 12-month period.

Although both the amendments have not been disputed in their substance as such other than their religious angle, the same has been opposed by Opposition parties. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equal protection and treatment to all the persons in India, be it foreigners or Indian citizens.

At present, the Opposition parties have alleged that CAB goes against the very spirit of this article as it differentiates Muslims from Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists and Christians in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

However, the long-standing battle of these six communities of these three countries is not something which could be ignored due to petty politics. It all started with the creation of two countries India and Pakistan in 1947 that also subsequently led to the creation of Bangladesh.

In the words of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, We think also of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off from us by political boundaries and who unhappily cannot share at present in the freedom that has come. They are of us and will remain of us whatever may happen, and we shall be sharers in their good and ill fortune alike.

Since the majority of the Muslim population went to Pakistan and Bangladesh (then East Pakistan), very few people, including Hindus and Christians, were inclined on migrating to these countries.

As the history of India has seen horrific clashes between Hindus and Muslims, Pakistan and Bangladesh were not reluctant to avoid such clashes in the future. Muslim dominance in these countries led to persecution and commitment of atrocities against minorities and this resulted in the reduction of minority population.

The Bangladesh liberation war of 1971 resulted in one of the largest genocides in human history. It is estimated that about 2.4 million Bengali Hindus were killed during this war by the Pakistani Army.

Pakistan and Afghanistan have continued to commit crimes against minorities. Shockingly, Afghanistan has prohibited conversion to Christianity among its citizens. Whenever, such conversions happen, people are even subjected to death or imprisonment.

In Pakistan, Sikhs are on the verge of extinction as forced conversions to Islam and gross injustice have reduced the communitys population to about 8,000. Between 1947 and 1951, more than 50 lakh Hindus and between 1951 and 1970, more than 40 lakh Hindus crossed over to India due to severe oppression.

Other minority communities continue to suffer the same fate at the hands of these Muslim-dominated nation which further compels us to not question the morality, but legality of CAB.

Sitting idle when atrocities of that magnitude are taking place only a few miles across the border is similar to doing nothing while witnessing a murder or rape before your eyes. Although the most obvious question which arises is that why does CAB not extend protection to illegal migrant Muslims from those countries?

It allegedly violates Article 14 which guarantees equality for all. However, if such an argument holds any water, the concepts of reservation for minority castes and religion, reservation for women, special protection laws for women and children, will have to be done away with and none shall ever be equal in an already unequal society.

The whole concept of upliftment of the poor and minorities will demise and Article 14 would only become more unsophisticated. Counter to this, the burden on the state to protect all its own citizens and foreigners is much higher.

Article 21 of the Constitution goes against the deprivation of life and liberty of a person and guarantees protection of life, limb and liberty.

To advance further in such a fundamental right, it would be correct to assume that CAB draws its spirit from this very fundamental right enshrined under Article 21, where the Centre is trying to protect the life and liberty of such persons who have faced decades of oppression in their home countries.

The words illegal migrant holds much more importance than a mere migrant. An illegal migrant only crosses a border to escape something that threatens his/her very existence.

In Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, the history of atrocities committed over minorities have forced these people to illegally migrate to India to save their lives and as Indian citizens, it becomes our duty and responsibility to provide them shelter as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and let them become a part of us.

CAB has also drawn criticism from the media which has clubbed it with the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Although the issue of NRC has been there for long, people trying to correlate the two desnt help its cause.

While NRC was targeted at identifying illegal migrants from India, especially Assam, CAB aims to welcome illegal migrants who have faced persecution in the neighbouring countries.

When Opposition parties club the two while debating on the issue in Parliament, it reveals their desperation. When the final NRC list came out on September 14, we came to know that more than 50% of the exclusions were Hindus which is contrary to the coloured opinions of many. CAB is independent of NRC and aims make India a safe haven for persecuted minorities.

In light of the above, it becomes imperative for us as citizens and our duly elected government to execute the Citizen Amendment Bill, 2016, so that the oppressed do not continue to face similar ordeal and they can become a part of India.

In June 2015, the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee sought citizenship for Bengali Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and people of other minority communities who arrived in Assam after being subjected to inhumane torture after Partition.

Many other organisations have sought citizenship for the oppressed minorities across various parts of India. In the words of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Those who are our flesh and blood, who fought by our side in the freedom struggle cannot suddenly become foreigners to us because they are on the other side of a line. There are people in South Africa, people of Indian origin but with African citizenship, whom we still try to help. If they have a claim on us, surely those in that part of Bengal too have a claim.

(The author practises in the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. Views expressed are personal.)

Get the best of News18 delivered to your inbox - subscribe to News18 Daybreak. Follow News18.com on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, TikTok and on YouTube, and stay in the know with what's happening in the world around you in real time.

Link:

OPINION | In Light of Persecutions Faced by Minorities in Neighbouring Nations, We Should Execute Citizen... - News18

FILE PHOTO: An ethnic Uighur wears a mask at protest in front of the Chinese Consulate Istanbul, October 1, 2019. REUTERS/Huseyin Aldemir/A sample of classified Chinese government documents leaked to a consortium of news organizations, (AP Photo/Richard Drew)Chinese soldiers patrolling in Xinjiang

The Japanese government has to speak out on human rights in China.

The publication of internal Chinese government documents on the ongoing suppression of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang Province has triggered a global storm of criticism of Beijings human rights abuses. The documents describe in detail serious human rights violations involving compulsory reeducation camps and hi-tech modes of surveillance.

In response to these shocking disclosures, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and other countries have criticized China and called for the release of those confined, as well as for the Chinese government to allow United Nations inspection teams to visit the camps. Yet, Japan has remained largely silent on the issue.

Concerning the issue of the unrest in Hong Kong, the U.S. Congress recently passed by a nearly unanimous vote the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which President Donald Trump quickly signed. The new law represents a clear demonstration of support for the democracy movement in Hong Kong.

Beijing has denied the accusations of the international community, but evidence of its severe repression of human rights is incontrovertible. Human rights are for everyone, everywhere. No nations government should be allowed to violate them with impunity.

Although massive, severe repression is now taking place within the borders of its giant neighbor, the Japanese government and the Diet have been too restrained in their responses.

What have Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi been doing about the issue? They should be more forceful in their protests and offer assistance to the people who are victims of Chinese oppression.

Of particular concern is that next spring Chinese President Xi Jinping is scheduled to pay a state visit to Japan, as both governments have agreed. Is it proper, however, for the individual with ultimate responsibility for these extremely serious human rights violations to be welcomed to Japan as an official state guest?

The contents of the leaked internal Chinese government documents that came into the possession of U.S. newspapers and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists make for shocking reading.

China has built a large-scale, hi-tech surveillance system in Xinjiang. It is using footage from surveillance cameras and the contents of captured cell phone conversations, along with cellphone apps and artificial intelligence technologies, for penetrating cyberspace surveillance. Through these intrusive methods, the Chinese government has identified large numbers of Uyghurs and labeled them as suspicious persons.

Already, some one million of the estimated eight million Uyghurs living in Xinjiang have been taken into custody as suspicious persons. These unfortunates have been shipped off to concentration camps the Chinese authorities euphemistically refer to as Technical and Vocational Education and Training Centers. There they are forced to use only Chinese use of their native Uyghur tongue is prohibited as they undergo brainwashing designed to make them pledge fidelity to the Chinese Communist Party.

The fact is that concentration camps, akin to those used by Mao, Stalin, and Hitler, are very much in operation today in Xi Jinpings China. Former prisoners of these concentration camps have testified that they were subjected to torture and self-criticism sessions, and even forced to eat pork in violation of the rigid prohibition on pork consumption in their Islamic faith.

According to the internal documents, in 2014 when Xi conducted an onsite inspection tour in the Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region in the wake of rioting in the area, in a secret speech he called for a hardline response, declaring, Mercy is useless.

The Chinese government has labeled the internal documents in question as fabricated fake news. However, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has pointed out, These reports are consistent with an overwhelming and growing body of evidence.

Pompeo has also called on the Chinese government to release immediately all the Uyghurs it has taken into custody and stop the crackdown. His voice is part of the chorus of pressure on the Chinese government from a number of countries.

Likewise, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has urged Beijing to cease its arbitrary mass detentions of Uyghurs, close the camps, and allow the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Xinjiang as soon as possible to report on the situation.

The British and German governments both have also been critical of China and have demanded U.N. fact-finding teams be allowed to visit the region.

In October, the United States government announced that it was adding 28 Chinese entities, including the worlds largest manufacturer of surveillance cameras and some Chinese government offices, onto an export blacklist due to their complicity in the violation of the human rights of Uyghurs and others.

The U.S. also demonstrated courage in passing the Hong Kong Human Rights Act in support of the citizens of Hong Kong, who are fighting for the preservation of a true one country, two systems arrangement and greater democracy.

However, whereas other countries in the free world are striving to protect the Uyghurs and people of Hong Kong, Japan regrettably has not joined them.

In October, Japan did join 22 other U.N. member countries in calling for an end to Uyghur detentions. But, since then, the Japanese governments only comments on the Uyghur and Hong Kong issues have been a steady refrain of very troubled and we are paying attention.

What Japanese officials really are saying is, Its no concern of ours.

Although not bending regarding the Senkaku Islands and related issues of vital national interest, the Abe administration has repeatedly claimed that Sino-Japanese relations are back on a normal track.

However, concerning the Xinjiang and Hong Kong issues, the government has been solely focused on not upsetting China to the extent that it has made light of these serious human rights issues.

If Japan truly wants to be considered as a nation that respects human rights, shouldnt it cooperate with the United States, the U.K., France, Germany, and other conscientious countries in making greater efforts to bring a stop to the oppression?

Prime Minister Abe is scheduled to visit China during the latter part of December. He is certain to hold talks with President Xi at that time. Abe should avail himself of the opportunity to straightforwardly demand the release of the Uyghur detainees, allowing in U.N. inspectors. And he should demand a stop to the suppression of the pro-democracy groups in Hong Kong.

If Xi refuses to listen to Abes requests, then the Prime Minister should come right out and tell him that his stance makes it difficult for the Japanese government to welcome him on a state visit.

For Japan to lay out the red carpet for the individual ultimately responsible for this mass repression would be a regrettable spectacle in the eyes of the Uyghur people, the citizens of Hong Kong, and indeed people around the world.

Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun

Original post:

EDITORIAL | Japan Out of Step with the West on Beijings Human Rights Abuses - JAPAN Forward

The Afghanistan papers: The criminality and disaster of a war based upon lies 10 December 2019

The publication Monday by the Washington Post of interviews with senior US officials and military commanders on the nearly two-decades-old US war in Afghanistan has provided a damning indictment of both the criminality and abject failure of an imperialist intervention conducted on the basis of lies.

The Post obtained the raw interviews after a three-year Freedom of Information Act court battle. While initially they were not secret, the Obama administration moved to classify the documents after the newspaper sought to obtain them.

The interviews were conducted between 2014 and 2018 in a Lessons Learned project initiated by the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). The project was designed to review the failures of the Afghanistan intervention with the aim of preventing their repetition the next time US imperialism seeks to carry out an illegal invasion and occupation of an oppressed country.

SIGARs director, John Sopko, freely admitted to the Post that the interviews provided irrefutable evidence that the American people have constantly been lied to about the war in Afghanistan.

What emerges from the interviews, conducted with more than 400 US military officers, special forces operatives, officials from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and senior advisers to both US commanders in Afghanistan and the White House, is an overriding sense of failure tinged with bitterness and cynicism. Those who participated had no expectation that their words would be made public.

Douglas Lute, a retired Army lieutenant general who served as the Afghanistan war czar under the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, told his government interviewers in 2015, If the American people knew the magnitude of this dysfunction... 2,400 [American] lives lost. Who will say this war was in vain?

Stephen Hadley, the White House national security adviser under Bush, was even more explicit in his admission of US imperialisms debacle in Afghanistanand elsewhere. He told his SIGAR interviewers that Washington had no post-stabilization model that works, adding that this had been proven not only in Afghanistan, but in Iraq as well. Every time we have one of these things, it is a pickup game. I dont have any confidence that if we did it again, we would do any better.

Ryan Crocker, who served as Washingtons senior man in Kabul under both Bush and Obama, told SIGAR that Our biggest single project, sadly and inadvertently, of course, may have been the development of mass corruption. Once it gets to the level I saw, when I was out there, its somewhere between unbelievably hard and outright impossible to fix it.

This corruption was fed by vast expenditures on the part of the US government on Afghanistans supposed reconstruction$133 billion, more than Washington spent, adjusted for inflation, on the entire Marshal Plan for the reconstruction of Western Europe after the Second World War. As the interviews make clear, this money went largely into the pockets of corrupt Afghan politicians and contractors and to fund projects that were neither needed nor wanted by the Afghan people.

The US National Endowment for Democracys former senior program officer for Afghanistan told his interviewers that Afghans with whom he had worked were in favor of a socialist or communist approach because thats how they remembered things the last time the system worked, i.e., before the 1980s CIA-backed Islamist insurgency that toppled a Soviet-backed government and unleashed a protracted civil war that claimed the lives of over a million. He also blamed the failure of US reconstruction efforts on a dogmatic adherence to free-market principles.

An Army colonel who advised three top US commanders in Afghanistan told the interviewers that, by 2006, the US-backed puppet government in Kabul had self-organized into a kleptocracy.

US military personnel engaged in what has supposedly been a core mission of training Afghan security forces to be able to fight on their own to defend the corrupt US-backed regime in Kabul were scathing in their assessments.

A special forces officer told interviewers that the Afghan police whom his troops had trained were awfulthe bottom of the barrel in the country that is already at the bottom of the barrel, estimating that one third of the recruits were drug addicts or Taliban. Another US adviser said that the Afghans that he worked with reeked of jet fuel because they were constantly smuggling it out of the base to sell on the black market.

Faced with the continuing failure of its attempts to quell the insurgency in Afghanistan and create a viable US-backed regime and army, US officials lied. Every president and his top military commanders, from Bush to Obama to Trump, insisted that progress was being made and the US was winning the war, or, as Trump put it during his lightning Thanksgiving trip in and out of Afghanistan, was victorious on the battlefield.

The liars in the White House and the Pentagon demanded supporting lies from those on the ground in Afghanistan. Surveys, for instance, were totally unreliable, but reinforced that everything we were doing was right and we became a self-licking ice cream cone, an Army counterinsurgency adviser to the Afghanistan commanders told SIGAR.

A National Security Council official explained that every reversal was spun into a sign of progress: For example, attacks are getting worse? Thats because there are more targets for them to fire at, so more attacks are a false indicator of instability. Then, three months later, attacks are still getting worse? Its because the Taliban are getting desperate, so its actually an indicator that were winning. The purpose of these lies was to justify the continued deployment of US troops and the continued carnage in Afghanistan.

Today, the carnage is only escalating. According to the United Nations, last year 3,804 Afghan civilians were killed in the war, the highest number since the UN began counting casualties over a decade ago. US airstrikes have also been rising to an all-time high, killing 579 civilians in the first 10 months of this year, a third more than in 2018.

The lies exposed by the SIGAR interviews have been echoed by a pliant corporate media that has paid scant attention to the longest war in US history. The most extensive exposure of US war crimes in Afghanistan came in 2010, based on some 91,000 secret documents provided by the courageous US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning to WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is now being held in Britains maximum security Belmarsh Prison facing extradition to the United States on Espionage Act charges that carry a penalty of life imprisonment or worse for the crime of exposing these war crimes. Manning is herself imprisoned in US Federal detention center in Virginia for refusing to testify against Assange.

On October 9, 2001, two days after Washington launched its now 18-year-long war on Afghanistan and amid a furor of war propaganda from the US government and the corporate media, the World Socialist Web Site posted a statement titled Why we oppose the war in Afghanistan. It exposed the lie that this was a war for justice and the security of the American people against terrorism and insisted that the present action by the United States is an imperialist war in which Washington aimed to establish a new political framework within which it will exert hegemonic control over not only Afghanistan, but over the broader region of Central Asia, home to the second largest deposit of proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world.

The WSWS stated at the time: The United States stands at a turning point. The government admits it has embarked on a war of indefinite scale and duration. What is taking place is the militarization of American society under conditions of a deepening social crisis.

The war will profoundly affect the conditions of the American and international working class. Imperialism threatens mankind at the beginning of the twenty-first century with a repetition on a more horrific scale of the tragedies of the twentieth. More than ever, imperialism and its depredations raise the necessity for the international unity of the working class and the struggle for socialism.

These warnings have been borne out entirely by the criminal and tragic events of the last 18 years, even as the Washington Post now finds itself compelled to admit the bankruptcy of the entire sordid intervention in Afghanistan that it previously supported.

The US debacle in Afghanistan is only the antechamber of a far more dangerous eruption of US militarism, as Washington shifts its global strategy from the war on terrorism to preparation for war against its great power rivals, in the first instance, nuclear-armed China and Russia.

Opposition to war and the defense of democratic rightsposed most sharply in the fight for the freedom of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manningmust be guided by a global strategy that consciously links this fight to the growing eruption of social struggles of the international working class against capitalist exploitation and political oppression.

Bill Van Auken

2019 has been a year of mass social upheaval. We need you to help the WSWS and ICFI make 2020 the year of international socialist revival. We must expand our work and our influence in the international working class. If you agree, donate today. Thank you.

Go here to see the original:

The Afghanistan papers: The criminality and disaster of a war based upon lies - World Socialist Web Site

Shamir Malik Dec 11, 2019 Campus, News

On Nov. 26, 89 per cent of the Canadian Union of Public Employes 3906s Unit 1 members voted in favour of ratifying a tentative agreement with the university, thus avoiding a strike. CUPE 3906 Unit 1 represents research and teaching assistants in both graduate and undergraduate programs at McMaster.

Voting began on Nov. 25, immediately following CUPE 3906s Special General Membership Meeting. At this meeting, the new agreement between TAs and the university was presented to Unit 1 members.

According to CUPE 3906 president Nathan Todd, the union was able to secure a deal that met their main bargaining priorities, which included paid TA training, increased benefits and expanded paid pregnancy and parental leave.

Its not accurate to say that TAs had most of their demands met, but we were able to secure a significant gain that members had identified as a big priority, stated Todd in an email.

The full agreement between TAs and the university has not been released. However, CUPE 3906 released an overview of the agreement on Nov. 27.

The tentative agreement includes five additional hours of paid pedagogical and anti-oppression training for all TAs. In previous years, the collective agreement has allocated TAs three paid hours a semester to participate in health and safety and orientation training. According to CUPE 3906, this was not enough.

Additional hours of paid pedagogical and anti-oppression training were the biggest gain insofar as it was one of the largest priorities identified by the membership. This gain speaks not only to improving our pay but also to improving our working conditions, wrote Todd in an email.

Additional hours of paid pedagogical and anti-oppression training were the biggest gain insofar as it was one of the largest priorities identified by the membership.

The tentative agreement also proposes a one per cent increase in wages for the next three years. Collective agreements usually mandate annual wage increases so that wages keep up with the rate of inflation. As of this month, yearly inflation in Ontario sits at 1.7 per cent.

During the bargaining process for the collective agreement, CUPE 3906 advocated against the one per cent wage cap. CUPE 3906 stated that the wage limit would cause harm to workers livelihoods because their wages would not keep up with the rate of inflation.

Todd cites Bill 124 the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act as the reason TAs were limited to a one per cent increase in wages. Under Bill 124, which received Royal Assent on Nov. 7, salary increases to public employees are limited to one per cent for every twelve month period.

Currently, graduate and undergraduate TAs are paid $43.63 and $25.30 per hour, respectively. Under the tentative agreement, graduate and undergraduate TAs will receive $44.07 and $25.55 per hour beginning Sept. 1, 2020. Beginning Sept. 2021 they will receive $44.95 and $26.07 per hour.

Todd emphasized that while Bill 124 made negotiations difficult, he believes that CUPE 3906 got the best deal given the circumstances.

In addition to paid training and wages, the tentative agreement also expands paid pregnancy and family medical leave, and dedicates a fund towards supporting members seeking gender affirmation.

Todd emphasized that while Bill 124 made negotiations difficult, he believes that CUPE 3906 got the best deal given the circumstances.

I hope our members and the broader McMaster community recognize that government and university policies which contribute to rising costs of living (including tuition) and precarious employment makes labour relations more difficult, and that such policies can be resisted and defeated by union and community members, wrote Todd in an email.

The tentative agreement must now be ratified by McMasters Board of Governors, set to take place on Dec. 12. If ratified, the agreement will take immediate effect.

Go here to see the original:

McMaster and CUPE have drafted an agreement - The Silhouette

After hours of emotional outrage and protests, the mortal remains of the Unnao rape victim were buried in the fields of her native village on Sunday, three days after she was set ablaze allegedly by five persons, including two men accused of raping her last December.

The body, which reached the village from Delhi at around 9:30 p.m. on Saturday, could be interred only at noon on Sunday.

The victim's family which was adamant that the body, placed on slabs of ice outside their thatched dwelling, would be moved only if Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath visited them and assured instant capital punishment to the culprits, relented after hours of negotiations with Divisional Commissioner of Lucknow Mukesh Meshram.

Overshadowing the emotional farewell to the Unnao rape victim, who was laid to rest beside the family mausoleum of her grandparents on Sunday, is tale of love, betrayal and caste oppression in a tiny village in Uttar Pradesh.

As in most cases of rape, the victim and the main accused had known each other since they were in school. As per an FIR lodged in March, 2019, the woman accused Shivam Trivedi, 24, and Shubham Trivedi, 25, of gang-raping her at gunpoint in a field in Rae Bareli last December. An FIR was registered only a protracted struggle by the family and the intervention of a local court.

As per the sequence of events in the FIR, the victim said Shivam had first lured her in a love trap and raped her. He also allegedly videographed the act. In her complaint, the woman alleged that after the initial incident of rape, Shivam continued to rape her by giving false promises of marriage and threatened to make the video public. According to the complaint, Shivam even lived with the woman in a rented room in Rae Bareli for a short while and allegedly also prepared false marriage papers to mislead the victim.

However, the victims family and villagers have different versions of events. Her sister said the victim never pressurised Shivam to marry her and her father said the boys family had agreed for marriage but the village pradhan did not allow it due to caste differences the victims family belong to a backward caste and her father is blacksmith.

Due to this reason, the matter got entangled. The talks [of a compromise) were almost final. But the pradhan said this marriage won't happen. This clash continued due to that, the father said.

Lucknow IG S.K. Bhagat, speaking to the media on Thursday evening after the woman was set ablaze, said prima facie it appeared that the woman knew Shivam, who physically exploited her on the promise of marriage.

Even as the victim was buried in a tiny plot of land beside the mausoleum of her grandparents in her village on Sunday, amid a large contingent of police and a large crowd including leaders of the Samajwadi Party and Congress, an eerie quiet envelops the other end of the village where the dominant Brahmin families live.

The families of Shivam Trivedi and Shubham Trivedi, who are accused of rape, their fathers Ramkishor Trivedi and Harishankar Trivedi (the pradhans husband) respectively, and a fifth associate Umesh Bajpai, claimed they were being falsely implicated and have demanded a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Shivams mother Saroj Trivedi insisted her son is innocent and falsely charged in the rape case as well as the murder.

On December 5, when the woman was set ablaze in around 4:15 a.m., Ms. Trivedi claims her son and husband were at home sleeping.

At 5:13 a.m., Shivams friend called him for a run. He was preparing for police job. At 5:30 a.m., he put on his clothes and left home. Police came at 6 a.m. and asked about him. After that, the police went to the location near our borewell in search of him along with my nephew, she said.

Umeshs sister also argued he was a victim of media trial and claimed her brother was asleep at home when police picked him up. Wouldn't he have escaped somewhere if he had committed the crime, she asked.

But outside their thatched hut, the victims giref-stricken sister, her face covered by a dupatta, was determined to ensure justice.

First and foremost, I want those who burned my sister to be shot dead in an encounter. If they [government] don't do it and show laxity in getting me justice, I will commit suicide in Yogi's durbar, she told The Hindu.

Family members say the vcitim was walking to the railway station to catch a train to Rae Bareli to inquire from the court how Shivam, was granted bail in just two-and-a-half months. While Shubham, the pradhans son, was not arrested for the rape, Shivam was put behind bars on September 19. However, he was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court on November 25 and released five days later. Over the past one year and more recently after his release on bail, Shivam and his associates had threatened the victim with dire consequences if she did not withdraw the rape case, her sister said.

Asked why the victim was walking alone to the station early morning despite the threats, her sister said she had done that many times before. Sometimes I would drop her off but other times she went alone, she said. She regularly received threats that she would be killed or burned, said the sister, adding that family of the accused family had offered them 2.5 lakh to withdraw the case.

The victims father also spoke of a caste-angle to the events leading up to the murder. Umesh uncles Sumesh Bajpai also pleaded innocence on behalf of his nephew and the other accused. If they are guilty, you can hang or kill them. Or else, let them free, he said.

Mr. Mesharam said since the victim family has limited resources, the government would provide them additional support. The government has already said the case would be run in a fast track court and handed a cheque of 25 lakh as ex-gratia relief to the family.

Go here to see the original:

Love, betrayal and caste oppression in an Unnao village - The Hindu

As BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) representatives, organisations, anti-racist activists and individuals involved in local, national, and international campaigns, we urge BAME and migrant communities to vote for the Labour Party on 12 December, to elect Jeremy Corbyn, a long-standing friend and supporter of the anti-racist causes we campaign for.

Under Jeremy Corbyns leadership, the Labour Party has transformed politics in the UK, bringing hope to millions from our communities, who had previously been ignored, silenced, and oppressed by over nine years of Conservative and Liberal Democrat governments. Labours membership has soared since 2015, with a significant influx of BAMEand migrant members. Our communities joined Labour because of Jeremys positions and exemplary record, over many decades, of standing beside us in our struggles against injustice and structural racism, at home and abroad. In the 2017 General Election, we turned out in record numbers to vote for Corbyns inclusive Labour party.

No other British politician in recent memory has been so dedicated to working with us in our communities, in order to overturn racism and achieve justice for those of us facing oppression and injustices. Jeremys first speech as Labour leader in 2015 was to a refugees welcome rally, reflecting his longstanding commitment to achieve basic rights for migrants. Since becoming an MP in 1983, he has personally intervened on countless occasions to prevent deportations. In 2012 and 2014, Jeremy was one of only six MPs (alongside shadow cabinet members John McDonnell and Diane Abbott) that voted against the racist Hostile Environment legislation that created the Windrush scandal, and has hurt hundreds of thousands of people in our communities.

Jeremys position on migrant justice is based on a true internationalism with a commitment to anti-racist and anti-colonial principles. In 1984, he was arrested protesting outside the embassy of Apartheid South Africa. In 1998, the Chilean former dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London only after Corbyn supported a 25 year campaign against his fascist regime. In 2001, he publicly opposed the NATO invasion of Afghanistan. In 2003, he spoke at the demonstration against the illegal British and American invasion of Iraq. He has always stood in solidarity with the Tamils of Sri Lanka, calling for accountability and ending the arms trade. He has spoken out against the oppression of persecuted peoples across the world, including Palestinians and Kurds in the Middle East, as well as communities in Mexico, Haiti, West Papua often when no one else would.

Jeremy Corbyn was a key organiser in the Haringey Labour anti-racist group in the 1970s which later became the Anti-Nazi League. In 1977, he organised with the Indian Workers Association to turn back a violent National Front demonstration in Wood Green, North London. In 1992, Jeremy attended the inquest into the death of Leon Patterson, a young black man who died in police custody. In these ways and many more, he continues to keep police brutality against communities of colour on the political agenda, constantly tabling questions on police violence, including on Mark Duggans fatal shooting in 2011.

These are some of the reasons we know that Jeremy Corbyn is no ordinary politician. Each one of us, as individuals and organisations, have memories of Jeremy attending our events and demonstrations, large and small, championing our causes, and being our voice in Parliament standing with us when we were dismissed and ignored.

In government he pledges to close detention centres, oppose imperial wars that have killed millions, and dismantle the Conservatives Hostile Environment policies, which criminalise our communities, and have led to the deaths of so many.

The Conservative governments negligence allowed our brothers and sisters to die in the fatal fire at Grenfell Tower and has deported British citizens for the crime of being black during the Windrush scandal. We cannot continue like this: we must have a Labour victory in the upcoming election. We urgently need it.

Jeremy Corbyn will be the United Kingdoms first anti-racist Prime Minister. We call on all of you, BAME and migrant communities to mobilise everyone you know, and ensure we get Labour elected on December 12. At this critical moment of possibility, and the chance for change, we stand with Jeremy Corbyn just as he has always stood with us.

Signed,

Initiating and supporting groups:

Arab Labour Group

Black Labour Movement

Labour Against Racism and Fascism (LARAF)

Labour Friends of Kashmir

Lantinx for Corbyn

Kurds for Labour

Indians for Labour

Labour Friends of Yemen

Jewish Socialists Group

Women of Colour in the Global Womens Strike

London Young Labour BAME Network

South Asia Solidarity Group

Individual Signatories:

Dr Adam Elliott-Cooper Kings College London

Ahdaf Soueif Novelist

DrAlaa Al Shehabi University College London

Professor Amia Srinivasan University of Oxford

Sir Anish Kapoor C.B.E.

Anjum Mouj Trainer and consultant

Asad Rehman

Ash Sarkar Novara Media

Ashok Kumar Lecturer of Political Economy

Asmahan Nouman Chair of Network of Eritrean Women UK

Atallah Said O.B.E. Founder of Arab Labour

Bill MacKeith Campaign to Close Campsfield

Bobby Chan Veteran Chinese human rights activist

Crissie Richter Women of Colour in the Global Womens Strike

Dalia Gebrial Novara Media

Professor David Graeber London School of Economics

David Rosenberg Convenor of Cable Street 80 commemoration

Don Flynn Migrants rights campaigner

Elif Sarican Kurdish Womens Movement

Estella Schmid Peace in Kurdistan

Farhana Yamin

Farzana Khan Healing Justice London

Professor Felix Padel Associate of University of Oxford

Firoze Manji Publisher and academic

Gillian Slovo Novelist, playwright and memoirist

Grant Marshall Massive Attack

Professor Gautam Appa London School of Economics

Professor Gurminder Bhambra University of Sussex

Professor Gus John

Amrit Wilson South Asia Solidarity Group

Nisha Kapoor University of Warwick

Richard Rieser World of Inclusion

Zrinka Bralo Migrants rights campaigner

Hanif Kureishi C.B.E

Harsev Bains Indian Workers Association (GB)

Dr John Narayan Kings College London

Dr Kalpana Wilson Birkbeck University

Katrina Ffrench Human Rights Advocate

Professor Karma Nabulsi University of Oxford

Professor Kehinde Andrews Birmingham City University

Khadija Mohammad-Nur Co-founder of Network of Eritrean Women

Professor Laleh Khalili School of Oriental and Afican Studies

Leena Dhingra Actress

Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins University of Warwick

Linton Kwesi Johnson Poet and musician

Dr Mezna Qato University of Cambridge

Mirza Saaib Beg Lawyer, Kashmir Reading Room

Mukhtar Dar Founding member of South Asian Alliance (Birmingham)

Dr Musab Younis Queen Mary University

Dr Nivi Manchanda Queen Mary University

Noorafshan Mirza Independent Cultural Worker

Peter Herbert O.B.E Society of Black Lawyers

Preethi Manuel

Rahila Gupta Southall Black Sisters

Dr Rahul Rao Senior Lecturer in Politics, SOAS

Remi Joseph-Salisbury Racial Justice Network

Robert Del Naja Massive Attack

Rossanna Leal Organiser and migrant rights campaigner

Sara Callway Women of Colour in the Global Womens Strike

Sarli Nana Migrant justice and anti-racist campaigner

Selma James Global Womens Strike

Shakila Taranum Maan Artist and filmmaker

Dr Sita Balani Kings College London

Dr Sivamohan Valluvan University of Warwick

Professor Sundari Anitha University of Lincoln

Suresh Grover Anti-racist activist, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry

Dr Tanzil Chowdhury Queen Mary University

Professor Virinder Kalra University of Warwick

Yemsrach Hailemariam Free Andy Tsege Campaign

Zita Holbourne National Chair BARAC UK

Read this article:

Letter: We stand with Jeremy Corbyn just as he always stood with us - Red Pepper

IS IT right to assume young people are more inclined to vote Labour? Is doing so somehow anti-establishment? No, Corbyn and Co are the po-faced establishment, the linear descendants of a granite-faced authority that tried to ban a generations music and our right to free speech. Thousands of us were horrified in the sixties when a Labour government banned rock and roll radio.

Perhaps the events are long forgotten but 55 years ago this Christmas, in 1964, the pirate station Radio London began transmissions from a green-painted ship, the MV Galaxy, anchored off the Essex coast. We were delighted with the new stations clear signal. A powerful transmitter and a 180ft mast meant Radio London reached almost all of England.She joined Radio Caroline which had arrived in the Thames Estuary that Easter. Rocking and rolling out on the ocean, three miles offshore, the pirates claimed to break no British law. Broadcasting from converted trawlers, minesweepers and old wartime gun emplacements, often in danger and terrible weather, the pirates completely captured the wild, urgent freedom of the sixties. Advertising paid for it all.

Pirate radio lasted all of three years. Then Harold Wilsons Labour administration passed the 1967 Marine Etc Broadcasting Offices Act making it a criminal offence to supply or advertise on a broadcasting station operating offshore.

Wilson and the establishment disliked the pirates because they could not be controlled. This was the logical development of free speech so hotly contested during the Second World War, an unlooked-for consequence of victory. No longer was free speech the preserve of bewigged lawyers and ponderous journalists. No, it was out there now, the property of a new generation of musicians, poets, hare-brained disc jockeys and seat-of-the-pants business types. A whole generation of us were determined to broadcast and listen to pop music,dismissed as unwholesome and irrelevant by our stricter elders. Audible wallpaper,the Rt Hon Tony Benn called it.

I remember as a tearful 11-year-old listening to the final few minutes of Radio 270, from the Yorkshire coast, at midnight on 14 August 1967. Radio London had closed down that afternoon. (Caroline struggled on till March 1968.) I could not understand the heavy hand of government descending with such viciousness on something my generation so clearly valued. Even the songs themselves are protest songs against oppression, dodgy politics and lost love. When I read Corbyns screeds and manifestos promising vast extension of state control far and wide I think: Theyre at it again.

Were the Tories of the time any better? In the end we won free radio, and as a result of Conservative legislation, Capital Radio started broadcasting in 1973, in London and on dry land. Hurrah! They even brought back Kenny Everett. The first record Capital played was the wonderfully titledBridge Over Troubled Water, though I doubt Paul Simon meant the North Sea when he wrote it. Thankfully a whole slew of radio stations, many run by ex-pirates, brought rock and roll back to Britain.

Anyone who counts themselves young should take a look at the phenomenon of state intervention. Follow through on the mindless depredations of unaccountable authority. This is what we face. Darkness is not an old friend but an enemy.I have never quite forgotten 14 August 1967. Radio Caroline at one time had an on-board parrot called Wilson. Corbyn and his gang are simply parroting the negative and stifling politics of the Cold War. Me, Ill choose free radio, free speech and freedom every time, whatever the risks. To quote an old jingle: Have yourself a time, tune into Caroline.

- Advertisement -

Continued here:

Po-faced Labour and the scuppering of the pirates - The Conservative Woman

Last Thursday, BuzzFeed News reported that online platforms, including Pinterest and the Knot Worldwide, would restrict content that features or romanticizes weddings held on former slave plantations. These changes were the result of a campaign by the social justice organization Color of Change. In a letter, Color of Change wrote that plantations are physical reminders of one of the most horrific human rights abuses the world has ever seen. The wedding industry routinely denies the violent conditions Black people faced under chattel slavery by promoting plantations as romantic places to marry.

Color of Change posted the news on Facebook, where it was, of course, received with appropriate empathy and contemplation. The 600 comments included lots of gems such as Proud of our civil war plantation wedding! Eat shit color of change [sic]!! because one exclamation point wasnt enough. There was the old-faithful slavery was too long ago argument, with one commenter adding, So stupid. That was hundreds of years ago. Why not call them beautiful homes or restored homes. Are they canceling castle weddings too? And the unheard-of sentiment: There were slaves of every color.

The basic themes were echoed by the wedding vendors quoted in news reports: that slavery was in the past, that it wasnt that bad, that the splendor of plantations has outlived whatever negativity they might represent. While these pronouncements can be easily countered with reason, logic unfortunately doesnt matter.

Slavery was indeed in the past a shocker to readers, Im sure. Yet this hasnt prevented America from fervently preserving the history it does deem worthwhile, no matter how far back or inconsequential. Many Americans zealously defend their right to praise the Confederate flag, defend inanimate buildings from demolition or restoration (have you seen the passion among landmark preservationists?), and, yes, scroll endlessly through plantation-inspo, with none of the icky historical context.

Its not just about the maintenance of white power structures, but the prioritization of white Americans feelings and experiences

Historical texts, news articles and academic research are all available for anyone genuinely interested in examining slaverys brutality, which was often most severe in the deep south states where slave-owners built plantation mansions. If anything, the cruelty of the institution has been underestimated. Southern school districts are known to issue textbooks reducing enslaved black men, women and children to mere workers rather than what they were: forced laborers who often lived in perpetual terror and were sold as property with no human rights.

Theres also the persistent trope that black people were happy slaves. But most African Americans dont find much joy in seeing plantations glorified and their human histories deemed a niggling inconvenience.

For people committed to this narrative, however, facts dont matter. That their feelings are regularly given such credence reveals one end of Americas white supremacist spectrum. While we tend to associate white supremacy with reactionary violence and alt-right trolls, it also lives in more subtler spaces. Its not just about the maintenance of white power structures, but the prioritization of white Americans feelings and experiences.

These are the same feelings that have discounted black oppression in every era of black American life. In 1964, just a few months after the Civil Rights Act was passed and its effects were yet to be seen, a majority of white New Yorkers polled by the New York Times felt that the civil rights movement had gone too far. While the Voting Rights Act and Fair Housing Act had yet to be passed, claims of reverse discrimination already abounded.

Today, plenty of people still claim that the Confederacy had nothing to do with hatred, and was a movement founded for personal freedom and states rights. Similarly, discrimination against black consumers and homeowners wasnt about subjugation, but asserting ones private rights without government interference.

The same logic guides the people who apparently believe that wedding websites restricting plantation content is an affront to the abstract rights of white Americans. White people being told what to do, even in theory, is a problem.

Many white Americans insist that they had no role in slavery and that it was so long ago. Yet they seem quite adamant about defending it. Of course, denying black Americans pain and preserving and normalizing the symbols of black subjugation is just as American as slavery itself.

Read more from the original source:

Plantation weddings are wrong. Why is it so hard for white Americans to admit that? - The Guardian